BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 216847 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.

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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184291 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>That is like saying that US law has no effect outside of our borders, when it comes to citizenship.
Excuse me for butting in, as this is just too much. Here's news for you, Dale, US LAW HAS NO EFFECT OUTSIDE OF U.S. BORDERS. NONE, ZILCH. NADA when it comes to citizenship or any other reason for that matter. Any citizen of the U.S. or, of, any other country, forfeits his/her rights as a citizen of the U.S. or ANY other country when he/she enters another country. An American or ANY other citizen can be arrested for ANY reason that pleases the host gov't, right or wrong, and there is nothing, outside granting consular assistance as defined by the Vienna convention, that the U.S. or any other country can do about it. Consular assistance can only be an attempt to procure legal assistance, make contact with family, assist in obtaining funds. But the U.S. or any other country cannot intervene in anything the host country wants to do with him/her short of invading that country to recoup its citizen, which it is not about to do.
Obskeptic

Royal Oak, MI

#184292 Jan 18, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Welfare is a two-way street and branding me as intellectually dishonest and in denial is hardly the point. BTW, why is it, with most conservatives, that in order to put your point across, you have to "ad hominem"? Also, why is being a liberal automatically dumb as per your other post? Do you generalise all of life and people that way?
Welfare, I believe, both from studies and my own humble opinion, is surely almost half fraudulent. Question is, are you ready to let go, drop, the truly deserving welfare recipients? There are hundreds of thousands out there who cannot work - prevented to do so because of health problems, infirmity, or sole parents of handicapped children and young adults. Also, so many welfare indigents, men and women intellectually incapable of functioning "normally" , left with a paltry gov't allowance and forced to beg. How do you compare that with the billions of dollars in tax breaks, incentives and loopholes enjoyed by huge corporations, banks, etc? Ever compared the cost of corporate welfare and just plain welfare? Should be interesting, if you consider that in 2011, G.E., yes, GE, paid no taxes.
Decision on abortion, I believe, is best left to expectant mothers, their families and physicians. I'm basically NOT FOR abortion, specially when used as a birth control measure. But I don't pretend to know it all, and in spite of being against it, I am pro-choice. My opinion, your opinion, are neither law nor Gospel. Do you think pregnancy should be allowed to run its course when the future mother has been brutally raped or is the result of incest, is 13, 14 years old? Or when there is a choice of life and death between mother and unborn child? Misogynistic theologians ruled that the child should be saved first. How cruel, specially of mother has a brood of 4 or 5 kids at home, as was dictated by Church authorities at the time.
In regards to abortion, your response is the go to argument of most left leaning thinkers Jacques. Always coming to the defense of those women who were the victims of brutality or a unique condition that places their very lives in jeopardy if they were to continue with their pregnancy. I agree that the decision to abort is a private matter between patient and doctor in those unique circumstances, but the reality is those are very uniques circumstances. The majority of abortions are done because the child will be an inconvenience to the women. Birth control in other words. America has terminated 54 million unborn since the left decided the fetus has no rights. Not bad for the side of politics that claims to be all about fairness and rights, wouldn't you say?
As far as corporate welfare, there is no such thing, unless of course you stake out the premise that a business is not entitled to the fruits of its endeavors. That earnings are governments first in its entirety, and that what a business can keep for its own use is a gift from that government to the business. Taxing policy is taxing policy Jacques. To say that government allowing a business a certain tax benefit that permits the business to retain earnings that would otherwise be confiscated, and then compare that to welfare is bastardizing what welfare is, which is the redistribution of wealth to an person or entity that had nothing to do with the production of that wealth. Your terms are wrong Jacques, which is the problem with liberals that don't know what they don't know. They think they know. There is no such thing as corporate welfare, and businesses don't pay taxes. That is an expense of doing business that is passed directly on to the consumer. That would be you, and me. People pay taxes Jacques, business simply does the dirty deed of collecting it for government and passing it on for them to waste and by influence and votes.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184293 Jan 18, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me for butting in, as this is just too much. Here's news for you, Dale, US LAW HAS NO EFFECT OUTSIDE OF U.S. BORDERS. NONE, ZILCH. NADA when it comes to citizenship or any other reason for that matter. Any citizen of the U.S. or, of, any other country, forfeits his/her rights as a citizen of the U.S. or ANY other country when he/she enters another country. An American or ANY other citizen can be arrested for ANY reason that pleases the host gov't, right or wrong, and there is nothing, outside granting consular assistance as defined by the Vienna convention, that the U.S. or any other country can do about it. Consular assistance can only be an attempt to procure legal assistance, make contact with family, assist in obtaining funds. But the U.S. or any other country cannot intervene in anything the host country wants to do with him/her short of invading that country to recoup its citizen, which it is not about to do.
LMAO!!! Comeback. when you know what we are talking about, not that I don't enjoy your rambling.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184294 Jan 18, 2014
In my little town of 11,000 people, we had a work shop for Obamacare, only 35 cars were in the parking lot.
Taking into consideration that there were 100 people in each car, that was a fantastic turnout..

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184295 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Comeback. when you know what we are talking about, not that I don't enjoy your rambling.
In effect , are you telling me that U.S. law has effect outside U.S. borders? If so, give one example. Just one that happened in non-U.S. and foreign territory, where, again, U.S. law prevailed.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#184296 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Noted and answered with my last post.
In dufus Dale's play world "answered with my last post."

Again, Dufus, how does foreign law that HAS NO EFFECT in the US impart "foreign influence" under US law?

It was James Madison who said, that it is PLACE (of birth) that matters (concerning allegiance) in the United States.

You think James Madison didn't understand who was born a natural born citizen?
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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184297 Jan 18, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
In effect , are you telling me that U.S. law has effect outside U.S. borders? If so, give one example. Just one that happened in non-U.S. and foreign territory, where, again, U.S. law prevailed.
All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184298 Jan 18, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
In regards to abortion, your response is the go to argument of most left leaning thinkers Jacques. Always coming to the defense of those women who were the victims of brutality or a unique condition that places their very lives in jeopardy if they were to continue with their pregnancy. I agree that the decision to abort is a private matter between patient and doctor in those unique circumstances, but the reality is those are very uniques circumstances. The majority of abortions are done because the child will be an inconvenience to the women. Birth control in other words. America has terminated 54 million unborn since the left decided the fetus has no rights. Not bad for the side of politics that claims to be all about fairness and rights, wouldn't you say?
As far as corporate welfare, there is no such thing, unless of course you stake out the premise that a business is not entitled to the fruits of its endeavors. That earnings are governments first in its entirety, and that what a business can keep for its own use is a gift from that government to the business. Taxing policy is taxing policy Jacques. To say that government allowing a business a certain tax benefit that permits the business to retain earnings that would otherwise be confiscated, and then compare that to welfare is bastardizing what welfare is, which is the redistribution of wealth to an person or entity that had nothing to do with the production of that wealth. Your terms are wrong Jacques, which is the problem with liberals that don't know what they don't know. They think they know. There is no such thing as corporate welfare, and businesses don't pay taxes. That is an expense of doing business that is passed directly on to the consumer. That would be you, and me. People pay taxes Jacques, business simply does the dirty deed of collecting it for government and passing it on for them to waste and by influence and votes.
You conveniently ignore that fact that I stated I was generally against abortion, with exceptions when the situation is desperate. Nevertheless, I said I was pro-choice because my words are not gospel and neither are yours. Seems mine aren't, but yours are.

As to taxing rich corporations, you equate taxing businesses with '"confiscation". Are you sure you don't want tot take that back? You mean we the taxpayers , apart from paying our fair share, should pays the big business's share of taxes so they can reinvest them, which, incidentally, they often use to ship production offshore.

I have to assume that you think ALL welfare is wrong, even when absolutely necessary. Do you agree with Gov Perry of Texas that even social security is unconstitutional? Even Romney was floored by that remark.

It's strange that being an ordinary middle class person who pays taxes for both the poor AND the rich, you protect and defend the latter, saying, I repeat , that their paying taxes is akin to "confiscation" , that there is no such thing as corporate welfare - are you kidding? That contention is widely recognized as a fact.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184299 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sorry Bozo, citizenship by birthright in the US does not strip anyone of citizenship.

Grow up.

And, Bozo, persons born of alien parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Foreign law has no force or effect in the United States.

For example the brothers Boisseliers who were born in the United States of German parentage were returned to Germany with their parents and were German citizens per German law. However, they were born in the US and were natural born US citizens. They later returned to the US even though Germany claimed them as German citizens per German law. When Germany tried to make them join the German military, the US told Germany to go take a hike because it HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

"Under these circumstances, this Government cannot recognize any claim to their
allegiance or their liability to military service, put forth on the part of Germany, whatever may be the municipal law of Germany under which such claim may be asserted by that Government."

Duh!
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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184300 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law.
I have much admiration for wojar , Ellen and Atticus. What patience! If they were birthers like you, they would've told you a long time ago to take a hike, sonny. You have emphasized how little you know on the subject yet another time. You glean stuff from somewhere (the internet?), reproduce it and when asked to elaborate, you come up with replies like the one above. Unbelievable, as you have not a clue what the hell you are talking about, so obvious that you cut and pasted the words "statutory law" and "Constitutional law".

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184301 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sorry Bozo, persons born in the US of alien parents are completely subject to US jurisdiction. Elk, who was born within the limits of the US buyt on an Indian reservation was an exception. that has nothing to do with persons born in the US of aliens from foreign countries outside the US.

Grow up, child.
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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184302 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.
So when Frank became a citizen he was a naturalized citizen? Or did Frank not become a citizen?

Frank, please take your Aricept.

Frank does not believe that someone could have became a natural born citizen when they became a born person. Frank is not working with a full deck.

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) 3 min USAsince1680 1,395,629
last post wins! (Dec '10) 25 min They cannot kill ... 2,145
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 43 min IB DaMann 60,109
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 49 min CrunchyBacon 102,496
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 1,118
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr SweLL GirL 8,898
Chicago has the Worst Women 4 hr Amazing but True 13
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages