BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Comments
153,561 - 153,580 of 174,518 Comments Last updated 28 min ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174152
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Linktv org wrote:
Bill Moyers Essay: On the Sabotage of Democracy
October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/l3k456t
This week’s government shutdown has consequences for all of us, costing an estimated $300 million each day that the government is closed for business. Many Americans have voiced their frustrations with the fallout from the shutdown on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using the hash tag #DearCongress. Here, Bill Moyers shares his own thoughts on the shutdown, and the resulting sabotage of democracy.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2013/10/07-...
What do you expect from a loony-left like Bill Moyers. He is as loony-left as he claims the righties are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Dale

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174153
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale.
LMAO!!! Your dual-citizen would be below the level of a naturalized citizen, since they would carry two allegiances. This is why the constitution does not recognized a dual-citizenship status.
Dale

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174154
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LAMO, just because you believe birther sites that have constantly lied does not mean that sensible people have to follow your stupidity.
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).
If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.
What are the chances that all three happened?
And, by the way, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days. Yet slimy Dale and birther sites would like gullible people to just assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled outside of the country in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirth AND that the officials of Hawaii and the birth certificate and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 are all lying.
LMAO!!! The 14th amendment makes only two types of citizens those that are without foreign attachments (NBC) and naturalized.
Now if you want a citizenship status called a dual-citizen, then you must get yourself an amendment.
Dale

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174155
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LAMO, just because you believe birther sites that have constantly lied does not mean that sensible people have to follow your stupidity.
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).
If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.
What are the chances that all three happened?
And, by the way, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days. Yet slimy Dale and birther sites would like gullible people to just assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled outside of the country in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirth AND that the officials of Hawaii and the birth certificate and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 are all lying.
I couldn't give a shit where Obama was born, at his birth where ever it was, he was a citizen of his father's country.

“A proud Kentuckian ”

Since: Aug 13

At Your Mama's House

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174156
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I couldn't give a shit where Obama was born, at his birth where ever it was, he was a citizen of his father's country.
We don't go by the rules of other nations, we don't go by accepted practices, we don't go by the Federalist papers, we go by the Constitution period.
Under the Constitution of the United States he is a US citizen.
Having been born a citizen of this country, the 14th Amendment makes him a "Natural citizen" and entitled to run for President.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174157
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Are you really that stupid? Without the Constitution there isn't a nation/country called the United States of America.
And there isn't a Dale without a Dufus. Every sovereign nation has its jurisdiction, regardless of the name of the country or the form of government.

Grow up.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Crash and burn. Pathetic.
A country has a certain jurisdiction whether it is a constitutional republic, monarchy, or other form of government. A definition of jurisdiction of a government is not dependent on any particular form of government. See for example the definition in Black's Law Dictionary.
jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;
The Constitution makes reference to the jurisdiction of the United States.(Does Dufus believe this is a self-reference to the constitution?) Dale seems incapable of defining the jurisdiction of the United States; rather he conflates the terms constitution and jurisdiction. While authority to exercise power flows from the constitution, jurisdiction i.e., the actual power to exercise within the dominion is not a document. The limits of a jurisdiction are not the four corners of a document but a territory over which dominion is exercised.
He seems to believe that the jurisdiction of the United States, the power to exercise authority within its borders is limited to its own citizens. This turns the notion of sovereignty on its head. A country needs no permission from a foreign power to govern within its own borders.
Dale needs to get educated and to grow up.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174158
Oct 7, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, rad the 10th Amendment. States can and should do all of those things.
And typical Libtardian logic. Fascism is all about control at the Federal level. As a Conservative I want minimum Federal control If anyone is a Nazi, it is you Libtards as you are sooo stupid you have no idea what Fascism is.
There is nothing in the Constitution that proscribes a government agency from promoting educational goals by providing assistance. That's the carrot. The only stick is not to give the money if the states refuse.

Your 10th Amendment argument goes down in flames.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174159
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Still makes no difference an alien has never "subject to the Jurisdiction, thereof".(see 14th amend)
See 14th Amendment. UR FOS.

"Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is precedent to born citizenship or naturalization in the country, not equivalent. Almost any fool can see that, except for the schizophrenic.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So Dufus doesn't care how many stateless people there are? Pretty odd since he was so hot and bothered about getting an answer about which country was an alien's country though seemingly unaware that there need be no country.
Duh!
Simply saying so doesn't make it so. Neither the founders nor the framers of the 14th Amendment believed in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. It is the intent of Congress according to their words as construed by the US courts that determines the meaning of the 14th Amendment and not some silly disjointed meaningless rambling babble from an uneducated grandiose psycho.
And Dufus has it arse backwards. Natural born citizenship derives from the tie of natural allegiance according to the law as understood in this country since its founding. Dufus cannot change that by simply saying otherwise.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174160
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Aliens have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".(see 14th amendment)
Aliens must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof otherwise they cannot be naturalized in the United States per statute (statute that they MUST BE SUBJECT TO), a condition precedent to citizenship.(See 14th amendment.)

Duh!

RU really that stupid and demented?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174161
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution is the Law of the Land, therefore it has jurisdiction over the federal government, all branches.
The Constitution makes reference to the jurisdiction of the United States, not the "jurisdiction of this constitution," whatever the F Dale thinks that means.

The jurisdiction of the United States is the power of the government of the United States to exercise its authority over its territories. That is how the term was understood by the founders and is understood by the courts and legal scholars today, Dufus Dale's fantasies notwithstanding.
Dufus Dale cannot rewrite history and redefine established legal definitions to suit his delusions.

Dufus Dale is not working with a full deck.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dale, it is the federal government that has jurisdiction, the power to exercise federal authority over all persons and things within it's territories.

The United States of America has territory, not the Constitution. Duh!
And if the United States were to change its form of government to a pure internet-based democracy, it would still be the US government that exercises authority.

It is the branches of government which form the government that possesses jurisdiction.

In a case of Law of the Sea the question may arise "which country has jurisdiction"? For example the US or Canada. Only an idiot would say "da constitooshun!"

Dufus is not working with a full deck.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174162
Oct 7, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama, having been born in the USA, in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii all show) is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Constitutional Law doesn't change without an amendment and as it stand now, Jr. is just an alien.
I will get back to the libs tomorrow, been working on my mud machine this weekend. I see that would be page 7697.
Too bad constitutional law has never changed in order to conform to Dufus Dale's unique delusions. As it stands now, Dufus Dale is just a blithering idiot.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174163
Oct 7, 2013
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are energy independent? We import about 40% of our crude oil!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
And how much of our gasoline do we export?

"U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondea...

http://tinyurl.com/kced5rt

"Energy updates: Crude oil production and petroleum exports are surging, net imports are declining, and oil prices are stable"

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/energy-updat...

http://tinyurl.com/med8j4x

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174164
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your dual-citizen would be below the level of a naturalized citizen, since they would carry two allegiances. This is why the constitution does not recognized a dual-citizenship status.
According to US law, a child born here owes one allegiance, to the United States. That's the law. It's not Dufus Dale's fantasy, but it is the law, which does not depend at all on Dufus Dales delusions.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174165
Oct 7, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The 14th amendment makes only two types of citizens those that are without foreign attachments (NBC) and naturalized.
Now if you want a citizenship status called a dual-citizen, then you must get yourself an amendment.
A child born here of ordinary aliens has, according to US law, no foreign attachments.

Foreign law is null and void.

BTW, Dufus, from 1802 - 1855 children born of US parents abroad were aliens. Fact. But of course, all the courts and all legal scholars were unaware of Play Law so they were wrong.

Moron.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174166
Oct 7, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
See 14th Amendment. UR FOS.
"Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is precedent to born citizenship or naturalization in the country, not equivalent. Almost any fool can see that, except for the schizophrenic.
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.

Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!

Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174167
Oct 7, 2013
 
But Dufus Dale will insist that the 14th amendment changed the meaning of jurisdiction, even though a change in definition would require that the new definition be stated. And even though only a demented fool could ever believe in dufus Dales' fanciful concept of jurisdiction, which is a conflation of constitution, jurisdiction, and citizenship. It's the "I am the Walrus" theory of citizenship. So pathetic.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174168
Oct 7, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.
Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.
Tip from James Madison: Play Justice LRS is FOS.

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
See 14th Amendment. UR FOS.
"Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is precedent to born citizenship or naturalization in the country, not equivalent. Almost any fool can see that, except for the schizophrenic.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174169
Oct 7, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip from James Madison: Play Justice LRS is FOS.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
<quoted text>
And what year did Madison say that? Who was he talking to? Who was he talking about? Let's start with the year, shall we?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174170
Oct 7, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns".
If that were true there would be almost no natural born citizens in the US.

Do the math, MORON. Anyone with a genealogy wherein one immigrant is an ancestor **somewhere** in the direct lineage, would not be natural born according to your fantasy delusion.

Gawd you're stupid. No country on earth ever had such a law.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174171
Oct 7, 2013
 
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns".
Thanks for explaining why none of the Founding Fathers' descendants could possibly be natural born citizens. Every last one of them was born a British or foreign subject.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

85 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Buroc Millhouse Obama 1,079,220
Amy 7-24 5 min boundary painter 16
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 min boundary painter 4,546
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 16 min andet1987 461
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 16 min Terry rigsby 48,872
Word (Dec '08) 29 min boundary painter 4,582
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 50 min boundary painter 1,192
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr edogxxx 97,516
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••