BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 237214 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

#181081 Dec 3, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close jacques. What I see is you making excuses for the reality that she has always associated and has identified with the very hard left her entire life. Your strikes are nothing but a denial and deflection from the reality that one of the current presidents closest and most trusted advisers is a an extreme hard leftist. This is not a witch hunt, just an observation of fact. I do wonder though why it is that you just don't proudly wear the fact that you are also a hard leftist socialist with the pride and honor that you believe the cause deserves. I don't deny that I am a constitution loving, liberty minded American that embraces and defends capitalism and freedom. That apparently makes me a target to the evasive leftists like yourself that believe there is something to hide and be ashamed of in your belief that big government is the answer to everything. Ask not what your country can do for you ( which should be very little), but what YOU can do for your country ( which is not be dependent ). What's wrong with you Jacques?
The democratic party is nothing more than a front for the socialists, Marxists and communists. This is why Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, they left me".
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181082 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure?
Then why can the government tax resident and non resident aliens?
What about sales tax and property taxes?
LMAO!!! It is vey evident you have any idea the meaning of taxed.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181083 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Senator Howard's opinions isn't the law of the land. Whatever he commented about in debates doesn't have the force of law.
LMAO!!! It is now, what he offered was ratified in 1868, in its entirety.
You are like Ellen, get yourself an amendment.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181084 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Here is another abuse of power by the White House.
Obama's Kenyan-born uncle allowed to remain in US
Steven Senne / AP
Onyango Obama, President Barack Obama's Kenyan-born uncle, arrives at U.S. Immigration Court for a deportation hearing Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 in Boston.
By Denise Lavoie, The Associated Press
President Barack Obama's Kenyan-born uncle, who ignored a deportation order more than two decades ago, was granted permission to stay in the U.S. on Tuesday.
Judge Leonard Shapiro made the decision after Onyango Obama, 69, testified that he had lived in the U.S. for 50 years, been a hard worker, paid income tax and been arrested only once.
Asked about his family in the U.S. on Tuesday, he said, "I do have a nephew." Asked to name the nephew, he said, "Barack Obama, he's the president of the United States."
Onyango Obama, the half brother of the president's late father, has lived in the U.S. since the 1960s. He was ordered to leave the country in 1992, but remained.
----------
Shapiro cited a law that entitles immigrants who are "out of status" to become permanent residents if they arrived in the U.S. before 1972, maintained continuous residence and are of good moral character.
Onyango Obama testified he came to the U.S. from his native Kenya in 1963 and has not been back since. He called America the "land of opportunities."
His immigration status did not become public until his arrest for drunken driving in 2011 in Framingham, just west of Boston. After his arrest, he allegedly told police, "I think I will call the White House."
November 9, 2013
'Period'
Bruce Johnson
There are so many instances where it would be appropriate to use the "period" verbal punctuation with this President. "Period", it is final. I have spoken, no need for further discussion. Case closed. Issue resolved ...

But, the alleged, the suggested promise that comes with the "period" comment is applicable in so many other instances. It would be wise to add "period" to all his misdirections, past and future, as a reminder of the expected level of veracity.

"Period" should be used each time this President is quoted or referred to, serving as a constant reminder of his wellspring of untruths.

...

"I will close GITMO in a year, period."

"I will spend every waking moment on jobs, period."

"I am for traditional marriage, period."

"It won't cost a dime, period."

Bruce Johnson

MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/t...
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Just some of the periods, the BIG 0 has used!

ALL sentences ending with -period-
Have a 'source'...

