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
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174264 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN...[6]
BINGHAM also said:

“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 PERSON.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174265 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! "All persons born in the US not subject to any foreign powers are citizens (Civil Rights Act 1866)simply means they are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".
"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." (WKR v. US 1898)
So which are you the Walrus or the Eggman. F'ing psycho.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174266 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! "All persons born in the US not subject to any foreign powers are citizens (Civil Rights Act 1866)simply means they are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".
"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." (WKR v. US 1898)
Nor can it be doubted that Dale is not working with a full deck and has no clue he is hoist by his own petard.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174267 Oct 8, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama, having been born in the USA---as has been shown overwhelmingly---is a Natural Born US Citizen.
LMAO!!! Obama has overwhelmingly been proven to be a citizen of his father's country and not eligible to be come a citizen of the US and wojar just nullified the dual-citizenship on post 174164.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174268 Oct 8, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO person born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is considered subject to any foreign power. Dual citizenship has no effect on that situation. EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
Re: ""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." (WKR v. US 1898)
Answer: Precisely right. The USA, an independent nation, has determined for itself that every child born on its soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born Citizen. The USA, an independent nation, makes no exceptions for children who are dual citizens at birth. No exception whatever. EVERY child born on USA soil, yes including "anchor babies," is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.
“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.]
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )
"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)
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...
LMAO!!!!
Grand Birther

Painesville, OH

#174269 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Sorry, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".
Hi, you're a moron infant if you believe for a single second that the above is true. It has been shown to you innumerable times to be wrong. Simply posting the same garbage 1000 more times will never make it true.

How awful it must be to be so stubbornly ignorant. You epitomize the lowest of the low this country has to offer. Thank goodness your kind are dying off in droves.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174270 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Obama has overwhelmingly been proven to be a citizen of his father's country and not eligible to be come a citizen of the US and wojar just nullified the dual-citizenship on post 174164.
Dale has overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is an incoherent schizophrenic spewing incoherent nonsense.
Grand Birther

Painesville, OH

#174271 Oct 8, 2013
These poor, sick birfoons need serious help. Mental illness should be taken seriously. I hope for their families' sake these birfoons get the help they need.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174272 Oct 8, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LAMO!!!!
Every person in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
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.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.
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.
LMAO!!!! By the operation of the 14th amendment it only creates NBCs and naturalized citizens. People that are subject to a foreign power doesn't receive ipso facto citizenship, they must be naturalized. Why! Because they are subjects of and subject to the jurisdiction of another country and as wojar stated, the US only recognizes one allegiance, unless naturalized.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174273 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Dale has overwhelmingly demonstrated that he is an incoherent schizophrenic spewing incoherent nonsense.
Dufus needs to have his dosage increased. Again
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174274 Oct 8, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
BINGHAM also said:
“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 PERSON.
LMAO!!! Bingham was correct in 1869, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, citizenship doesn't go to a person who is not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", at birth.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#174275 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!! By the operation of the 14th amendment it only creates NBCs and naturalized citizens. People that are subject to a foreign power doesn't receive ipso facto citizenship, they must be naturalized. Why! Because they are subjects of and subject to the jurisdiction of another country and as wojar stated, the US only recognizes one allegiance, unless naturalized.
At birth the US recognized Obama's immediate natural allegiance to the United States. British law was and is immaterial and had no force in the US.

Dale is several cards shy of a full deck.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174276 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So which are you the Walrus or the Eggman. F'ing psycho.
LMAO!!! Me? Hell, Obama has called me a "Conservative-Anarchist ", I can live with that!!! Hahahaha!!!!
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174277 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Me? Hell, Obama has called me a "Conservative-Anarchist ", I can live with that!!! Hahahaha!!!!
OReaLY? You and Barry tip of few brews did you?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174278 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Me? Hell, Obama has called me a "Conservative-Anarchist ", I can live with that!!! Hahahaha!!!!
There is nothing "Conservative" about your delusion. You are an ultra-Liberal whack-job. Best change your ways
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174279 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
At birth the US recognized Obama's immediate natural allegiance to the United States. British law was and is immaterial and had no force in the US.
Dale is several cards shy of a full deck.
LMAO!!!! Obama's natural allegiance was the same as his father's, unless you can prove that Sr. wasn't his father.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174280 Oct 8, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
OReaLY? You and Barry tip of few brews did you?
LMAO!!! I am very particular who I tip a few brews with, I don't drink with communist.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174281 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
At birth the US recognized Obama's immediate natural allegiance to the United States. British law was and is immaterial and had no force in the US.
Dale is several cards shy of a full deck.
LMAO!!! Who need a full deck, when you play High Card Draw!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174282 Oct 8, 2013
"unless naturalized", didn't need that. Just got carried away!!! Hahahaha!!!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174283 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered. James Madison already gave the Play Justice the answer:“[P]lace is the most certain criterion [of allegiance].” He also mentioned that it is “what applies in the United States.” Chancellor Lewis Sandford confirmed that jus soli birthright citizenship was still the practice in 1844. James Kent, who was personally recommended by John Jay to be the first Professor of Law at Columbia, and who grew up during the Revolution noted in his Commentaries on American Law that natural born citizens were so born “without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Bancroft’s History of the U.S.(1876) stated,“Everyone who first saw light on American soil was a natural-born American citizen.” Judge Pinckney McElwee quoted Frederick Van Dyne on “Citizenship of the United States”,(1904) pp.32 “It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law.” Congressional Record 14-June-1967, p. 15876. According to the distinguished scholar William Rawle in “A View of the Constitution of the United States,” 84-101 (2nd ed. 1829),“[E]very person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” And then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, Lyman Trumbull and Howard Jacob all clearly stated their agreement with citizenship by birth. Chief Justice John Marshall in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 119 (1804) that all persons born in the United States were citizens thereof:“Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can devest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which is not necessary at present to decide.”
Now if Play Justice wishes to disregard James Madison, John Marshall, James Kent, Lewis Sandford, William Rawle, Frederick Van Dyne, and every court of the United States he can throw a tantrum, jump up and down and insist I have not answered his question.
Who the F gives a crap?
<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

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) 5 min TheIndependentMaj... 1,115,657
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min Patriot AKA Bozo 47,076
Amy 10-2 37 min edogxxx 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 50 min PEllen 98,375
Rauner, Quinn clash on Obamacare expansion ahea... 55 min Le Duped 2
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr in the end 50,065
Abby 10-2 1 hr edogxxx 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]