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

There are 20 comments on the Jan 8, 2009, Chicago Tribune story titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#175950 Oct 21, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
There's that darn "S" again! LMAO!

FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying,(#123)'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says,'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'

Wrong.

The language that you cited in Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814) was not part of majority opinion by Justice Washington but rather it was the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in which Justice Livingston concurred. As such, the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall regarding Vattel was NOT THE OPINION OF THE COURT but rather his own opinion. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an opinion by the majority is considered mandatory authority that is binding on lower courts; however, opinions expressed as concurring opinions are not mandatory but may be considered persuasive authority but they are by no means binding on lower courts.

In this case, Chief Marshall's concurring opinion is not mandatory authority since it was not the majority opinion but at best it was persuasive authority.

One of the best indicators that a concurring opinion was considered persuasive authority by later courts would be for these later courts to cite Chief Justice's concurring opinion. However, a search failed to show that any subsequent federal cases citing Chief Justice's concurring opinion.

As such, Chief Justice's concurring opinion has never been cited by later court cases and the only conclusion to be drawn is that Chief Justice's reliance on Vattel's definition of natives who are born in the country requiring two parents who are citizens has never been used as persuasive authority by later cases.

As a side note, Justice Story concurred with the majority but failed to concur with Justice Marshall

If Vattel were the source of our citizenship laws as you indicated then why didn't the drafters who according to you who were cognizant of the Vattel's "Law of Nations" just draft the following language of a person's eligibility to be president:

“No Person except a NATIVE born citizen,.....”

Why would the drafters insert natural born citizen instead of NATIVE born citizen since according to Vattel, NATIVE are those born in the country whose parents were citizens?

Unless, the drafters used the language borrowed from Blackstone concept of natural born subject by simply substituting the word citizen for subject.

FACT:

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#175951 Oct 21, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
There's that darn "S" again! LMAO!
FACT: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212
Wrong.

It was Blackstone's influence and not Vattel's influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.

Blackstone noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.(Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

The natural born citizen language in the Constitution is derived from its English Common Law counterpart natural born subject. This idea is based on courts understanding that the term citizen is analogous with term subject. "The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government."). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: "A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)

The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law's influence in the Constitution: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution the drafters were acquainted with Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects. Justice Stone observed:“It is noteworthy that Blackstone's Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943). Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted:“ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”

Moreover, "Blackstone's Commentaries had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature. It is safe to say that it contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791. Sunray Oil Corp. v.Allbritton, 187 F.2d 475,478 (5th Cir. 1951)

As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to "import" a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose book was required reading by lawyers in colonial America.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#175952 Oct 21, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The article says 80% but it's surely wrong, you say, it's more than 20%. Why would the ministry of transport people make that up? I'm not surprised, as rig accidents are on the rise - often, too many hours and defective eqpt - not the drivers' faults, as employers or contractors are very demanding. Ever looked at those big trucks and their tires, for example, when they stop at a stop light? Often just plain horrifying.
The inspectors talked of defective trucks, did not mention percentages.
Some twenty years ago the EDITOR of the Clayton County, GA newspaper claimed 65% of the county population was 65 years old or older and I wrote her demanding her source. She corrected herself the following week. It was only 14% and claimed the State of Georgia told her it was 65%. Commonsense would tell you it was no where near 65%!!!
Get some commonsense!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#175953 Oct 21, 2013
Hey Jacqueau, do you know how many lights are on a typical 18-wheeler rig? 30-40! If one light is out, they may, or may not, write it up on a DOT inspection.
I would say about half the time I have been DOTed they have found a minor problem like a one marker light out. Is it possible that 80% of the trucks had a minor problem but were NOT shut down? YES!
But it is not logical that 80% where shut down. It does not pass the commonsense test. Something you Libtards seriously lack!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#175954 Oct 21, 2013
Jacqueau, if you are going to travel over a thousand miles you are at least ten times safe flying in a scheduled aircraft carrier than driving. But do you know how many people refuse the fly as they think they are safer driving?
But you are four times safer driving than flying in a single-engine private plane (like I fly). But most private pilots do not have my experience as I do. But if someone does not want to fly with me I do not feel insulted.
Why my ex-wife only flew in a plane I was flying once in the 21 years we were together and she has been working for Delta Airlines for twenty years now. I had the chance to fly her in an Army helicopter but she declined.
By the law, you need the written permission from a general officer to fly an civilian in an Army aircraft and I did have permission.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#175955 Oct 21, 2013
Oh, don't tell anyone but in Vietnam I "may" have flown a civilian catholic priest without permission because he had never flown before.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#175956 Oct 21, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The language that you cited in Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814) was not part of majority opinion by Justice Washington but rather it was the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in which Justice Livingston concurred. As such, the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall regarding Vattel was NOT THE OPINION OF THE COURT but rather his own opinion. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an opinion by the majority is considered mandatory authority that is binding on lower courts; however, opinions expressed as concurring opinions are not mandatory but may be considered persuasive authority but they are by no means binding on lower courts.
In this case, Chief Marshall's concurring opinion is not mandatory authority since it was not the majority opinion but at best it was persuasive authority.
One of the best indicators that a concurring opinion was considered persuasive authority by later courts would be for these later courts to cite Chief Justice's concurring opinion. However, a search failed to show that any subsequent federal cases citing Chief Justice's concurring opinion.
As such, Chief Justice's concurring opinion has never been cited by later court cases and the only conclusion to be drawn is that Chief Justice's reliance on Vattel's definition of natives who are born in the country requiring two parents who are citizens has never been used as persuasive authority by later cases.
As a side note, Justice Story concurred with the majority but failed to concur with Justice Marshall
If Vattel were the source of our citizenship laws as you indicated then why didn't the drafters who according to you who were cognizant of the Vattel's "Law of Nations" just draft the following language of a person's eligibility to be president:
“No Person except a NATIVE born citizen,.....”
Why would the drafters insert natural born citizen instead of NATIVE born citizen since according to Vattel, NATIVE are those born in the country whose parents were citizens?
Unless, the drafters used the language borrowed from Blackstone concept of natural born subject by simply substituting the word citizen for subject.
FACT:
Parent"s"! Twinkerbelle.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#175957 Oct 21, 2013
When we went on maneuvers sometimes people took things like lawn chairs or a portable TV. Once we had to go from Fort Sill, Oklahoma to Fort Irwin, California and we loaded the aircraft on a Friday and were to takeoff Monday morning. Our aircraft was loaded light.
On Monday I noticed we had a civilian Jeep CJ5 in the back which belonged to the pilot and off we went for a month in California. Our commander hit the roof but the pilot had violated no regulation. But the commander got even as when we were about to head home he informed my pilot that his personal vehicle will NOT be on any aircraft so he had to ship it back commercially.
Somethings are legal but may still piss off someone.
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#175958 Oct 21, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Stewart is too smart for guys like Carlson. Not in Stewart's league. Walked all over him.
Why is it that anyone that disagrees with a liberal is not only an idiot in their eyes, but they declare them to be liars as well? The democrats took on healthcare reform because they proclaimed that something must be done to cover the 30 million + uninsured in our country. It was also declared as reprehensible that we were the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide healthcare for its citizens. So the democrats refuse to bring the republicans into the negotiations, and pass this law against the will of the people. They close out the republicans and refuse to incorporate any of their ideas into the law, therefore unable to muster a single republican vote in passing it. They bribe some democrats that were also resisting what they viewed as a socialist takeover of the system to buy their vote, and then pass it at midnight on Christmas eve. They lied in selling the law by using bogus CBO numbers, robbing medicare, claiming if you liked your coverage that you could keep it, and that the cost curve would be bending down. Now that it is law, the president selectively decides on his own who must adhere to it, and who gets special waivers and exemptions and no one on the left seems to care. They told us the interactive web site would cost less then 100 million, yet it has cost over 350 million and counting, and it doesn't work. Now we find out that by the governments own estimates, in 2020 there will be roughly 20 million Americans that will still be uninsured. This is a horror story and yet there are still folks that are confident the government should be controlling our healthcare, and that are still prepared to defend and support democrats. All of this brings a new meaning to the reality of what stuck on stupid means. Pathetic!
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#175959 Oct 21, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote : "Now, can you explain how his filibuster of Sep. 24-15 shut down the government a week later as you claim? ". Are you actually serious? You don't think he was the tea party ringleader of the whole thing, the one who made Speaker Boehner shake in his boots, the one who shut down the gov't? You think he did his ridiculous Dr Seuss filibuster and ended his anti-Obama and anti-citizen shutdown right there? Why was the congress shutting down the gov't? Why didn't Boehner allow a vote? Who was behind this disaster?
Can we at least be honest about the so called shut down. The government was not shut down. About 1/7th of it was given a two week paid vacation, and what was "furloughed" was selected to cause as much inconvenience as the president could inflict. The administration had been planning this political charade for months in advance, all by design to damage the republicans for the 2014 election cycle. The democrats are not done playing politics with the American peoples lives to benefit themselves, and there are enough useful idiots in the country to help them accomplish it, and that includes many republicans. The president told us that raising the debt ceiling does not mean we will take on more debt, which is nothing but a flat out lie. I think I figured out the inspiration Alicia Keyes had to write that song about how she likes the way he lies, while we all stand back and watch the country burn.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175960 Oct 21, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but you're not, so your post is irrelevant as always. LMAO!
OMG, tell me you never made any.

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
If I were a praying man, I would pray you would abstain from making one.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175961 Oct 21, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Some twenty years ago the EDITOR of the Clayton County, GA newspaper claimed 65% of the county population was 65 years old or older and I wrote her demanding her source. She corrected herself the following week. It was only 14% and claimed the State of Georgia told her it was 65%. Commonsense would tell you it was no where near 65%!!!
Get some commonsense!!!
Was it you who mentioned apples and oranges? You compare an error in population make-up to a report on unsafe and un-roadworthy trucks? The EDITOR was corrected and that's it. NO ONE has corrected the ministry on the truck Hamilton findings. I said 50% were defective this morning, and I was intentionally lowballing it. I never dreamt it was 80%. Those giant trucking companies will cut corners, no laws too precious to break, to make a profit.

Oh, YOU asked the EDITOR for a source? YOU? Are you serious? Where are the sources I've asked you for?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175962 Oct 21, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Hey Jacqueau, do you know how many lights are on a typical 18-wheeler rig? 30-40! If one light is out, they may, or may not, write it up on a DOT inspection.
I would say about half the time I have been DOTed they have found a minor problem like a one marker light out. Is it possible that 80% of the trucks had a minor problem but were NOT shut down? YES!
But it is not logical that 80% where shut down. It does not pass the commonsense test. Something you Libtards seriously lack!!!
What's the matter with you? It's an official ministry of transport report. It mentioned brakes and unsecured loads and so forth. Position lights were not mentioned. Do you think they'd ground a truck because one of several tail lights was out? Do you feel targeted, guilty? And don't forget, I did not say you had the same situation in the U.S. I said I didn't know. You better find out before I do.
Obskeptic

