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

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182522 Dec 19, 2013
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

#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

#182524 Dec 19, 2013
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

#182525 Dec 19, 2013
The above should read: "NO reference to dual citizens being excluded. "
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#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

#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

#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

#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!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182530 Dec 19, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>NASTY!!! If there was a thing as dual-citizen he would be on the same footing as a naturalized citizen, remember "Foreign Influence".
IF they had said that a US-born child of foreigners or a dual citizen was "a foreign influence," that would be the law----but they never did.

And the US-born children of foreigners and US-born dual citizens have shown in two world wars that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens.

IF the members of the Constitutional Convention had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens, they would have said so, and they didn't. IF Bingham and Trumbull and the writers of the 14th Amendment had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming citizens, they would have said so---and they didn't.

The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182531 Dec 19, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh boy, will that hurt him in 2016 when he runs for a third term. Oh wait, he can't.
Hey genius, did anyone mention "third term"? Nope. Hearing voices again or just hallucinating? Even the most dense are now seeing Obobblehead for what he really is.....a loser!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182532 Dec 19, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! And who doesn't know there is a stipulation, "not subject to any foreign nation".
Actually, the words "not subject to any foreign nation" do not appear in the US Constitution.
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182533 Dec 19, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The only perversion around here is you.
Are you telling us that homosexuality is a choice?
Are you saying it isn't?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182534 Dec 19, 2013
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]
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 no reference to dual citizens being excluded.

So, under strict construction rules that 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 to exclude 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 not 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 passed 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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#182535 Dec 19, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
IF they had said that a US-born child of foreigners or a dual citizen was "a foreign influence," that would be the law----but they never did.
And the US-born children of foreigners and US-born dual citizens have shown in two world wars that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens.
IF the members of the Constitutional Convention had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners or US-born dual citizens, they would have said so, and they didn't. IF Bingham and Trumbull and the writers of the 14th Amendment had meant to exclude the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming citizens, they would have said so---and they didn't.
The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
NASATY!!! It is the Law, if one is subject to a foreign power, they can't be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)", this is only a condition that is acquired with citizenship.in the US.
Sorry English common law was not used by the framers to pen the 14th amendment. "Citizenship Clause".
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#182536 Dec 19, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Cling cling cling. Just another day in Romper's land of fables
Dale

Wichita, KS

#182537 Dec 19, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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 no reference to dual citizens being excluded.
So, under strict construction rules that 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 to exclude 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 not 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 passed 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!!! All men are created equal, but the circumstances of birth sure plays hell with that equality thingy! Utopia does not exist, it is just a foolish dream.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#182538 Dec 19, 2013
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying it isn't?
Okay. Straight question. Can you, for once, supply a straight answer?

Is homosexuality a choice? Does one choose to become homosexual?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#182539 Dec 19, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the words "not subject to any foreign nation" do not appear in the US Constitution.
NASTY!!! You are right, "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" means the same thing, after all the 14th amendment is the "Civil Rights Act of 1866", just placed where it will take an amendment to change its meaning.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#182540 Dec 19, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>NASATY!!! It is the Law, if one is subject to a foreign power, they can't be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)", this is only a condition that is acquired with citizenship.in the US.
Sorry English common law was not used by the framers to pen the 14th amendment. "Citizenship Clause".
So you say, but that is not what Bingham and Trumbull say. Neither they nor the US Supreme Court has ever said that dual citizen of the USAs were lower-level citizens than people who are only citizens of the USA, and considering that hundreds of thousands if not millions of US-born dual citizens fought in two world wars and were perfectly loyal, why should they?

Neither under strict construction nor libertarian principles can the rights and privileges of US-born dual citizens to become president like everyone else be taken away BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THAT THEY ARE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANYONE ELSE.

And, by the way, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was perfectly loyal, was a dual citizen of the USA and GERMANY (yes, Germany, the country he fought against) when he was born because of old German laws that made the grandchildren of its citizens citizens of Germany at birth. In fact, it is a CONSERVATIVE legal principle that foreign laws have no standing in the USA. Yet you think that because Germany or Britain or some other country considers that a US-born child is also a citizen of that country; (1) that that law should affect our law; (2) that the foreign law will or MAY make the child disloyal---despite hundreds of thousands if not millions of dual citizens having proven in wars that they are perfectly loyal; and (3) that the members of the US Congress who wrote the 14th Amendment thought that dual citizens should be treated differently than other US-born children DESPITE THEM NEVER SAYING ANY SUCH THING.

And, not only are you simply wrong, but you are trying to undermine the principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The US born children of foreigners, even if they are dual citizens, are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens. IF the members of the Constitutional Convention or the writers of the 14th Amendment had thought that they were not equal, they would have told us---but they didn't.
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#182541 Dec 19, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Cling cling cling. Just another day in Romper's land of fables
Cling??? You wish it were a fable, but, unfortunately for you, it isn't. Truth hurt? Can't deal with it? Oh well, here's a quarter. Hey, give me a call if you happen to spot one of those extremely rare OPEN FIELDS! LMAO!!! Just like Obobblehead, nothing but BS. Pathetic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min Eman 1,115,027
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 17 min Frijoles 69,485
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 57 min OzRitz 46,991
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr PEllen 98,344
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr On Again Off Again 50,020
A short math question. I will reply with answer... 3 hr Whats the Bulb An... 8
Rattlesnake Logic 3 hr HomeGrownTerrorism 3

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]