IF 'they' DARE to click

;~)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181085 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The Law of Nations doesn't apply to domestic or municipal law of the United States. The Law of Nations (currently referred to as International law) is a law governing nations with respect to other nations. It has nothing to do with citizenship laws of individual nations.
.“Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law.“ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. "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. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)
Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel's concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens.
As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone's influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: ""In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it,“every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)
Another example of Blackstone' influence "The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it,`that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,' is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language:`Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;' and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)
As for Vattel's contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel's influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book "Law of Nations" have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel's influence was nonexistent.
LMAO!!! The Law of Nations (by Vattel)is nothing more than natures law, as sited by Howard, which is our law for citizenship, ratified in 1868.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181086 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing British Monarchy and English common law.
Common Law has nothing to do with the arbitrary rule of the Monarchy. In fact, those rights in the Magna Carta forced upon King John in 1215 proved that Common Law was superior to the Monarchy.
The court in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968) observed:
It is sufficient for present purposes to say that by the time our Constitution was written, jury trial in criminal cases had been in existence in England for several centuries and carried impressive credentials traced by many to Magna Carta. Its preservation and proper operation as a protection against arbitrary rule were among the major objectives of the revolutionary settlement which was expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1689.Id at 151.
Moreover, the Duncan court noted that common law was a barrier to Monarchy's arbitrary rule:
"Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege `as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power." Id at 154
Similarly, the court Jones v. Clinton, 869 F. Supp. 690 (ED AR 1994) noted the tension between a English King and common law:
"The tension between the King and Parliament, on the one hand, and the King and the common law, on the other, reached its heights with the ascension to the throne of the Stuart monarchy in the person of King James the First (who was James the Sixth of Scotland). Friction soon arose between the King and the House of Commons. At the root of the disagreement, once again, was the Magna Carta. See generally William Swindler, Magna Carta: Legend and Legacy 169-176 (1965).Id at 694
As such, common law was not in concord with the monarchy's rule but was in discord when that rule becomes arbitrary and capricious.
Keep 'digging'
You'll 'eventually'
have
an 'eye opening' moment ...

Be too LATE
@ the rate u'r going
tho.

;~)

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181087 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Law of Nations (by Vattel)is nothing more than natures law, as sited by Howard, which is our law for citizenship, ratified in 1868.
Wrong. Law of Nations has nothing to do with natural law. In fact, Vattel wasn't even the original authority of Law of Nations.

In fact prior to 1758 when Vattel first published his book "Law of Nations" there were other books discussing nations conduct with other nations that used the term "law of nations"

"He observes, that the Trecepts of both are the fame: But that for as much as States when they are once instituted, ajjume the Terfonal Troprieties of Men, hence it comes to pass, that what, speaking of the Duty of particular Men, we call the Law of Nature, the same we term the LAW OF NATIONS, when we apply it to whole States, Nations, or people" Samuel Pufendorf,(1710, 2nd Ed. English Translation) "The Law of Nature and Nations," page 123

"Hence the general principle of the LAW OF NATIONS is nothing more than the general law of sociability, which obliges all nations that have any intercourse with one another, to practise those duties to which individuals are naturally subject." Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, 1748 (English Translation) "The Principle of Natural Law" page 200

"All countries have a law of nations, not excepting the Iroquois themselves, tho' they devour their prisoners : for they send and receive ambassadors, and understand the rights of war and peace. The mischief is that this law of nations is not founded on true principles." Charles de Secondat Montesquieu (1751)(English translation) "Spirit of the Laws" page 7


By the LAW OF NATIONS we mean such rules, as nations or civil societies are obliged to observe in their intercourse with onb, another. There are several points relating both to civil-laws and to the law of nations, which want to be explaned. But our business in this chapter was only to give the reader a general notion of laws, to shew him the several sorts, into which laws may be divided ; and to bring him acquainted with the general matter of the law of nature. Such points, as relate to civil laws or to the law of nations, shall be explaned in their proper place. Thomas Rutherforth,(1754)“Institutes of Natural Law” Page 24
LCNLin

United States

#181090 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Senator Howard's opinions isn't the law of the land. Whatever he commented about in debates doesn't have the force of law.
The Marlins and Saltalamacchia have indeed agreed to terms on a three-year,$21 million contract according to Heyman. That didn't take long. The deal is pending a physical.

***

The Marlins are close to a deal with catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia, confirms Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com . Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports says the team offered a three-year contract worth roughly $22 million. An agreement is expected within 24 hours.

Saltalamacchia, 28, is from West Palm Beach, about an hour north of Miami, so joining the Marlins would be something of a homecoming. He is easily the best free agent catcher left on the board since Brian McCann (Yankees), Carlos Ruiz (Phillies) and A.J. Pierzynski (Red Sox) have already agreed to deals.

In 121 games this past season, Saltalamacchia hit .273/.338/.466 (118 OPS+) with 14 home runs. He swatted 25 homers in 2012, but otherwise 2013 was a career year offensively. Saltalamacchia is just adequate on defense and below-average at throwing out runners -- his career 23 percent throw out rate is well below the 27 percent league average.

