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
153,641 - 153,660 of 176,788 Comments Last updated 5 min ago
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174249
Oct 8, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! The Constitution has jurisdiction of the US government and all branches, thereof.(see US Constitution)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174250
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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."
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."

Answer. That is exactly right. The USA has determined, as an independent nation, that every child born on its soil, regardless of whether the father was a foreigner at the time, regardless of whether the father AND the mother were foreigners at the time, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen when elected president (like James Madison, who was made a full voting citizen of France), is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't. If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude dual citizens from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't.

You cannot write into the Constitution something that it does not say. And the US Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president. And it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to become president.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That means that unless the writers of the US Constitution specifically said that there was an exception to the rule that all men are created equal, that the US-born children of foreigners are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens, just as eligible to become president. And there is nothing in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers, or in ANY of the writings of the members of the US Constitutional Convention that said that the US-born children of foreigners should be lower class citizens, people who should be distrusted, people who are not eligible to become president. IF they had thought that, they would have said so, AND THEY NEVER SAID SO.

"Therefore every 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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

“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).
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174251
Oct 8, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LMAO!!! Looks like that left Obama out, he was born into the allegiance of his father's country.

Wong Kim Ark v. US, para 34.

"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."
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174252
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution has jurisdiction of the US government and all branches, thereof.(see US Constitution)
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.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174253
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174254
Oct 8, 2013
 
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.
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)
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174255
Oct 8, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Answer. That is exactly right. The USA has determined, as an independent nation, that every child born on its soil, regardless of whether the father was a foreigner at the time, regardless of whether the father AND the mother were foreigners at the time, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen when elected president (like James Madison, who was made a full voting citizen of France), is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't. If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude dual citizens from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't.
You cannot write into the Constitution something that it does not say. And the US Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president. And it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to become president.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That means that unless the writers of the US Constitution specifically said that there was an exception to the rule that all men are created equal, that the US-born children of foreigners are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens, just as eligible to become president. And there is nothing in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers, or in ANY of the writings of the members of the US Constitutional Convention that said that the US-born children of foreigners should be lower class citizens, people who should be distrusted, people who are not eligible to become president. IF they had thought that, they would have said so, AND THEY NEVER SAID SO.
"Therefore every 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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
“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).
LMAO!!! Wojar answered your post on 174164, looks like Obama was born an alien.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174256
Oct 8, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Answer. That is exactly right. The USA has determined, as an independent nation, that every child born on its soil, regardless of whether the father was a foreigner at the time, regardless of whether the father AND the mother were foreigners at the time, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen when elected president (like James Madison, who was made a full voting citizen of France), is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't. If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude dual citizens from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't.
You cannot write into the Constitution something that it does not say. And the US Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president. And it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to become president.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That means that unless the writers of the US Constitution specifically said that there was an exception to the rule that all men are created equal, that the US-born children of foreigners are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens, just as eligible to become president. And there is nothing in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers, or in ANY of the writings of the members of the US Constitutional Convention that said that the US-born children of foreigners should be lower class citizens, people who should be distrusted, people who are not eligible to become president. IF they had thought that, they would have said so, AND THEY NEVER SAID SO.
"Therefore every 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."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
“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).
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)
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174257
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!!!

[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]
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174258
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Wojar answered your post on 174164, looks like Obama was born an alien.
Obama, having been born in the USA---as has been shown overwhelmingly---is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174260
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)
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...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174263
Oct 8, 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.
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?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is jus soli citizenship by birth is the rule that was and still is practiced in this country. Why? James Madison explained it quite succinctly: "place is the most certain criterion". Like it or not that was and still is the rule, even if Play Justices cannot understand why and throw tantrums.
“Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents.” Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 250 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Nuculur option 1,095,955
Amy 8-21 21 min Toj 12
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 22 min Toj 97,823
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Doug77 4,636
last post wins! (Apr '13) 2 hr Concerned_American 320
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr bushi 49,259
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr andet1987 555

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
•••

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 ]
•••