BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 237593 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.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184270 Jan 18, 2014
"What Washington needs is adult supervision"

Barack Obama, fundraising lettter, 2006
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184271 Jan 18, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
"Southwest Airlines pilots who recently landed at the wrong airport in Missouri told investigators they were confused by the small airport's runway lights, believing it to be a larger airport in nearby Branson, said the National Transportation Safety Board on Friday.
They didn't realize until the plane touched down that they were at the wrong airport, the NTSB said."
Associated Press
I guess we must color code the runway lights.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184272 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Your inability to understand that a Natural Born Citizen does not have any foreign influence, this is why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS.
As Madison stated, place (of birth) is the most certain criterion of allegiance: "it is what applies in the United States." That is why a person born in Hawaii of an alien father is not under any "foreign influence" under US law. That is why Ted Cruz has a problem.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184273 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, a natural born citizen does not have any foreign influence, Obama was never a NBC.
Being born here, where place of birth applies (c.f. James Madison) Obama has no foreign influence issues but Dufus Dale has grandiose play law fantasy issues.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184274 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, we didn't have a national law on citizenship until 1866 and that law excluded citizenship to persons born in the US that were subject to any foreign power.
And now Dufus Dale decides to correct the father of the Constitution, James Madison.
wojar wrote:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
Yup, born here means no foreign allegiance, "it is what applies in the United States."
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184276 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>A NBC has no foreign influence and since a child born here of aliens would automatically receive its parents citizenship at birth, he would have foreign influence. A dual-citizen, that is self explanatory, even you can understand that.
Sorry Dufus. According to US law a child of aliens if born here is a natural born citizen. It is false to assume the child of alien citizens inherits foreign citizenship. In the US for most of the first half of the 19th century a child born abroad of US parents was born an alien. It is also irrelevant if a child born here is considered a citizen per FOREIGN LAW WHICH HAS NO FORCE OR EFFECT WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
As such FOREIGN LAW WHICH HAS NO EFFECT cannot have the effect of imparting "foreign influence".
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184277 Jan 18, 2014
Dufus Dale believes that FOREIGN law has the power to impart foreign influence when in fact foreign law has NO FORCE OR EFFECT in the UNITED STATES, which btw is a SOVEREIGN nation.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184278 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, we didn't have a national law on citizenship until 1866 and that law excluded citizenship to persons born in the US that were subject to any foreign power.
On the contrary, we did not have an explicit national law, but a national law was understood according to the Constitution which referred to natural born citizen which was understood under common law. See Lynch v. Clarke wherein the character of the then unwritten national law was fully elucidated.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184279 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, we didn't have a national law on citizenship until 1866 and that law excluded citizenship to persons born in the US that were subject to any foreign power.
Child born here of aliens is not subject to any foreign power and can give the finger to the country of his parents with impunity and under the protection of the United States, the US being the countrycountry of his birth where he was born a natural born citizen.
sallylou

Pittsburgh, PA

#184280 Jan 18, 2014
youtube.com/watch... …
Bad Day Again? for Kenyan
Learn to Read

Franklin, IN

#184281 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, a natural born citizen does not have any foreign influence, Obama was never a NBC.
Sorry, play law has no influence. Foreign or domestic. Dufus fables were never real law
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184282 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>As Madison stated, place (of birth) is the most certain criterion of allegiance: "it is what applies in the United States." That is why a person born in Hawaii of an alien father is not under any "foreign influence" under US law. That is why Ted Cruz has a problem.
Sorry, but under US law we can't strip a citizenship from anyone, unless requested by that individual, which leads us in another direction (dual-citizenship), which brings us back to the same old thing.

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184283 Jan 18, 2014
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, play law has no influence. Foreign or domestic. Dufus fables were never real law
LMAO!!! As usual your comment is irrelevant.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#184284 Jan 18, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)
"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)
As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)
"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. " >>>>> becomes <<<<< When someone becomes a citizen of the United States they are naturalized citizens,not Natural Born Citizens.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#184285 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! As usual your comment is irrelevant.
Much like Dufus Fail and his play law are always irrelevant
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184286 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Child born here of aliens is not subject to any foreign power and can give the finger to the country of his parents with impunity and under the protection of the United States, the US being the countrycountry of his birth where he was born a natural born citizen.
Noted and answered with my last post.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184287 Jan 18, 2014
Frank wrote:
<quoted text> "A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. " >>>>> becomes <<<<< When someone becomes a citizen of the United States they are naturalized citizens,not Natural Born Citizens.
Wrong!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184288 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Dufus. According to US law a child of aliens if born here is a natural born citizen. It is false to assume the child of alien citizens inherits foreign citizenship. In the US for most of the first half of the 19th century a child born abroad of US parents was born an alien. It is also irrelevant if a child born here is considered a citizen per FOREIGN LAW WHICH HAS NO FORCE OR EFFECT WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
As such FOREIGN LAW WHICH HAS NO EFFECT cannot have the effect of imparting "foreign influence".
That is like saying that US law has no effect outside of our borders, when it comes to citizenship.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184289 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And now Dufus Dale decides to correct the father of the Constitution, James Madison.
<quoted text>
Madison had no idea what was coming down the road in 1866.

All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens, this means the same thing as "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution).

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184290 Jan 18, 2014
To base "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" on territory would mean that the citizenship standards could be changed at anytime, would this mean if Mexico took over Texas all US citizens in Texas would lose their citizenship to the US.

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) 1 min Injudgement 1,496,912
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 min honeymylove 2,986
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 24 min honeymylove 2,462
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 25 min Julia 63,299
last post wins! (Apr '13) 33 min honeymylove 2,299
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 49 min RACE 105,001
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 3,599

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages