BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 192299 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

#182609 Dec 20, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMOA!! We citizens that know the limitations of the USSC can see that it has turned out nothing but Spam for the last 115+ years.
I can see you are a devoted fan of what the USSC has been shoving down you throat and up your rectum.
Keep up the good work, tool!! You will be buried with the rotting meat you gorge yourself with.
Poor Dufus. Adamant in his failure. Celebrating his ignorance. Alone in his closet
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182610 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
The Courts got it right more than 200 times. Play law failed and only pathetic fools continue to cling to it. But then clinging to failure is all you have
200 times? What are you talking about?
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182611 Dec 20, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, let's make it clear. Answer this :
Is homosexuality a choice, yes or no?
Perversion is a choice. Try and stay on topic.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182612 Dec 20, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>NASTY!!! Aliens while in the US are controlled by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is only a condition that a citizen enjoys.
Since the Constitution doesn't recognize a dual-citizenship, but if it did it would carry the same baggage as a naturalized citizen, it would not be eligible to be POTUS, just due to "foreign influence".
EVERYBODY in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the USA.

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.

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? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and the others thought that your father or grandfather should be a second-class citizen?

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?
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182613 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Dufus. Adamant in his failure. Celebrating his ignorance. Alone in his closet
Just keep showing us how badly you've been snowed. The entire country now knows Obobblehead is a liar, why do you love him so? Are you anti-America? Are you even an American? I mean you've either been completely snowed or you're too dense to know when you're being lied to. Or, you're just against America. Which is it, Twink?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#182614 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Dufus. Adamant in his failure. Celebrating his ignorance. Alone in his closet
LMAO!!! The fact is, you aren't intelligent enough to silence me!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182615 Dec 20, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep showing us how badly you've been snowed. The entire country now knows Obobblehead is a liar, why do you love him so? Are you anti-America? Are you even an American? I mean you've either been completely snowed or you're too dense to know when you're being lied to. Or, you're just against America. Which is it, Twink?
Not liking someone does not make them born in a foreign country. Not liking someone does not change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Even the fact that someone lies---as have many many presidents---is neither proof of birth in a foreign country nor changes the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#182616 Dec 20, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERYBODY in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the USA.
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.
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? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and the others thought that your father or grandfather should be a second-class citizen?
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?
LMAO!!!

ARTICLE III.

If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now wither permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.
__________

NASTY!!! See, aliens while in the US are controlled/protected by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182617 Dec 20, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!
ARTICLE III.
If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now wither permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.
__________
NASTY!!! See, aliens while in the US are controlled/protected by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".
I give that clownstomp a perfect "10"! Beautifully executed and you really stuck the landing! LMAO!
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182618 Dec 20, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>200 times? What are you talking about?
Your amazing record of complete and total failure
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182619 Dec 20, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Just keep showing us how badly you've been snowed. The entire country now knows Obobblehead is a liar, why do you love him so? Are you anti-America? Are you even an American? I mean you've either been completely snowed or you're too dense to know when you're being lied to. Or, you're just against America. Which is it, Twink?
Parading yet more of your ignorance? Poor Romper - always wrong. Stuck on stupid
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182620 Dec 20, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The fact is, you aren't intelligent enough to silence me!
Why would I want to silence you? I enjoy laughing at you
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182621 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Your amazing record of complete and total failure
Well, that certainly clears things up! Whatever flips your lil skirt.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#182622 Dec 20, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Perversion is a choice. Try and stay on topic.
Well, what about this exchange?

Me : Are you telling us that homosexuality is a choice?

The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:

Are you saying it isn't?

I asked a question about homosexuality, to wit, if it is a choice.

You replied "Are you saying it isn't? "

And my answer is, "no, homosexuality is NOT a choice".

Clear enough? Will you once more deny what you wrote black on white? I answered "NO".

What is your answer? Is homosexuality (a perversion to you) a choice? YES OR NO ? I answered "NO".

Last time I ask. Another evasive answer will confirm that you believe homosexuality is a choice.
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182623 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Parading yet more of your ignorance? Poor Romper - always wrong. Stuck on stupid
Since you were unable to answer a simple question, I have no choice but to go with the "too dense" option. Still pouting, I see. Awww..... HAQ
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182624 Dec 20, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what about this exchange?
Me : Are you telling us that homosexuality is a choice?
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
Are you saying it isn't?
I asked a question about homosexuality, to wit, if it is a choice.
You replied "Are you saying it isn't? "
And my answer is, "no, homosexuality is NOT a choice".
Clear enough? Will you once more deny what you wrote black on white? I answered "NO".
What is your answer? Is homosexuality (a perversion to you) a choice? YES OR NO ? I answered "NO".
Last time I ask. Another evasive answer will confirm that you believe homosexuality is a choice.
I simply asked a question. You finally answered it. Bravo! Thanks. Say, ever seen a gay baby? Hmmmm.........
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182625 Dec 20, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Since you were unable to answer a simple question, I have no choice but to go with the "too dense" option. Still pouting, I see. Awww..... HAQ
I told you that you were completely wrong. Did that confuse the lil boi?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182626 Dec 20, 2013
Romper. "Hey LTR! Why are you a Notre Dame fan?"

LTR: "I'm not"

Romper. "Of course you are! Why won't you explain yourself!?!?"

LTR: "Any response that I provide will be in English, so I can't expect you to comprehend"
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182627 Dec 20, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you that you were completely wrong. Did that confuse the lil boi?
But skippy, you carry no more weight than your words. Your opinion matters not. Are you going to pout all day? LMAO! You should consider packing it in!(already done I'm sure) LMAO!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#182628 Dec 20, 2013
Dale wrote:

<quoted text>LMAO!!!
ARTICLE III.
If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now wither permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.
__________
NASTY!!! See, aliens while in the US are controlled/protected by treaties, they have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)".
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I give that clownstomp a perfect "10"! Beautifully executed and you really stuck the landing! LMAO!
Says one ignorant birfoon buffoon schoolyard bully birther to the other.

Treaty? Yes, the United States had a treaty with China in the 1860s. Treaty established relations between the two countries and spoke of usual reciprocal good treatment between Chinese and American citizens on each other's territory as ALL treaties do but too often not respected. The Chinese labourers in the U.S.(aka slaves) were treated like dirt, assurances of rights notwithstanding and you know it. ALL treaties talk "good treatment" . So what? Chinese "coolies" as they were respectfully called, had "legal rights" but, de facto, in practice, had none, in spite of pious assurances by the U.S. and reference to a treaty which was just that, a treaty between the gov't of the U.S. and the Chinese gov't that didn't give a hoot what happened to their nationals in the U.S. as long as the remittances kept coming. But what you two ignoramuses just don't understand is that this treaty, or any other, does NOT give one milligram, not one iota of authority to China over the Chinese labourers in the U.S. NOTHING, do you understand? Everyone, any nationality, in any function , be it worker, dependent, tourist, landed immigrant, I repeat , Everyone, is subject to the laws of the United States while he or she is present on its territory. No foreign gov't, notwithstanding treaties, has any jurisdiction over its nationals whilst visiting or residing in another country, in this case the U.S.

The only clownstomping you two losers are doing is clownstomping your own excrements resulting from your numerous Kerplunkings. Eww

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) 4 min Incognito4Ever 1,251,775
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr OzRitz 53,989
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Sublime1 99,902
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 12 hr RACE 6,144
Word (Dec '08) 12 hr RACE 5,325
Dear Abby July 3, 2015 12 hr RACE 5
Amy July 3, 2015 13 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages