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
wojar

Hartford, CT

#174353 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
United States doesn't share its jursidiction with foreign nations of persons within the United States be they citizens or aliens.
“But no sovereignty can extend its jurisdiction beyond its own territorial limits so as to relieve those born under and subject to another jurisdiction, from their obligations or duties thereto; nor can the municipal law of one State interfere with the duties or obligations which its citizens incur, while voluntarily resident in such foreign State and without the jurisdiction of their own country.“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 690 (1898)(quoting Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance,(1873) 17, 18; U.S. Foreign Relations, 1873-74, pp. 1191, 1192.
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , 136 (1812)
Want more?
Tsk Tsk, the Supreme Court cannot compare to Dale who hears voices from on high.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174354 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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)
Wrong.

Unlike the Articles of Confederation (1781-1788) in which the federal government had no power to grant citizenship to aliens, the Constitution gave that power to the federal government.

There was no "new ballgame" but rather the drafters of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the common law principle of Jus Soli in recognizing that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens except those born to foreign ambassadors.

Courts do not recognized "partial " citizenship nor do they acknowledged "defective " 14th amendment citizenship. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or is an alien.

There is no "hybrid citizen" in that the person who is born in the United States is a "citizen " but not a "natural born citizen." In other words, stating that Obama is a United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being "partially pregnant" either he is a natural born citizen or not.

If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien. However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949)("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. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1" ;Benny v. O’Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)("Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power."

“It was a fundamental rule of the common law of England, that persons born in England and under the allegiance and protection of that government, were English subjects regardless of the nationality of the parents. Those born in England of ambassadors and of enemies having hostile occupancy of a portion of English soil, were not subjects; because not born within the allegiance. An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child's case, is permanent. Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England.....The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College.“Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167

Want more?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174355 Oct 9, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting for Romney was work?
Your desperate adherence to play law makes you a whack-job
LMAO!!! How's that Utopian belief working for you?!!! Hahahaha!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174356 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.
The US can't strip a foreign citizenship or allegiance without the consent of the holder. Can you show us where Obama was naturalized?
Repeat: Only people born outside of the USA have to be nationalized. ALL children born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) are Natural Born US Citizens.

“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.

“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.]

THEY are right, and you are wrong.

“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.

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) 32 min John Galt 1,140,849
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 45 min JOEL 70,555
Rediscovering Lost Photos From a Long-Ago West End 56 min Niemand 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 51,230
Pierre de Coubertin And Emancipation Proclamation (Jun '12) 1 hr fukuda 3
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Who 48,351
This guy is GOD to Piano Legs & the Malignant M... 4 hr YUPHesThe Devil 11
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr RACE 98,671
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:11 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:11PM
Spokesman says Soldier Field game clocks are fixed - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 2:04 PM
Can the Texans Steal the AFC South?
NBC Sports 2:10 PM
For Cutler, McCown was steadying force - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 5:01 PM
Will Mark Ingram's heavy workload stay level?
Bleacher Report 5:55 PM
Complete Preview for Jags vs. Colts