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

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 ... Full Story
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174329 Oct 9, 2013
Joe OBiden wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, and Clinton will be remembered as the president between two Bushs.
Clinton will forever be tied to Monica and his numerous adulterous affairs. Obama will be associated to his incompetence in the Henry Louis Gates Jr encounter and for being the most dishonest resident of The White House.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174330 Oct 9, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are certainly a.Whack-job. And being in KanSass, if you voted for Romney then you really deserve everything you've got
LMAO!!! Yep, the reason I deserve everything I got, I worked for it. If that makes me a whack-job, I can live with that.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174331 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Yep, the reason I deserve everything I got, I worked for it. If that makes me a whack-job, I can live with that.
Voting for Romney was work?

Your desperate adherence to play law makes you a whack-job

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#174332 Oct 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about because your links do not work. And I thought I was computer challenged.
wnd.com works very well, and really, you didn't "get" the foxnewsrightwingpropaganda.com , now did you?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#174333 Oct 9, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know if you punish the, so called, rich, you punish the working class? How many jobs did Steve Jobs and Bill Gates make?!? And if a family farm has to be sold because of inheritance taxes and gets bought out by a large corporation, who benefits?
Yep, you are a commie!
And could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, etc, get rich without employees?

Public Integrity is a communist because he wants fairness and equality, not charity? Stalin was a communist. How would you rate him as to fairness and equality?

Public Integrity org wrote:

<quoted text>
I am still a registered Republican.
LOL
I am an authentic liberal/progressive who puts the needs of average Americans first and the wealthiest 0.1% last.
They already own most of Congress and do not need any help from me.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174334 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
Even in the case of Look Tin Sing, Justice Field lamented the inadequacy of the jus soli rule but was resigned to the reality that it was the law.
The key word is reality, something of which birfoons have, at best, only the most tenuous grasp.
LMAO!!! "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Crap! I keep forgetting that pesky stipulation!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174335 Oct 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dual citizenship at birth, or for that matter dual citizenship when president (for example, James Madison, who had been made a full voting citizen of France by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution), has absolutely no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born US Citizen.
The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.

What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States. Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)

Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")

Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.

In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:

"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)

Similarly the court in United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) observed:

"Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a)(1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial."(internal citation omitted)

As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is legally sufficient to be a natural born citizen.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#174336 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
With no facts the moron decides to shoot the messenger.
<quoted text>
So true, but that is the essence of Justice LMAO LRS. And as we know, the EPA people rake in billions from their findings on the environment, why, more, even , than the oil and coal barons.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174337 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!! Obama's natural allegiance was the same as his father's, unless you can prove that Sr. wasn't his father.
Wrong.

Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn't inherit a parent's allegiance at birth.

“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#174338 Oct 9, 2013
Fox News Propaganda wrote:
<quoted text>
She, not he!
LOL
HRC
Right, therefore not the Anti-Christ, but the Anti Virgin Mary.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#174339 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I see you are just as dumb as ever.
The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means the US Constitution, since the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US.
Oh, foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", if they were they would be called citizens.
Whatever happened to "Justice" as in Justice Dale? Justice omg ha ha LMAO had anointed you "Justice". Did you fall from his graces?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174340 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tantrums? That's your dept. Twinkerbelle. Still waiting on your answer as to why the U.S. would deem the child of two aliens, an NBC. Are you so inexplicably dense that you cannot see the major flaw in that method? Ignorant bonehead.
Parents' allegiance had nothing do with the Natural Born Citizen language in the Constitution. All persons born in the former British Colonies in America regardless as to the alienage of their parents or naturalized prior to the adoption of Constitution became citizens of the United States. After the adoption of the Constitution only those persons who were born in the United States (Jus Soli) or through blood of their parents (if born overseas) were eligible to be President.

Lord Chief Justice Coke in his opinion in the Calvin's Case in 1608 enunciated the common law rule for a child born to aliens within the protection and allegiance of a sovereignty is that he or she is a natural born subject. Moreover, Chief Justice Coke's legal authority was "most admired and most often cited by American patriots" Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3rd 898, 900 fn. 6,(8th Cir. 2000)

The focus on the allegiance of the parents in determining the citizenship status of the child is misplaced since Blackstone wrote that "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth."

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866) SWAYNE, Circuit Justice

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174341 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, you didn't answer the question. I asked "you" why the U.S. would deem a child of two aliens an NBC. "You" have no answer. Enough said! LMAO run along now, lil fella
Apparently you give an F because you're replying! Dipshyt! LMAO
Although the question was not asked of me, I will answer. The reason that the USA deems the US-born children of aliens to be Natural Born Citizens is because of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

There has been no evidence whatever that the writers of the US-Constitution considered that the US-born children of foreigners were more likely to be disloyal and hence should be lower-level citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.

IF George Washington or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton thought that the US-born children of foreigners (such as many people's fathers, grandfathers or great grandfathers) were likely to be disloyal and hence should be considered lower-level citizens than the US born children of US citizens, they could have said so. IF the had thought that the US-born children of foreigners should not be considered equal, they would surely have said so and said why they thought so-----but they never did.