Bloomfield Hills, MI

#175963 Oct 21, 2013
The president claims you can call the 800 number and get answers to your questions in 25 minutes or less. The number for the help line is 1-800-318-2596. That number can also be displayed as 1-800-F1U-CKYO. Once again the subtle, in your face hatred the democrats have for everyone, including the useful idiots that support and defend them. I believe this is no accident, but done by design. You democrats must be so proud.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175964 Oct 21, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacqueau, if you are going to travel over a thousand miles you are at least ten times safe flying in a scheduled aircraft carrier than driving. But do you know how many people refuse the fly as they think they are safer driving?
But you are four times safer driving than flying in a single-engine private plane (like I fly). But most private pilots do not have my experience as I do. But if someone does not want to fly with me I do not feel insulted.
Why my ex-wife only flew in a plane I was flying once in the 21 years we were together and she has been working for Delta Airlines for twenty years now. I had the chance to fly her in an Army helicopter but she declined.
By the law, you need the written permission from a general officer to fly an civilian in an Army aircraft and I did have permission.
What's this all about, Nado? Why don't you tell me something I don't know? I get the impression you know a lot about flying a helicopter and small planes, but nothing about the military in general. Same thing for trucks. You know a lot about driving them, but nothing about the trucking industry and its adherence to mechanical standards and safety measures.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#175965 Oct 21, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, tell me you never made any.
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were a praying man, I would pray you would abstain from making one.
OMG? LMAO!!! Hand on hip? LMAO!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175966 Oct 21, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that anyone that disagrees with a liberal is not only an idiot in their eyes, but they declare them to be liars as well? The democrats took on healthcare reform because they proclaimed that something must be done to cover the 30 million + uninsured in our country. It was also declared as reprehensible that we were the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide healthcare for its citizens. So the democrats refuse to bring the republicans into the negotiations, and pass this law against the will of the people. They close out the republicans and refuse to incorporate any of their ideas into the law, therefore unable to muster a single republican vote in passing it. They bribe some democrats that were also resisting what they viewed as a socialist takeover of the system to buy their vote, and then pass it at midnight on Christmas eve. They lied in selling the law by using bogus CBO numbers, robbing medicare, claiming if you liked your coverage that you could keep it, and that the cost curve would be bending down. Now that it is law, the president selectively decides on his own who must adhere to it, and who gets special waivers and exemptions and no one on the left seems to care. They told us the interactive web site would cost less then 100 million, yet it has cost over 350 million and counting, and it doesn't work. Now we find out that by the governments own estimates, in 2020 there will be roughly 20 million Americans that will still be uninsured. This is a horror story and yet there are still folks that are confident the government should be controlling our healthcare, and that are still prepared to defend and support democrats. All of this brings a new meaning to the reality of what stuck on stupid means. Pathetic!
You wrote, "Why is it that anyone that disagrees with a liberal is not only an idiot in their eyes, but they declare them to be liars as well?" Excuse me, treating people as idiots and dumb is a republican right wing thing. As an example,[;ease re-read a few posts here from repubs and particularly, birthers. Need I add their offensive language that is not normally used by the so-called socialists, left wings and "libtards" (Rogue tm reg'd) here.

Democrats took on health care because 50 million were uninsured, not 30 million. ONE single citizen of a rich country like yours, the richest in the world, no?, without universal health care is one citizen too many. It's medieval. The only one of 34 OECD countries, not to count many non-OECD ones in such a sad situation. 50 million non-insured, and more than 100 million partly or badly-insured. And, for many, premiums in the thousands of dollars per month for a small family, with deductibles aplenty. What is the private insurance industry doing in health care anyway? Yes, the democrats took it on, and not the first time. Good for them. As I've always said, ALL social legislation came from democrats. Zero for republicans in the whole of U.S. history.

Dems refused to take in the Repubs for negotiations? Are you kidding? The Repubs, owned by insurance companies, are not negotiable. They don't want any form of medicare. Any.

The web site is bad news, who would disagree? What's that got to do with the quality or non-quality of Obamacare?

The president does not decide who gets what in Obamacare. You're smart enough to do better. This is a first in the U.S., never been done. Americans are a "know-what-to-do people, they'll sort it out in spite of the Ted Cruzes of our day. With possibly two Dem houses next year, it should be improved some more.

Why does gov't universal health care work everywhere else in the world? Why does no one, right or left politically, want to take down their system, and this, not in ONE single country. Why does the patchwork of U.S. health care, before obamacare, with 50 million uninsured, cost more per capita than any other country on this globe?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#175967 Oct 21, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote, "Why is it that anyone that disagrees with a liberal is not only an idiot in their eyes, but they declare them to be liars as well?" Excuse me, treating people as idiots and dumb is a republican right wing thing. As an example,[;ease re-read a few posts here from repubs and particularly, birthers. Need I add their offensive language that is not normally used by the so-called socialists, left wings and "libtards" (Rogue tm reg'd) here.
Democrats took on health care because 50 million were uninsured, not 30 million. ONE single citizen of a rich country like yours, the richest in the world, no?, without universal health care is one citizen too many. It's medieval. The only one of 34 OECD countries, not to count many non-OECD ones in such a sad situation. 50 million non-insured, and more than 100 million partly or badly-insured. And, for many, premiums in the thousands of dollars per month for a small family, with deductibles aplenty. What is the private insurance industry doing in health care anyway? Yes, the democrats took it on, and not the first time. Good for them. As I've always said, ALL social legislation came from democrats. Zero for republicans in the whole of U.S. history.
Dems refused to take in the Repubs for negotiations? Are you kidding? The Repubs, owned by insurance companies, are not negotiable. They don't want any form of medicare. Any.
The web site is bad news, who would disagree? What's that got to do with the quality or non-quality of Obamacare?
The president does not decide who gets what in Obamacare. You're smart enough to do better. This is a first in the U.S., never been done. Americans are a "know-what-to-do people, they'll sort it out in spite of the Ted Cruzes of our day. With possibly two Dem houses next year, it should be improved some more.
Why does gov't universal health care work everywhere else in the world? Why does no one, right or left politically, want to take down their system, and this, not in ONE single country. Why does the patchwork of U.S. health care, before obamacare, with 50 million uninsured, cost more per capita than any other country on this globe?
First paragraph; BS as you do the exact same thing. You merely think being subtle about it makes you different, but it doesn't. It's all part of "your" justification process. Justify it Path!
The DIMs took on healthcare to have more power over the people. Just another power grab by the ObobbleHead. I don't need my Government going to the Dr. with me! They also took it on so they could pass multiple BS taxes! The healthcare bill was written by DIMs in the middle of the night behind locked doors. You're FOS, as usual.
Should be improved? Hell, when ObobbleHead is out, so is his BS healthcare bill.
Oh, and you're right, all socialist BS does come from the DIMs. Idiots, one and all. We like being different, Path. ObobbleHead care was/is/will be a train wreck. Since we're not a Socialist country, you may remain silent or go to a more proper forum, Mr. Canada. Might I suggest the Azzholes R Us forum located on www.bbh.com .
Again, why do you support a liar? Haven't gotten an answer for this one yet.
Jock from Ottawa

Hollywood, FL

#175968 Oct 21, 2013
Is a obama head giver

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#175969 Oct 21, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
The president claims you can call the 800 number and get answers to your questions in 25 minutes or less. The number for the help line is 1-800-318-2596. That number can also be displayed as 1-800-F1U-CKYO. Once again the subtle, in your face hatred the democrats have for everyone, including the useful idiots that support and defend them. I believe this is no accident, but done by design. You democrats must be so proud.
As stupid as you think they are, do you really believe they would intentionally come up with a name like that? Really, now, you must take a few long breaths, and relax.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 55 min OzRitz 52,855
Bubba's wife................Piano-Legs. 2 hr Piano-leg murderer 4
Bill Clinton's Wife. 2 hr WHATS-HER-PLAN 5
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr Lily Boca Raton Fl 1,220,137
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr Cold Front 69,687
New Rapper Seven Dyce 6 hr UBANK RECORDS 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr texas pete 5,906
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]