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 ... Read more

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174357 Oct 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR nutty idea, and your nutty idea only. It certainly was not the view of the writers of the 14th Amendment, for example Bingham:
“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.
Correct.

During the congressional debates of the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 the following language was discussed:

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"

In these debates various Senators and Congressmen observed that United States citizenship was based on being born in the United States and not on the status of the father's citizenship.

Below is an exchange between Senator Cowan and Senator Trumbull on January 30, 1866:

Senator Cowan: I will ask whether it [Civil Rights Act of 1866] will not have the effect of naturalizing children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this Country?
Senator Trumbull: Undoubtedly

Senator Trumbull later stated: "I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time."
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)

On February 1, 1866, Senator Morrill made the following comment:

"As a matter of law, does anyone deny here or anywhere that a native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?" Later the same day he remarked "There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens."
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)

In President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 he objected on the ground that the Act would make citizens of the United States to Chinese and Gypsies:

"This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks.… Every individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen."

As such, members of Congress acknowledged the common law rule that a United States citizen is a person born in the United States when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174358 Oct 9, 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)
At the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment, there were those who were born in the United States who were not citizens of the United States.

There were called Indians.

Read Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174359 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
LMAO!!! Wrong!! When one inherits its father's citizenship, a natural allegiance comes with it.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174360 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
During the congressional debates of the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 the following language was discussed:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
In these debates various Senators and Congressmen observed that United States citizenship was based on being born in the United States and not on the status of the father's citizenship.
Below is an exchange between Senator Cowan and Senator Trumbull on January 30, 1866:
Senator Cowan: I will ask whether it [Civil Rights Act of 1866] will not have the effect of naturalizing children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this Country?
Senator Trumbull: Undoubtedly
Senator Trumbull later stated: "I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time."
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)
On February 1, 1866, Senator Morrill made the following comment:
"As a matter of law, does anyone deny here or anywhere that a native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?" Later the same day he remarked "There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens."
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)
In President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 he objected on the ground that the Act would make citizens of the United States to Chinese and Gypsies:
"This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks.… Every individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen."
As such, members of Congress acknowledged the common law rule that a United States citizen is a person born in the United States when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Sorry Ratticus (lmao), your second paragraph is all that is needed. Thanks. LMAO!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174361 Oct 9, 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.
Every person in the United States except Ambassadors are not subject to a foreign power.

United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of people be they citizens or aliens with a foreign nation.

"[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)

“Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. 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.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)

In other words, the United States doesn't recognized the laws of foreign nations of its citzens or subjects while they reside in the United States.

If a nation can't exercise its laws over its citizens residing in a foreign nation then the citizens of that nation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THEIR NATION.

That is why Mexican police can't enter Texas to arrest Mexican nationals living in Texas.

That is why Nazi Germany couldn't enforced its laws aganst German nationals living in New Jersey in the 1930s.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174362 Oct 9, 2013
BTW, did you win or lose in Vegas? LMAO!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174363 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment, there were those who were born in the United States who were not citizens of the United States.
There were called Indians.
Read Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.

"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174364 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Every person in the United States except Ambassadors are not subject to a foreign power.
United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of people be they citizens or aliens with a foreign nation.
"[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)
“Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. 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.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)
In other words, the United States doesn't recognized the laws of foreign nations of its citzens or subjects while they reside in the United States.
If a nation can't exercise its laws over its citizens residing in a foreign nation then the citizens of that nation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THEIR NATION.
That is why Mexican police can't enter Texas to arrest Mexican nationals living in Texas.
That is why Nazi Germany couldn't enforced its laws aganst German nationals living in New Jersey in the 1930s.
LMAO!!! Ever hear of an extradition treaty?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174365 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.
"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174366 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Every person in the United States except Ambassadors are not subject to a foreign power.
United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of people be they citizens or aliens with a foreign nation.
"[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)
“Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. 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.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)
In other words, the United States doesn't recognized the laws of foreign nations of its citzens or subjects while they reside in the United States.
If a nation can't exercise its laws over its citizens residing in a foreign nation then the citizens of that nation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THEIR NATION.
That is why Mexican police can't enter Texas to arrest Mexican nationals living in Texas.
That is why Nazi Germany couldn't enforced its laws aganst German nationals living in New Jersey in the 1930s.
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.
The US can't prevent a nation from giving citizenship to a child born in the US of an alien father, this is their right of being an independent nation, nor can the US strip a foreign citizenship, unless requested by the holder.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174367 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! How's that Utopian belief working for you?!!! Hahahaha!!!
This from the moron who fantasizes that the 14th amendment changed the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction"

