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

There are 189618 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, 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.

Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#178310 Nov 6, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You have to be kidding!!! What happened to the landslide?
I would say the Tea Party did great, since they hadn't any help from the RINOs.
Dufus celebrates losing. Declares absolute victory! So out of character
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178311 Nov 6, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm quite certain that you're heavily medicated - but I doubt that your affliction can be cured
LMAO!!! It is well know that liberalism is a terminal mental disorder, if not medicated with vast amounts of conservative serum mixed into a cup of Tea Party.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#178312 Nov 6, 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.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, just a truth you can't deny and since the 14th amendment tells us who are citizens I have yet found a dual-citizenship status mentioned, therein.
Bingham was right in 1869, the 14th was ratified in 1868, which precludes children born in this country and subject to a foreign power from receiving US citizenship.
Everyone born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the USA"---which are only foreign diplomats and their families.

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling:“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.“

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#178313 Nov 6, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Think you better check our dictionary, although not usually used, unseparable means the same as inseparable.
Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
So you see that aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" this only a condition that is placed upon a citizen.
Now since we all know that Obama has stated many a time that he was a dual-citizen, the above plainly shows he isn't a citizen of the US, since his citizenship and allegiance belonged to his father's country of origin.
The only way Obama can become a citizen, is through the naturalization process.
Aliens in the USA are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA, meaning that they can be tried under US law. The only people in the USA who not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA is the children of foreign diplomats. Dual citizenship has no effect on the person being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA. Why not? Because everyone IN the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families is subject to the complete (and utter) jurisdiction of the USA.

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

What makes the third child different from her siblings? She was born in the USA.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#178314 Nov 6, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! It is well know that liberalism is a terminal mental disorder, if not medicated with vast amounts of conservative serum mixed into a cup of Tea Party.
So in addition to being completely ignorant of the law and Constitution, you're also a liberal? Explains a lot

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#178315 Nov 6, 2013
Owl Gore wrote:
<quoted text>
But more people voted against him than voted for him. He got only 48% of the vote which means 52% voted against him!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_guberna...
No matter what the name, the math stays the same.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178316 Nov 6, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the USA"---which are only foreign diplomats and their families.
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling:“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.“
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
LMAO!!! Your first sentence invalidated the remainder of your post.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are (*foreigners, aliens,) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
* Where did the (*foreigners and aliens) come from or have you forgotten the usage of the comma
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178317 Nov 6, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
So in addition to being completely ignorant of the law and Constitution, you're also a liberal? Explains a lot
LMAO!!! Sorry Scooter, ignorant is the distinction you hold and as we can see and you do it very proudly!

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#178318 Nov 6, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Think you better check our dictionary, although not usually used, unseparable means the same as inseparable.
Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
So you see that aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" this only a condition that is placed upon a citizen.
Now since we all know that Obama has stated many a time that he was a dual-citizen, the above plainly shows he isn't a citizen of the US, since his citizenship and allegiance belonged to his father's country of origin.
The only way Obama can become a citizen, is through the naturalization process.
It isn't often used because unseparable is not a word. Google it and you won't get a definition.

I knew what you meant and didn't point it out.

Allegiance has nothing at all to do with citizenship. As I explained before, allegiance is a conscious choice someone makes to be loyal to someone or something. Being born in Buffalo does not make people loyal to New York.

So... Andrew Jackson was an illegal alien?

Benjamin Franklin was not a legitimate President?

Thomas Jefferson needed naturalized?

Along with 4 or 5 other Presidents such as Herbert Hoover?

Mitt Romney is not a citizen?

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that ridiculous line of crap....

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a,'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted,'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'

FURTHERMORE....

To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

...US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898)

The Supreme Court seems to think if you are born here... your parent's citizenship doesn't mean shit.

Your opinion doesn't seem to be in line with U.S. law.

How do you fix that?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178319 Nov 6, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens in the USA are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA, meaning that they can be tried under US law. The only people in the USA who not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA is the children of foreign diplomats. Dual citizenship has no effect on the person being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA. Why not? Because everyone IN the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families is subject to the complete (and utter) jurisdiction of the USA.
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
What makes the third child different from her siblings? She was born in the USA.
LMAO!!! Aliens have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". If they were they would have to be taxed with the following.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#178320 Nov 6, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Tacky proves that he's even stupider and less original than Romper. It is always nice to have a goal (I'll bet the two of you cuddle often)
How many hits did you get when you googled "Indiana Open Fields"? Do you always have a corncob stuck up your azz? More sexual harassment? I warned you. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can force it on others. Are you smart enough not to push your luck? LMAO!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#178321 Nov 6, 2013
Thank The FOUNDING Fathers ...
but a natural born citizen ...
is NOT Obama and neither is Cruz ...

Common sense has to enter into the conversation, somewhere, and at some point ...
CUZ

When the founders WROTE the constitution THEY were concerned about *loyalty and ALLEGIANCE* to the Constitutional Republic as WE should be today.

The very IDEA that all you need to hold the highest office in the land and FREE WORLD
is to be BORN here in the US ...
[will qualify 'anyone' to hold it]

is borderline 'mentally retarded'...
IGNORANT if not *treasonous* to
EVEN THINK
such an idea would work ...

I am no attorney...
BUT
I did sleep @ a Holiday Inn last night :)

BTW
There are lots of "IGNORANT VOTERS"
who DID just that!