So, since there is no evidence whatever that George Washington, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens, they are equal.

You are not allowed to read into the US Constitution something that it does not say, and it does not say-----nor did any of the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention----that the US-born children of foreigners are not equal to the US-born children of US citizens and hence able to become president.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the
Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born
citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg.

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174342 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, this made him ineligible for citizenship, he wasn't "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he is an alien.
"Rules of other Nations", let's see what Wang Kim Ark v. US had to say in paragraph 34 about that.
"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Wrong.

At no time was Obama under "British jurisdiction". Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. All children of alien parents born in the United States have dual citizenship: United States citizenship and citizenship of his or her parents.

Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956). See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and does not share its jurisdiction with "British jurisdiction" since "British jurisdiction" does not extend beyond British territorial limits. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , 136 (1812)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174343 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to US law if one is born in the US one's natural allegiance is to the US without regard to the citizenship of the father.
According to Play Law it is anything Dale wants.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! "Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."

Yep, the last time I checked, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which included his natural allegiance to that country.
Since Obama Jr. wasn't naturalized, this would make him an alien, unless you want to call a divorce a naturalization process.
How can one be subject to the jurisdiction of the US when he is subject to the jurisdiction of another country, at birth?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174344 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Sorry, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". If they were they would be called citizens and the naturalization process wouldn't be necessary.
Wrong.

A person doesn't have to be a citizen of the United States to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If it were otherwise, then aliens wouldn't be subject to our laws since United States wouldn't have jursidiction to charge them with a crime.

"Although the congressional debate concerning § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to ALL within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the ALIEN POPULATION. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment.[13] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866)."
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 214 (1982)(emphasis added)

"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)

Want more?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174345 Oct 9, 2013
Re: "As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is legally sufficient to be a natural born citizen. "

I completely agree, and in fact I pointed out that James Madison actually was a dual citizen while president because France had made him a citizen.

Which fact punctures some of the dual-citizen theory, and moreover it shows the lack of logic behind that theory. IF a dual citizen was not eligible to become president, then any country could simply make her or him a citizen of that country and, by birther logic, the person would not be eligible to become president. We do not allow other countries to jerk us around like that.

And, the dual citizen myth violates two conservative principles, strict construction---since the US Constitution never specifically bars dual citizens---and libertarian principles, since the theory takes away a right or privilege of a group of people without there being specific wording in the Constitution that does that taking away.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174346 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! "Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Yep, the last time I checked, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which included his natural allegiance to that country.
Since Obama Jr. wasn't naturalized, this would make him an alien, unless you want to call a divorce a naturalization process.
How can one be subject to the jurisdiction of the US when he is subject to the jurisdiction of another country, at birth?
Wrong.

Dual citizenship at birth doesn't equate dual allegiance at birth.

The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.

What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States. Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)


Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.") See also ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)("The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.")

Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.

In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:

"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)

Similarly the court in United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) observed:

"Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a)(1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial."(internal citation omitted)

As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is legally sufficient to be a natural born citizen.

Want more?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174347 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! "Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Yep, the last time I checked, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which included his natural allegiance to that country.
Since Obama Jr. wasn't naturalized, this would make him an alien, unless you want to call a divorce a naturalization process.
How can one be subject to the jurisdiction of the US when he is subject to the jurisdiction of another country, at birth?
Answer, because that is the way that the law and the constitution work. IF the writers of the Constitution in Philadelphia, or Congressman Bingham and the others who wrote the 14th amendment had wanted to bar dual citizens from being either citizens or Natural Born Citizens, they would have put that into the law. But they didn't.

And you are not allowed to read into the Constitution something that it does not say, and it does not say that dual citizens are not US citizens or that dual citizens born in the USA are not Natural Born US Citizens.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174348 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
All the states at the time of adoption of the constitution recognized birthright citizenship. According to the states, a person was a natural born citizen of the state if born in the state. But birfoons fantasize that the founders decided to change the meaning of natural born citizen but forgot to tell anyone about it. And then after the constitution was ratified, everybody just forgot about it: people born in the US were regarded as natural born citizens by common people, legal scholars, and courts. And nobody, not even members of Congress, knew the real definition of "jurisdiction" because it was not revealed to humankind until a voice told Dufus Dale that only citizens in the US are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
And the birfoons wonder why no one takes them seriously.
LMAO!!! In 1866 citizenship became a completely new ball game, the states' right to make the citizens was taken away.(see Civil Rights Act 1866/14th Amendment)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min JPL 1,189,827
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 54 min Mothra 51,389
matome(lebron) 1 hr add all 29c773b3 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr Brian_G 51,335
Review: Royal Jewelry Shop Inc 5 hr Jerry Walton 1
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 5 hr Independent1 800
want 8 hr piyush91 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?
Bleacher Report 1:40 PM
Wayne Undergoes Surgery on Triceps
NFL 2:44 PM
Reggie Wayne had surgery, mulling Colts future