BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 237660 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

United States

#182380 Dec 17, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they NEVER said so, so why assume that they were afraid?
Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
Nasty!!! Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of his father's country and as you know the 14th amendment does not recognize a dual-citizenship, if it did, it would have stated such. It is only those that are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US Constitution that we make citizens.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#182382 Dec 17, 2013
Hold the soy sauce. Research using specially bred rats that can drink 40 gallons of soy milk per day shows a barely perceptible increase in infertility among male rats. The World Nut foundation hopes to see if there might be a link between soy milk and male homosexuality.(Apparently the prevalence of homosexuality in males is caused by soy milk, but not in women. What af'king joke.)

Meanwhile, WND reports scare mongering about soy while ignoring :

"Chemicals Found In Water At Fracking Sites Linked To Infertility, Cancer"

"An analysis of water samples from hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ sites found the presence of hormone-disrupting chemicals, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Endocrinology. "

http://tinyurl.com/m5rjpms

But hey, what do ENDOCRINOLOGISTS know about endocrinology?

Ignorant birfoons know that editors of all peer reviewed scientific journals are clandestinely working for pinko liberals bent on destroying America and all she stands for.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#182383 Dec 17, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Nasty!!! Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of his father's country and as you know the 14th amendment does not recognize a dual-citizenship, if it did, it would have stated such. It is only those that are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US Constitution that we make citizens.
That is not what BOTH Bingham and Trumbull said. Both of them said that every child born on US soil was a Natural Born US Citizen. BOTH of them.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale. Why???

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#182384 Dec 17, 2013
wojar wrote:
Hold the soy sauce. Research using specially bred rats that can drink 40 gallons of soy milk per day shows a barely perceptible increase in infertility among male rats. The World Nut foundation hopes to see if there might be a link between soy milk and male homosexuality.(Apparently the prevalence of homosexuality in males is caused by soy milk, but not in women. What af'king joke.)
Meanwhile, WND reports scare mongering about soy while ignoring :
"Chemicals Found In Water At Fracking Sites Linked To Infertility, Cancer"
"An analysis of water samples from hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ sites found the presence of hormone-disrupting chemicals, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Endocrinology. "
http://tinyurl.com/m5rjpms
But hey, what do ENDOCRINOLOGISTS know about endocrinology?
Ignorant birfoons know that editors of all peer reviewed scientific journals are clandestinely working for pinko liberals bent on destroying America and all she stands for.
None of that soy crap for me. Gimme plenty of fracked water and don't spare the SMG.

wnd.com : the encyclopedia Britannica of birthers.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#182385 Dec 17, 2013
oops, MSG
Dale

United States

#182386 Dec 17, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what BOTH Bingham and Trumbull said. Both of them said that every child born on US soil was a Natural Born US Citizen. BOTH of them.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale. Why???
NASTY!!! Yes they did say that, but there is one catch, they have to be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and as we all know one must be completely subject to the jurisdiction to obtain a US citizenship, at birth.
With Obama being born a citizen of his father's country, this would mean he isn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born subject to a foreign nation.
Dale

United States

#182387 Dec 17, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what BOTH Bingham and Trumbull said. Both of them said that every child born on US soil was a Natural Born US Citizen. BOTH of them.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale. Why???
NASTY!!! With a naturalized citizen and a dual-citizen, one can never be sure of their true allegiance!!!
Now you know why a naturalized citizen can't be president, it would work the same for a dual-citizen, if the Constitution recognized them.
Obskeptic

Farmington, MI

#182388 Dec 17, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, I've never used the term "teabagging". Look it up. I always write "tea partyers".
Second off, this is your reply to my remarking that you came back with a totally irrelevant "homosexual" because someone disagreed with you? Bravo.
I'm not sure that I was referring to you, but Angel always refers to Tea Party Americans by that disgusting, homosexual reference Jacques, along with an array of other low class insults to anyone that disagrees with him/her. Liberals are always on the attack Jacques, and I just can't seem to turn the other cheek. You on the other hand do conduct yourself with a bit more class then most, but you also respond with insults when insulted, which personally I don't have a problem with.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#182389 Dec 17, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>That and $2.00 gets you a ride on the bus.
My kind dont ride buses, Oblama supporters do.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#182390 Dec 17, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just wear a sign board declaring your ignorance?
why don't you watch the video and then eat turds and die?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182392 Dec 17, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
More whining about substance and relevance from the whiny puss boi obsessing over homosexuality. Poor Romper - just another day in the pathetic "life" of a clueless insecure moron. Blather on fool. Blather on
Aw, did I strike a nerve? My my, twink, look at the name-calling! How very twinkish of you! LMAO! The most important question for you to consider is, was I able to stain someone's day? Well, did ya punk? LMAO!
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182393 Dec 17, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>why don't you watch the video and then eat turds and die?
Poor clueless moron. You openly celebrate your ignorance. Don't whine when I laugh at you for it.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182394 Dec 17, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh, Justice, Justice. Remember how you decided to play that little game? Yes, the correction game? Well, here's another gem of yours :
You wrote,(above) "The one line wonder". Sorry, another error.
Listen to the teacher now, clunkhead.
It's okay to write : "he had one line" ;
It's NOT ok to write : "the one line wonder" ;
You must write : "The one-line wonder " HYPHEN, basket head, HYPHEN
Are you sure you want to continue your little game?
Well duh!!! My hyphen key is missing. What a DAB!!! LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182395 Dec 17, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor clueless moron. You openly celebrate your ignorance. Don't whine when I laugh at you for it.
Was that place called GayLord's or GrayLord's? LMAO! And, never attempt to tell someone else what to do when you can't back it up. You're just too twinkish. LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182396 Dec 17, 2013
It should read "Liar of the Year"!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-keep-your-...
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182397 Dec 17, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Was that place called GayLord's or GrayLord's? LMAO! And, never attempt to tell someone else what to do when you can't back it up. You're just too twinkish. LMAO!
More relevance and substance from the lil boi who always backs up. All the way home.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182398 Dec 17, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
More relevance and substance from the lil boi who always backs up. All the way home.
LMAO! Keep telling yourself that, you might actually believe it someday. Not once but twice you cowered......LMAO!
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182399 Dec 17, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO! Keep telling yourself that, you might actually believe it someday. Not once but twice you cowered......LMAO!
Sure thing Romper. Cling to your fable It's all you've got. Well that and your homosexual obsessions
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182400 Dec 17, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure thing Romper. Cling to your fable It's all you've got. Well that and your homosexual obsessions
Ah, but anyone who wishes to read about it will see what really took place, won't they? LMAO!!! What they'll find is that you lie a lot.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182401 Dec 17, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, but anyone who wishes to read about it will see what really took place, won't they? LMAO!!! What they'll find is that you lie a lot.
Cling cling cling

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
last post wins! (Dec '10) 4 min They cannot kill ... 3,020
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 22 min Ize Found 71,393
News Chicago homicides soar, with seven fatalities W... 37 min USS LIBERTY 7
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 43 min Pence is PUTZ 2,484
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 43 min DJay 1,497,826
President 666 Has Arrived 50 min putz pence 5
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 63,386

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages