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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...
Comments
161,381 - 161,400 of 177,223 Comments Last updated 55 min ago
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182510
Dec 19, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Romper have the right to make an ass of himself? Of course the baker has the right - which is why the lawsuit will fail. Most of the world? Been taking a survey?(It would fit well with your obsession)
Do you disagree that most of the world is anti-gay?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182511
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Do you disagree that most of the world is anti-gay?
Never bothered to concern myself with it. What does "anti-gay" mean? The majority of the people aren't gay. I suspect that the majority also don't really care whether someone else is gay or not. Certainly not enough to refuse to do business with them or actively seek to deny their rights
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182512
Dec 19, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep failing Dufus. It is what you are
LMAO!!! Hell, I wish you would makeup your mind!! A few posts ago, I was a bigot!
Just don't call me "Obama", that would be very insulting.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182513
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>100% more than you. LMAO! You bring zilch to the table, Twink.
More of that substance that you hold so dear.

A joke for the holidays:

A puss boi walks into a bar, realizes where he is, runs home in a panic and hides in his closet for two weeks.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182514
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have no input, do you Twink?
New poll, most Americans do not trust Obobblehead! Yep, been saying that for five years.
Oh boy, will that hurt him in 2016 when he runs for a third term. Oh wait, he can't.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182515
Dec 19, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Hell, I wish you would makeup your mind!! A few posts ago, I was a bigot!
Just don't call me "Obama", that would be very insulting.
You've always been a Bigot. And a failure. The Birfoon version of multi-tasking

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182516
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the baker have the right to run his business as he sees fit? Sorry but most of the world is anti-gay. It is a perversion. The public's view will not change.
The only perversion around here is you.

Are you telling us that homosexuality is a choice?
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182517
Dec 19, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you'll trot it out over and over
LMAO!!! "trot it out", must be some of that Yankee slang!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182518
Dec 19, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Jock stain without an opinion, I bet hell has frozen over!
I don't, contrary to you and your ilk, give an opinion on anything I know nothing about. Hell WILL freeze over the day you give an opinion on something YOU know about.
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182519
Dec 19, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Never bothered to concern myself with it. What does "anti-gay" mean? The majority of the people aren't gay. I suspect that the majority also don't really care whether someone else is gay or not. Certainly not enough to refuse to do business with them or actively seek to deny their rights
People are strange, you know. I think it does make a difference to people whether someone is gay or not. Should I be punished for thinking such a thing? Not hardly. Fair and equal treatment??? LMAO! But only as long as it benefits them. What a joke.
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182520
Dec 19, 2013
 
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
More of that substance that you hold so dear.
A joke for the holidays:
A puss boi walks into a bar, realizes where he is, runs home in a panic and hides in his closet for two weeks.
I've got a tale for you and it's true! LMAO! TWINK! Would you like me to rehash it? Not ONCE but TWICE you "cowered down"! Seems you didn't know where an open field could be located in your entire state. However, you did know exactly where the gay bars were! Enough said. You're a sad excuse for a human being. Exactly like Obobblehead!!! LMAO!
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182521
Dec 19, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't, contrary to you and your ilk, give an opinion on anything I know nothing about. Hell WILL freeze over the day you give an opinion on something YOU know about.
LMAO!!! Do it everyday and I don't miss your posts.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182522
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, a Natural Born Citizen is one that is born in the US and not subject to any foreign nation, this would leave Obama out, since he was born a citizen of his father's country.
“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)”

Notice EVERY PERSON, no exception for dual citizens.

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born¦. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. NO exceptions for dual citizens.

And these are the two leading writers of the 14th amendment.

And here is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which was a six-to-two ruling (one justice did not vote):

"

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. Every child born in England or in the early colonies or in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is a Natural Born Citizen.

And here are some recent rulings:

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

In addition, there are articles like this:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...

and this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
and this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182523
Dec 19, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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)”
Notice EVERY PERSON, no exception for dual citizens.
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born¦. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. NO exceptions for dual citizens.
And these are the two leading writers of the 14th amendment.
And here is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which was a six-to-two ruling (one justice did not vote):
"
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. Every child born in England or in the early colonies or in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is a Natural Born Citizen.
And here are some recent rulings:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
In addition, there are articles like this:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
and this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
and this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
You truly are ignorant, Nasty!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182524
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone should show you how to comprehend Natural Born Citizen.....Research what that means...
READ IT...Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that "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."
Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.[2][3]
The first several presidents prior to Martin Van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.[4]
Yes a president must be a Natural Born Citizen. She or he cannot be a NATURALIZED citizen. When the Constitution says Natural Born Citizen that excludes two groups, all those who are not citizens (billions of people in the world, when you think of it) and all the citizens of the USA who were naturalized (varying numbers but often in the millions). That is all. There is no reference to the US-born children of foreign parents being excluded, and on reference to dual citizens being excluded.

So, under strict construction (Remember that?) rules which say "if the Constitution does not say it, you cannot "read into" the Constitution something it does not say, neither the US-born children of foreigners nor even US-born dual citizens are excluded from being president. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens from being president THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they didn't. So, under strict construction, the US born children of foreigners and US-born dual citizens are eligible to be president.

And the same under libertarian moral principles. Under libertarian principles it is not allowed to take away ANYONE'S rights or privileges without the Constitution specifically limiting those rights or privileges. But the US Constitution does not limit the rights or privileges of the US-born children of foreigners and it does no limit the rights or privileges of US-born dual citizens. So, under libertarian principles, they have exactly the same rights and privileges as the US-born children of US citizens.

And, finally, we should assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that the writers of the US Constitution followed the strong principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." There is evidence, good evidence, that the writers of the Constitution did not consider slaves and Indians to be equal to others.

But there is NO evidence at all that they considered the US-born children of foreigners, such as the ancestors of many of us, to be inferior to the US-born children of US-citizens. IF they had thought so, they would have told us. but there is nothing in the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and certainly not in the writings of any of the men who confirmed the 14th Amendment (quite to the contrary, as the Bingham and Trumbull quotations show) that any of them considered that the US-born children of foreigners were unequal or should be distrusted.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182525
Dec 19, 2013
 
The above should read: "NO reference to dual citizens being excluded. "
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182526
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are ignorant, Nasty!
It is you who are being nasty to the millions upon millions of US-born children of foreigners now and over the centuries. They have shown in two world wars that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens. If the writers of the US Constitution had believed that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens were not as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---but they didn't.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182527
Dec 19, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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)”
Notice EVERY PERSON, no exception for dual citizens.
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born¦. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. NO exceptions for dual citizens.
And these are the two leading writers of the 14th amendment.
And here is what the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which was a six-to-two ruling (one justice did not vote):
"
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Notice that there are no exceptions for dual citizens. Every child born in England or in the early colonies or in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is a Natural Born Citizen.
And here are some recent rulings:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
In addition, there are articles like this:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
and this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
and this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
LMAO!!! And who doesn't know there is a stipulation, "not subject to any foreign nation".
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182528
Dec 19, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is you who are being nasty to the millions upon millions of US-born children of foreigners now and over the centuries. They have shown in two world wars that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens. If the writers of the US Constitution had believed that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens were not as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---but they didn't.
NASTY!!! If there was a thing as dual-citizen he would be on the same footing as a naturalized citizen, remember "Foreign Influence".
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182529
Dec 19, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a president must be a Natural Born Citizen. She or he cannot be a NATURALIZED citizen. When the Constitution says Natural Born Citizen that excludes two groups, all those who are not citizens (billions of people in the world, when you think of it) and all the citizens of the USA who were naturalized (varying numbers but often in the millions). That is all. There is no reference to the US-born children of foreign parents being excluded, and on reference to dual citizens being excluded.
So, under strict construction (Remember that?) rules which say "if the Constitution does not say it, you cannot "read into" the Constitution something it does not say, neither the US-born children of foreigners nor even US-born dual citizens are excluded from being president. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens from being president THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they didn't. So, under strict construction, the US born children of foreigners and US-born dual citizens are eligible to be president.
And the same under libertarian moral principles. Under libertarian principles it is not allowed to take away ANYONE'S rights or privileges without the Constitution specifically limiting those rights or privileges. But the US Constitution does not limit the rights or privileges of the US-born children of foreigners and it does no limit the rights or privileges of US-born dual citizens. So, under libertarian principles, they have exactly the same rights and privileges as the US-born children of US citizens.
And, finally, we should assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that the writers of the US Constitution followed the strong principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." There is evidence, good evidence, that the writers of the Constitution did not consider slaves and Indians to be equal to others.
But there is NO evidence at all that they considered the US-born children of foreigners, such as the ancestors of many of us, to be inferior to the US-born children of US-citizens. IF they had thought so, they would have told us. but there is nothing in the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and certainly not in the writings of any of the men who confirmed the 14th Amendment (quite to the contrary, as the Bingham and Trumbull quotations show) that any of them considered that the US-born children of foreigners were unequal or should be distrusted.
NASTY!!! You by your comments about a dual-citizen has taken the presidency away from Obama, a dual-citizen has just as much "Foreign Influence" if not more than a naturalized citizen, a dual-citizen doesn't have to relinquish his foreign citizenship or allegiance..
Keep up the good work, Obama may be out of office, soon!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••