BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 222763 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.

Dale

Wichita, KS

#179500 Nov 15, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your disdain for the military speaks volumes. It is hardly a surprise that you feel the need to malign anyone who makes you look stupid.
I was almost in the military, spent over 21 years in the USAF and I agree that Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.
Do you realize how many airstrikes hit nothing!(Viet-Nam)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179501 Nov 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were busy channeling the founders?
LMAO!!! No, I into Voodoo!! I stick pins in Obama every nite, looks like it is working!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179502 Nov 15, 2013
nuff for today, got to clean the liberal crap off my monitor.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#179505 Nov 15, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I was almost in the military, spent over 21 years in the USAF and I agree that Military Intelligence is an oxymoron.
Do you realize how many airstrikes hit nothing!(Viet-Nam)
I thought you were high before but maybe it is liquor that stupefies your writing.

If you ask a question, use the proper punctuation. Logic would also be a nice addition to your posts.

It is okay that you are bitter at those of us who make you look silly.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#179506 Nov 15, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
I meant Obama IS an illegal-alien.
Okay, I will humor you. Do tell, how is he an 'illegal-alien'?

This should be terrific entertainment.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#179507 Nov 15, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Left-handed, Kenyan-born, son-of-a-pornstar, gay, Moslem Antichrist Obama is an ILLRGAL-ALIEN.
And now you have someone you can look up to.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#179508 Nov 15, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Chatty Chauncey, violations of the Constitution doesn't make law or precedent.
The US Supreme Court is correct and you are simply wrong. You can CLAIM that the US Supreme Court violated the Constitution, but that is only your OPINION. Nobody believes you, and besides, it is wrong.

“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.]

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179509 Nov 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter but if you want to compare Obama to Bush-43, okay. The military was far more prepared for further combat five years ago than it is now. We have equipment returning from Iraq and Afghanistan that is not being repaired, but set out in to lots to rust.
We have pilots, who are not piloting and their skills are getting usty and the pilots graduating from flight school are not developing their skills.
Obama toke the U.S. Enterprise out of service two years early so he could spend the money on things like birth control and Obama phones. As we speak, only half of our carrier groups are deployed or capable of being deployed on short notice. For the first time since WWII we have no carrier task force assigned to the Mediterranean Sea which could have helped out during that Ben Ghazi thing!
The F-15s have been in-service for since 1976 and they are literally falling apart.
Air Force Falls Apart While Obama Plots Even More Cuts
November 10, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/air-...
Can't you read? I just told you that all that stuff is just about useless now. We are in 2013. Your soldiers, OUR soldiers in Afghanistan, most of those killed, were killed by roadside bombs and booby traps. What are the planes and infra red guns and helicopters and armoured jeeps doing about all that? Defending themselves, is what they are doing, to the point of forgetting their mission.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#179510 Nov 15, 2013
He's from Wyoming. You will have to forgive him.

Those good ol' boys just don't measure up in the education department.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#179511 Nov 15, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Left-handed, Kenyan-born, son-of-a-pornstar, gay, Moslem Antichrist Obama is an ILLRGAL-ALIEN.
Rational people will notice that WelbyMD is raving.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179512 Nov 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
No problem. Just fix them with 100 mph tape.
An inspection of all Air Force F-15s turned up 149 that also had thin or rough finished longerons and nine jets with cracked longerons.
Since the inspections, the Air Force has cleared most of its 420-plus F-15s to return to flight. However, Eagles with questionable longerons must be inspected more often.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20080324...
Who cares? What do you intend using the F15s for? Interception of ICBMs?
Learn to Read

United States

#179513 Nov 15, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
I meant Obama IS an illegal-alien.
Thanks for correcting that. I didn't understand your meaning in the initial post
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#179514 Nov 15, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Nasty, I am claiming that Mr. Howard was right or did you forget to read that post, also!
That is right, you are CLAIMING. Howard is not right. Bingham is.

“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. 2212 (1869)”

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#179515 Nov 15, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Irrelevant!! We are now under Constitutional Law not English Common Law.
And what is the language of the Constitution based on?

Answer: English Common Law.

You would have us disregard our common law heritage from the English in which Chief Justice Marshall observed "whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws." U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

In fact, we are informed that "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers." In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

“In many cases, the language of the constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law is not only supposed by the constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpretation of its powers.“ James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826) page 316

And this is from your good buddy Chief Justice Moore of Alabama:
“Our jurisprudence explains that old English statutes are a part of the common law. The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which amend the law and are applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law.” Ex parte HH, 830 So. 2d 21, 33 (Alabama 2002)( Moore, C.J., concurring)

If the term in the Constitution "natural born" were to be construed other than its common law origin then in the words of Chief Justice Marshall "It is hardly conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our Constitution in the sense which has been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. So far as the meaning of any terms, particularly terms of art, is completely ascertained, those by whom they are employed must be considered as employing them in that ascertained meaning, unless the contrary be proved by the context." U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

“Where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived” quoting Alexander Hamilton, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429, 572 (1895)

Pop Quiz:
What country is the Pollock's court referring to when it mentioned "language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived?:
a. Iceland
b. France
c. England

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#179517 Nov 15, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Sorry, but English Common Law citizenship hasn't been used since 1866/1868, citizenship is now by Constitutional Law.
Wrong.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the Jus Soli principle of the English common law.

These laws were in response to the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. The drafters of these laws acknowledged Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case in which he wrote:[W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

In 1927, almost sixty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

Moreover, "At common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship.. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

Finally, the court Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)
observed: "Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant."

“United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Now you need to explain as to why the courts since the ratification of the 14th Amendment have gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws.
Learn to Read

United States

#179519 Nov 15, 2013
American Lady wrote:
NOT from *FOX*
:D
~~~~~~~~~~

House passes Republican health bill with 39 Democratic votes
BY MARK FELSENTHAL AND SUSAN CORNWELL
WASHINGTON Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:34pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-...
What? They found something that some of the Democrats were willing to support? Don't tell SnowJob. He'll have a melt down! What's next? Cats and dogs living together?!?!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179520 Nov 15, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were high before but maybe it is liquor that stupefies your writing.
If you ask a question, use the proper punctuation. Logic would also be a nice addition to your posts.
It is okay that you are bitter at those of us who make you look silly.
LMAO!!! Wasn't asking a question, I knew the answer!
See it is silly know-it-all fuchs like you that get fragged.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179521 Nov 15, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court is correct and you are simply wrong. You can CLAIM that the US Supreme Court violated the Constitution, but that is only your OPINION. Nobody believes you, and besides, it is wrong.
“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.]
LMAO!!! Nasty, STFU!!! I have already shown you that the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause) wasn't written with English Common Law. Must I make an ass of you again?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179522 Nov 15, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the Jus Soli principle of the English common law.
These laws were in response to the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. The drafters of these laws acknowledged Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case in which he wrote:[W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)
In 1927, almost sixty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:
"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)
Moreover, "At common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship.. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)
Finally, the court Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)
observed: "Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant."
“United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)
Now you need to explain as to why the courts since the ratification of the 14th Amendment have gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws.
LMAO!!! Just because one is born in the US doesn't mean you are a citizen, their is a stipulation in the citizenship clause and we all know what that is and if you are subject to a foreign power, you don't meet the requirements of that stipulation.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179523 Nov 15, 2013
crap, now I have to clean my monitor, again!!!

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) 2 min USAsince1680 1,420,174
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min ThreeKnives 61,077
abby8-29-16 34 min Doctor Phil da Fraud 6
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr CrunchyBacon 103,463
Jesus Christ is alive 2 hr grounded in reali... 2
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr honeymylove 2,429
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Ize Found 70,974

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages