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

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179657 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I see nothing wrong with jus soli, but there is a stipulation, you can't be subject to a foreign power.
[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]
If born in the US and your parents were not foreign diplomats, then your parents owed (temporary) allegiance to the US while here. That is the law as it is understood and was understood at the time the 14th Amendment and at the time of adoption of the US Constitution.

However, the constitution was not understood under Play Law - ever. Too bad Skippy.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179658 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
No... there is not.
United States[edit]
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Its wording was initially interpreted to exclude many Native Americans because they were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. However, Congress later extended citizenship to all aboriginal peoples in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[34]
In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction applied to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Court also rejected the government's attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing that it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens.
The Court thus held that the petitioner, a child of subjects of the Emperor of China whose parents were lawfully living in the United States where he was born, was a U.S. citizen by birth.
Notwithstanding the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, his citizenship status could not be revoked even if his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth and all three made several trips to China afterwards.[35]
==========
One more time....
"The U.S. Supreme Court held that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" restriction applied to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" explained.
Doesn't say shit about who's parents are born where.
There is no additional "requirement".
NOBODY cares what Howard thought. His thoughts were considered and over ruled. His motives were racist, not to protect the U.S.
Actually, Howard was right behind jus soli. Howard understood aliens in this country to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US and owing (temporary or local) allegiance to the US, not to any foreign power. The concept of local allegiance can be traced back to Lord Coke in (I think) Calvin's case.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179659 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You can post all you want, but you can't change the intent of the framers that wrote the Citizenship Clause.
And neither can Dale, even though he doesn't understand a word they said.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179660 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Prior to Apr. 9, 1866 the citizens of the states made up the citizen of the US, the 14th just changed that around.
Who was talking about naturalization?
Unwittingly, Dale was.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179661 Nov 16, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
Note to the thread. A business matter will take me out of the country for the next two weeks. Upon my return in December I will probably check back in for a good laugh. However, I will not waste time reviewing pages of comments made during my absence. Additionally - please note that any exchanges (real or imagined) that you may have during my absence will not be with me.
Birfoons - please also know that each and every fail you experience during the next two weeks will still be a source if great amusement to me even though I do not comment here
Later!
Travelling is my elixir, so I'm always curious as to where people are travelling to. May I be so indiscreet as to ask?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179662 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ted was born a Canadian citizen subject to the Crown and under her jurisdiction. He was automatically naturalized pursuant to US statutory law, which has no force or effect in Canada.
It's quite all right, wojar, please keep him. Our gain, your loss.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179663 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, there wasn't a garden. But modern poverty is at least as old as money.
A large majority of what Jesus talked about was caring for the poor. Statistically, it was all he talked about. Compare time spent on ANY other subject and over 350 verses of "word of god" are devoted to teaching people how to care for the poor. But hey, ignore all that. There is a deeper message. Like how you get your own ass immortal.
LOL.. THAT is what is important. You are an idiot and it is a shame there isn't a hell for you to go to.
I knew you didn't know that. You have never read it.
I love it when Dale puts words into peoples mouths because he has clearly lost another argument.
""I love it when you libs think you can do something that Jesus and mankind hasn't been able to accomplish for thousands of years. Who do you think you are, God!!!""
Where did all of that shit come from Dale?
God has nothing to do with poverty. Hell, he has nothing to do with anything at all Dale. And the sooner people start taking responsibility... the better.
LMAO!!! Well, have you and your ilk cured poverty? It will be here until the end of time, makes no difference how much your heart bleeds.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179664 Nov 16, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Art II Sect I clause 5
THEY MEET the 'criteria of:
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
http://constitutionus.com/
That's right, BirfoonLady. There was no non-citizen parent bar.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179665 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And neither can Dale, even though he doesn't understand a word they said.
Tinker Bell!!! Didn't you know that Mr. Howard changed jus soli to jus sanguinis for citizenship.

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 (Law of Nations, by Vattel) and national law (Civil Rights Act) 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.

Offered and accepted in its entirety and ratified in 1868.

By doing this he neutralized the questions of the Indians, gypsies, Chinese and all persons here temporarily.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179666 Nov 16, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote : "But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do" Prove it now, BSr. NOW. Or will you tell me to find it myself.
Pound sand!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179667 Nov 16, 2013
OMG, a major new outlet referred to Obama as "biracial". How can that be when "everyone' says he is black. Why even Obama claims he is .... black.

White mayor, black wife: NYC shatters an image
Associated Press
By JESSE WASHINGTON 6 hours ago

Another milestone is passing in America's racial journey: The next mayor of New York City is a white man with a black wife.

Even in a nation with a biracial president,......
http://news.yahoo.com/white-mayor-black-wife-...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179668 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Rouge seems to believe in the fiction that a DS-1350 is a certificate of natural born citizenship. It isn't.
<quoted text>
Then what does a DS-1350 mean? That he was a citizen at birth regardless of wear he was born? But isn't that the definition of an NBC?!?
"At birth" refers to citizenship derived by birth under the jurisdiction of the sovereign (a monarch or government of the people). It does not refer to timing, but rather to the condition wherein one is born per the jus soli rule. A person born on foreign soil to a US citizen who does not have diplomatic status becomes a citizen automatically naturalized through statute enacted by Congress.(Indeed, for many years in the first half of the 19th century, persons born of US citizens abroad were born aliens.) Congress can only make a person a citizen through naturalization. A naturalized citizen cannot be a natural born citizen.

"As stated in Van Dyne on
CItizenship of the United States, pp. 32:
'It was almost universally conceded that
citizenship by birth In the United States was
governed by the principles of the English
common law. It Is very doubtful whether the
common law covered the case of children
born abroad to subjects of England.'"
Congressional Record, June 14, 1967, page 16876,
column 1, paragraph 6.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179669 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Well, have you and your ilk cured poverty? It will be here until the end of time, makes no difference how much your heart bleeds.
More Americans are now unemployed than were unemployed during the Great Depression!!!
Therealnews com

West Sayville, NY

#179670 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pound sand!
Wikileaks Exposes the TPP as a Capitulation to Corporate Interests
November 15, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/o8o2bcj
Kevin Zeese is co-director of It's Our Economy, an organization that advocates for democratizing the economy. He's also an attorney who is one of the original organizers of the National Occupation of Washington, DC. He has been active in independent and third party political campaigns including for state legislative offices in Maryland, governor of California and U.S. president, where he served as press secretary and spokesperson for Ralph Nader in 2004. He ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006 and was the only person ever nominated by the Green Party, Libertarian Party and Populist Party.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179671 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Not too too good on dates, are you? The insurgency began in 2009?
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#179672 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
More Americans are now unemployed than were unemployed during the Great Depression!!!
...AND many more Americans are EMPLOYED than were employed during the Great Depression.

Get a clue!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#179673 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
<quoted text>
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
We lost the insurgency because Bushit didn't plan for it. What a dufus he his.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179674 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Didn't you know that Mr. Howard changed jus soli to jus sanguinis for citizenship.
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 (Law of Nations, by Vattel) and national law (Civil Rights Act) 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.
Offered and accepted in its entirety and ratified in 1868.
By doing this he neutralized the questions of the Indians, gypsies, Chinese and all persons here temporarily.
Exactly, Dale cannot understand a word Howard said. Howard was 100% in support of the jus soli rule and he stated so.

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).(May 23, 1866)

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

So either Howard did not understand his own words or Dale is terribly confused and illiterate.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And neither can Dale, even though he doesn't understand a word they said.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179675 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
More Americans are now unemployed than were unemployed during the Great Depression!!!
How can we as a nation keep supporting people that don't have jobs.
If Obamacare isn't overturned there will be more people unemployed.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179676 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Didn't you know that Mr. Howard changed jus soli to jus sanguinis for citizenship.
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 (Law of Nations, by Vattel) and national law (Civil Rights Act) a citizen of the United States.
Vattel?

Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.

Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.

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) 19 min American first 1,126,993
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 23 min KiMerde 50,640
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 36 min TRD 68,665
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 41 min grave digger 47,501
Abby 10-23-14 3 hr pde 10
Amy 10-24 4 hr edogxxx 11
Abby 10-24 4 hr edogxxx 23
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]