The Marlins have some money to spend this winter and were looking for a veteran backstop to pair with backup Jeff Mathis. They still have holes on the pitching staff and at second and third bases. The team has a history of trading it's biggest free agent pickups after a year or two, so it'll be interesting to see if Saltalamacchia pushes for a no-trade clause.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181091 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Law of Nations has nothing to do with natural law. In fact, Vattel wasn't even the original authority of Law of Nations.
In fact prior to 1758 when Vattel first published his book "Law of Nations" there were other books discussing nations conduct with other nations that used the term "law of nations"
"He observes, that the Trecepts of both are the fame: But that for as much as States when they are once instituted, ajjume the Terfonal Troprieties of Men, hence it comes to pass, that what, speaking of the Duty of particular Men, we call the Law of Nature, the same we term the LAW OF NATIONS, when we apply it to whole States, Nations, or people" Samuel Pufendorf,(1710, 2nd Ed. English Translation) "The Law of Nature and Nations," page 123
"Hence the general principle of the LAW OF NATIONS is nothing more than the general law of sociability, which obliges all nations that have any intercourse with one another, to practise those duties to which individuals are naturally subject." Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, 1748 (English Translation) "The Principle of Natural Law" page 200
By the LAW OF NATIONS we mean such rules, as nations or civil societies are obliged to observe in their intercourse with onb, another. There are several points relating both to civil-laws and to the law of nations, which want to be explaned. But our business in this chapter was only to give the reader a general notion of laws, to shew him the several sorts, into which laws may be divided ; and to bring him acquainted with the general matter of the law of nature. Such points, as relate to civil laws or to the law of nations, shall be explaned in their proper place. Thomas Rutherforth,(1754)“Institutes of Natural Law” Page 24
Your argument is irrelevant, let's see what Trumbull had to say about "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".
Mr. WADE. And ought to be. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Ohio says they ought to be. If they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”Would the Senator from Wisconsin think for a moment of bringing a bill into Congress to subject these wild Indians with whom we have no treaty to the laws and regulations of civilized life? Would he think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them.(((((It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens)))). It seems to me, sir, that to introduce the words suggested by the Senator from Wisconsin would not make the proposition any clearer than it is, and that it by no means embraces, or by any fair construction -- by any construction, I may say -- could embrace the wild Indians of the plains or any with whom we have treaty relations, for the very fact that we have treaty relations with them shows that they are not subject to our jurisdiction. We cannot make a treaty with ourselves; it would be absurd. I think that the proposition is clear and safe as it is.

Of course when one is born in the US and subject to a foreign power, they do not receive ipso facto citizenship.

Oh, don't forget the Indian nations were considered as Nations, just like Germany, UK, China and France.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181092 Dec 3, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
November 9, 2013
'Period'
Bruce Johnson
There are so many instances where it would be appropriate to use the "period" verbal punctuation with this President. "Period", it is final. I have spoken, no need for further discussion. Case closed. Issue resolved ...
But, the alleged, the suggested promise that comes with the "period" comment is applicable in so many other instances. It would be wise to add "period" to all his misdirections, past and future, as a reminder of the expected level of veracity.
"Period" should be used each time this President is quoted or referred to, serving as a constant reminder of his wellspring of untruths.
...
"I will close GITMO in a year, period."
"I will spend every waking moment on jobs, period."
"I am for traditional marriage, period."
"It won't cost a dime, period."
Bruce Johnson
MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/t...
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Just some of the periods, the BIG 0 has used!
ALL sentences ending with -period-
Have a 'source'...
IF 'they' DARE to click
;~)
Easy to reply to :

GITMO : Have you thought of asking the Repub congress why THEY won't vote to close it?;

Every moment on jobs? Gee, I don't know. Unemployment was 10% in Dec 2009. It's now 7.2%;

Traditional marriage...Yes, he is, and also for gay marriage. What's the matter, confronted with new evidence, he can't change his mind? Churchill said it was okay;

It won't cost a dime? What won't cost a dime?

Period.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181093 Dec 3, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy to reply to :
GITMO : Have you thought of asking the Repub congress why THEY won't vote to close it?;
Every moment on jobs? Gee, I don't know. Unemployment was 10% in Dec 2009. It's now 7.2%;
Traditional marriage...Yes, he is, and also for gay marriage. What's the matter, confronted with new evidence, he can't change his mind? Churchill said it was okay;
It won't cost a dime? What won't cost a dime?
Period.
IF 'they' DARE to click ...

READ it!

I'm NOT going to 'spoon feed' it
to YOU!