Talk about no grasp on reality
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174368 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
They have tried everything, but violations of the Constitution just don't get it.
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174369 Oct 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, therefore not the Anti-Christ, but the Anti Virgin Mary.
Good one. lol

Welcome Back!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174370 Oct 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR nutty idea, and your nutty idea only. It certainly was not the view of the writers of the 14th Amendment, for example Bingham:
“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.
LMAO!!! Everyone knows, liberals are the number one ingrediant of a fruitcake!!
Bingham:
[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]
AKR v. US:
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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174371 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Tsk Tsk, the Supreme Court cannot compare to Dale who hears voices from on high.
LMAO!!! I hear that voice again!!!

"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."

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174372 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.
"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
You would be only correct in two instance.

FIrst instance, if Obama were born in the 1800s to an Indian tribe that was recognized by the United States government as being ALIEN NATION within the United States.

Second instance, if Obama were born in Hawaii while Hawaii was occupied by foreign troops and his father was a foreign soldier who had no allegiance to the United States.

Since Obama wasn't an Indian in the 1800s and his father wasn't a foreign soldier occupying Hawaii then Obama is a natural born citizen.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174373 Oct 9, 2013
If a white-Hispanic shoots a black man in self defence, he is a racist. But if some blacks murder a white guy, while shouting racial slurs, that is not a race murder?!?

Did 5 Blacks Kill Returning Combat Vet Because He Was White?

The incidents of violence committed by blacks is growing out of control It seems that ever since the shooting of Trayvon Martin, blacks have declared open season on whites across the country and our black leaders (Obama and Holder) are saying and doing nothing to stop it. Their silence seems to be an endorsement and encouragement for the violence to continue.
In one of the latest instances, a serviceman, Tevin A. Geike, who recently returned home from combat and awaiting his discharge from the military was stabbed to death by a group of blacks because he was white.
According to witnesses, several servicemen were walking to their hotel early Sunday morning near their base in Seattle. A car with five black men drove by and began yelling out racial slurs against the white servicemen. According to Lt. Chris Lawler of the Lakewood Police Department:
“‘One of the soldiers yelled back something about the suspects treating combat soldiers with disrespect.”
“The vehicle turned around, and five black males got out of the car and confronted the soldiers, according to reports. As the verbal confrontation ensued, the driver of the vehicle realized the men were actually combat veterans and called his friends off.”

“While the men headed back to their vehicle, one of the suspects appeared to have bumped into the victim, witnesses say.”
“The soldiers saw their friend fall to the ground as the car sped away. The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and died at the scene.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12816/5-blacks-k...
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12816/5-blacks-k...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174374 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
Under US law and the Constitution NO child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is subject to ANY foreign power.

“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.

You cannot read into the Constitution something that it does not say, and it does not say that the US-born children of foreigners OR dual citizens are not eligible to become president. It does not say it.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174375 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Ever hear of an extradition treaty?
Extradition treaty doesn't allow a foreign nation's troops or police to come in the United States to arrest or detain its subjects or citizens in the United States.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174376 Oct 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But would those employees have jobs without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.
What if an Army only had generals? Privates? Infantrymen? Cooks? Medics? Etc.? BUT with the proper mix of leaders, followers, infantrymen, cooks, medics, truck drivers, logisticans, etc. you do have an ARMY!

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
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 39 min Brian_G 51,876
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 53 min LOL 1,206,801
Ask Amy 3-29-15 2 hr Kuuipo 5
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr litesong 52,331
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Cold Front 69,312
Word (Dec '08) 7 hr _Zoey_ 5,150
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr _Zoey_ 5,815
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 ]