-n-

LQQk what kind of SHAPE
the communist CIRCUS
of
A~M~E~R~I~C~A
is IN

TODAY!

Divided NOT United!

yay !!!
The Divided States of America
The communist CIRCUS of America ...

Thanks to obama :)

SOoooo since obama "did it"
So can CRUZ!

Let the 'rule of law'
go OUT the Window ...

ALL libTARDS have!

CORRUPTocracy
-n-
THUGocracy

RULES!

ain't you libTARDS
P~R~O~U~D!!!!!!!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178322 Nov 6, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't often used because unseparable is not a word. Google it and you won't get a definition.
I knew what you meant and didn't point it out.
Allegiance has nothing at all to do with citizenship. As I explained before, allegiance is a conscious choice someone makes to be loyal to someone or something. Being born in Buffalo does not make people loyal to New York.
So... Andrew Jackson was an illegal alien?
Benjamin Franklin was not a legitimate President?
Thomas Jefferson needed naturalized?
Along with 4 or 5 other Presidents such as Herbert Hoover?
Mitt Romney is not a citizen?
Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that ridiculous line of crap....
FURTHERMORE....
To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
...US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898)
The Supreme Court seems to think if you are born here... your parent's citizenship doesn't mean shit.
Your opinion doesn't seem to be in line with U.S. law.
How do you fix that?
LMAO!!! I will pose the same question to you as I did Ellen.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are (*foreigners, aliens), who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

*Now how do you explain that *foreigners and aliens can be born in the US.

Now for you comments on the English Common Law, where was it used in Howards above statement?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#178323 Nov 6, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what "M" means after a number? Apparently not. How does 154M equal 150? LMAO!'brick' BTW genius, I just ran the same search and only got 59M hits. So, 59M minus 5M is 54M, divide that by one million and you have 54 which, if you add 100 to, gives you 154! Hot damn! A conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy! What fruitcake you are, Path...seriously! Do you oink when being poked? Go back to school, loser! LMAO!!
154M? You mean THIS

You wrote, post number 178223 : Why yes I do, Path. 150+ wells .
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#178324 Nov 6, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>How many hits did you get when you googled "Indiana Open Fields"? Do you always have a corncob stuck up your azz? More sexual harassment? I warned you. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can force it on others. Are you smart enough not to push your luck? LMAO!
More pathetic Romper rants. Are you clenching your fists or just gritting your teeth? In either case, we know you're hiding in your closet and whimpering

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#178325 Nov 6, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot with no TV. Figures. Tell me Scruff, why should I look up anything for Path? Or, anyone else for that matter? You libs are absolutely worthless. Maybe you'd make for good clay pigeons?
1. You say Obama lies;
2. Fair enough, your opinion;
3. You are asked for examples of this lying. Fair enough;
4. Your reply : "Why should I look it up for Path>?"
5. In short, you accuse, can't come up with anything, you ask me to find YOUR accusations?

Birther/tea party world. It's why they were practically wiped off the electoral map last night.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#178326 Nov 6, 2013
I hear the Feds are now wanting to use a new History book that has 32 pages dedicated to Islam but Christianity and others have been omitted! This BS is enough! Some ears are gonna start ringing. Naw, ObobbleHead isn't Muslim, HA! You gum-flappers really do not need to open your mouths anymore. What you post is BS! This, combined with the great flop called ACA, could get, and probably will get, real ugly! Oh yea, apparently smoking crack is legal now! What a pile! Nasty pile that needs to be permanently buried in a landfill! Imbeciles are running this country presently.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#178327 Nov 6, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
More pathetic Romper rants. Are you clenching your fists or just gritting your teeth? In either case, we know you're hiding in your closet and whimpering
manchild drivel
Dale

Wichita, KS

#178328 Nov 6, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't often used because unseparable is not a word. Google it and you won't get a definition.
I knew what you meant and didn't point it out.
Allegiance has nothing at all to do with citizenship. As I explained before, allegiance is a conscious choice someone makes to be loyal to someone or something. Being born in Buffalo does not make people loyal to New York.
So... Andrew Jackson was an illegal alien?
Benjamin Franklin was not a legitimate President?
Thomas Jefferson needed naturalized?
Along with 4 or 5 other Presidents such as Herbert Hoover?
Mitt Romney is not a citizen?
Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that ridiculous line of crap....
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a,'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted,'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'
FURTHERMORE....
To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
...US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898)
The Supreme Court seems to think if you are born here... your parent's citizenship doesn't mean shit.
Your opinion doesn't seem to be in line with U.S. law.
How do you fix that?
LMAO!!! Franklin was a president of the Republic? Surely that was a trick question?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#178329 Nov 6, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I just gave you 21! Let's see just how dense you really are, Path. LMAO!
Note: But the media really had a field day with ObobbleHead yesterday! LMAO!
You : "I just gave you 21!"

You did? Did Topix delete them...AGAIN? Don't you even SEE how ridiculous you are - what is it again? 150+, oops, 150M PLUS 400 oil wells, two beautiful nurse girl friends, their brother a Nobel medicine prize winner, petroleum products we have to stock up on, and the ridicule continues...LOSER.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Wei Yu Fat 1,232,014
Dear Abby 5-22-15 46 min tiredofit 8
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 54 min IBdaMann 53,453
Another chilly, gloomy summer predicted for Chi... 3 hr Civil Blotter XIV 1
Amy 5-22-15 4 hr Julie 8
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr Concerned_American 520
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr Doug77 5,988
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr editor 99,531
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]