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
161,401 - 161,420 of 176,901 Comments Last updated 5 min ago
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182536
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182539
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182542
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying it isn't?
Oh, only fair to answer your question if I want you to answer mine. DEFINITELY not a choice. One's sexual preference is NOT something one decides..
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182543
Dec 19, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Read the words again: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal."

Sure, some are richer than others and some are smarter than others, but the principle that they are CREATED equal is that they should be treated the same under the law. There is evidence that the writers of the US Constitution did not believe in those words strictly where slaves and Indians were concerned (though they were wrong and they should have), but there is NO evidence at all that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners were less equal than the US-born children of US citizens.

Neither under strict construction nor under libertarian principles nor under "all men created equal" is there a shred of justification for treating the millions upon millions of US-born children of foreigners (with dual citizenship or without) any differently than the US-born children of US-citizens. And it is a damn good thing that we did not allow Eisenhower's dual citizenship at birth to affect his appointment as Supreme Commander and his election as president.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182544
Dec 19, 2013
 
The Honorable Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Poor Romper. Keep blathering. We all know you're afraid
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182545
Dec 19, 2013
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
NASTY!!! By operation of the Citizenship Clause there isn't any dual-citizens, "it is only those that come completely under our jurisdiction that we think of making citizens'.(Trumbull, 2893)
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182546
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the words again: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal."
Sure, some are richer than others and some are smarter than others, but the principle that they are CREATED equal is that they should be treated the same under the law. There is evidence that the writers of the US Constitution did not believe in those words strictly where slaves and Indians were concerned (though they were wrong and they should have), but there is NO evidence at all that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners were less equal than the US-born children of US citizens.
Neither under strict construction nor under libertarian principles nor under "all men created equal" is there a shred of justification for treating the millions upon millions of US-born children of foreigners (with dual citizenship or without) any differently than the US-born children of US-citizens. And it is a damn good thing that we did not allow Eisenhower's dual citizenship at birth to affect his appointment as Supreme Commander and his election as president.
NASTY!!! It looks like the 14th amendment took care of your post.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182547
Dec 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the words again: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal."
Sure, some are richer than others and some are smarter than others, but the principle that they are CREATED equal is that they should be treated the same under the law. There is evidence that the writers of the US Constitution did not believe in those words strictly where slaves and Indians were concerned (though they were wrong and they should have), but there is NO evidence at all that they considered that the US-born children of foreigners were less equal than the US-born children of US citizens.
Neither under strict construction nor under libertarian principles nor under "all men created equal" is there a shred of justification for treating the millions upon millions of US-born children of foreigners (with dual citizenship or without) any differently than the US-born children of US-citizens. And it is a damn good thing that we did not allow Eisenhower's dual citizenship at birth to affect his appointment as Supreme Commander and his election as president.
NASTY!!! One thing different between IKE and Obama, IKE's father was a US Citizen, not the case with Obama, he automatically received the condition of his father (natural law).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182548
Dec 19, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>NASTY!!! By operation of the Citizenship Clause there isn't any dual-citizens, "it is only those that come completely under our jurisdiction that we think of making citizens'.(Trumbull, 2893)
No dual citizens, eh? There are hundreds of thousands of dual citizens. Deport them ALL !!

Check THIS one out :(they say two, but is it three?)

News

World news

US politics

Ted Cruz quits Canada in desperate bid to prove he's all-American

Texas senator Cruz, a staunch opponent of immigration reform, turns out to be a Canadian citizen. Embarrassing for him!

Tom McCarthy

theguardian.com , Tuesday 20 August 2013 18.48 BST

US senator Ted Cruz
Cruz said:'Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a US senator, I believe I should be only an American.'

Senator Ted Cruz has in his possession a list of two countries that he personally is a citizen of. Hang on, he's … he's taking out the list and he's … it appears he's striking one of the entries.

Make that one. Ted Cruz has in his hand a list of one country he is a citizen of. It's America. Not North America – America America.

In an irony-saturated political episode that unfolded late Monday, Cruz, a staunch opponent of immigration reform known for talking a bunch of ooga-booga about "foreign nationals," turns out, apparently, to be a dual citizen of the USA and Canada.

Dual citizen – great thing. Unless you happen to be a nationalist demagogue senator from Texas presenting yourself as a maybe-presidential nominee from the Republican party, in which case – embarrassing.

Wrapping yourself in the American flag isn't as convincing when you're wearing Maple Leaf underwear.

Cruz was born in Canada to a mother from the USA and a Cuban father. News of his possible dual citizenship – again, a more innocuous thing than which it is difficult to think of, especially when the other country is Canada – spurred the candidate to declare late Monday that he would take the ultimate step and renounce his mountie patrimony.

For good measure Cruz provided his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, the newspaper that reported his bi-nationality. It quoted an expert on Canadian law, who said Cruz's birth in Canada means "he's a Canadian."

"Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship," Cruz said in a statement late Monday. "Assuming that is true, then, sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a US senator, I believe I should be only an American."

As he is a potential contender for the presidency, the question of Cruz's nationality had already arisen. The US constitution says presidents must be "natural-born." Apparently there's some legal argument that being born in Canada to a USA mother doesn't make you natural-born.

That argument is extremely thin. Questioning the citizenship status of presidential candidates without heed of fact or sense is an honored tradition in American politics. This latest edition is more of the same.

Here's hoping US voters give Cruz a pass on his Canadian citizenship. As long he gets it cleaned up right quick.
==========
==========

Hmm, has he cleaned it up yet? Does he know he is not allowed to be president, whether he cleans it up or not? Does he even know he's not a real American and is subject to foreign influence (in his case, Canada and possibly Cuba) as according to Justice ha ha Dale, no American is allowed to hold dual citizenship?
The Honorable Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182549
Dec 19, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay. Straight question. Can you, for once, supply a straight answer?
Is homosexuality a choice? Does one choose to become homosexual?
I'd love to give you my opinion but it appears "freedom of speech" is no longer a right I am free to exercise.

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.

•••

Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at August 22 at 8:29PM CDT

•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••