PERIOD
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181094 Dec 3, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
November 9, 2013
'Period'
Bruce Johnson
There are so many instances where it would be appropriate to use the "period" verbal punctuation with this President. "Period", it is final. I have spoken, no need for further discussion. Case closed. Issue resolved ...
But, the alleged, the suggested promise that comes with the "period" comment is applicable in so many other instances. It would be wise to add "period" to all his misdirections, past and future, as a reminder of the expected level of veracity.
"Period" should be used each time this President is quoted or referred to, serving as a constant reminder of his wellspring of untruths.
...
"I will close GITMO in a year, period."
"I will spend every waking moment on jobs, period."
"I am for traditional marriage, period."
"It won't cost a dime, period."
Bruce Johnson
MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/t...
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Just some of the periods, the BIG 0 has used!
ALL sentences ending with -period-
Have a 'source'...
IF 'they' DARE to click
;~)
Obama's lies are so old and numerous, his nose has branches coming off it, with a few bird's nest. I can understand why the tree huggers love him.
I really don't pay any attention to him, he either lies or everything he touches, turns to shit. RUSH got his wish!!!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#181095 Dec 3, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thou shalt not bear false witness - do you happen to know that one, Loser? Well, it pertains to your little habit of lying, lying and lying. Of course you read it, but your ignorance keeps you from intelligently replying.
Sorry to disappointment you, Path. I read the first sentence only. Are you shocked? LMAO!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181096 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>These liberals, socialist, Marxist and communist haven't any place to hide, we have a written record.
Their Head-God-Monarch sitting in the White House has never been a citizen of the USA, unless you would call a divorce a naturalization process, even at that, he still retains the citizenship of his father's country of origin, it is on his BOGUS LFBC.
Agree :)
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181097 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's lies are so old and numerous, his nose has branches coming off it, with a few bird's nest. I can understand why the tree huggers love him.
I really don't pay any attention to him, he either lies or everything he touches, turns to shit. RUSH got his wish!!!
ha ha ha ha ha ...

;~)

Tho
I don't listen to Rush ...
He's too 'loud & dramatic' for me.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181098 Dec 3, 2013
Legal Foundations: The Framework of Law
by Gerald R. Thompson

CHAPTER 10
A Christian Nation?

INTRODUCTION
The question is often asked whether England or America either have been, or are now, a "Christian nation." To answer this, it must first be determined, "What is a Christian nation?" This inquiry necessarily involves consideration of a variety of legal factors, for the religious character of a nation is inextricably bound up in its institutions and laws. Accordingly, behind the religious question lurks a jurisprudential issue: "To what extent, and in what sense, should the laws of any nation reflect Christian values?"

These are the questions to be explored in this chapter, with particular attention paid to how they were resolved in the American experience.

http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f19.htm
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181099 Dec 3, 2013
OBAMA IS A FAILURE!!! What a joke, our first and last black POTUS has turned out to be just a liar, we won't make that mistake, again.
What hope and change have we seen? Our jobs are still offshore and he still wants to bring more people into the US!! Where are the jobs for them?
Hell, just put 60% of population on welfare, but where is the money coming from, not me.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181100 Dec 3, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
ha ha ha ha ha ...
;~)
Tho
I don't listen to Rush ...
He's too 'loud & dramatic' for me.
I don't listen much, me and Rush parted over the world trade agreements, but he did get his wish, Obama has failed at everything he has tried to accomplish.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181101 Dec 3, 2013
American Lady wrote:
Legal Foundations: The Framework of Law
by Gerald R. Thompson
CHAPTER 10
A Christian Nation?
INTRODUCTION
The question is often asked whether England or America either have been, or are now, a "Christian nation." To answer this, it must first be determined, "What is a Christian nation?" This inquiry necessarily involves consideration of a variety of legal factors, for the religious character of a nation is inextricably bound up in its institutions and laws. Accordingly, behind the religious question lurks a jurisprudential issue: "To what extent, and in what sense, should the laws of any nation reflect Christian values?"
These are the questions to be explored in this chapter, with particular attention paid to how they were resolved in the American experience.
http://www.lonang.com/foundation/1/f19.htm
Now, are there more people in the US that call themselves Christians than any other religion, the answer is, yes. So, I guess that would mean, we are a Christian Nation, majority rules.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181104 Dec 3, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to disappointment you, Path. I read the first sentence only. Are you shocked? LMAO!
Who were you correcting 2 days ago? Best you remember that glass house you're inhabiting.

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) 1 min Yeah 1,496,624
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 17 min SweLL GirL 10,333
IT'S Really really true, nancy pelosi............ 2 hr HasALargePenis 10
The Mexicans stay home 2 hr More-Truth NoLies 24
Review: Skydiving In Chicago 5 hr Bjohns 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Ashley 63,269
News Off-duty Cook County correctional officer shot ... 8 hr former democrat 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages