BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 216645 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

#184344 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. Totally irrelevant.
Bancroft treaties concerned naturalization. Brothers Boisseliers were natural born citizens.
Sorry. Try again.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Very relevant!

"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.

LMAO!!! How long did it take to read the Bancroft Treaties, did you know we have only one country left on the list, as of 1958 all persons born in the US of alien fathers are dual-citizens
and being a dual-citizen is no better that being a naturalized citizen, both are carrying the same baggage, subject to foreign influence.

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184345 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Hell, Obama could have been born in the "Oval Office", but according to the framers of the 14th Citizenship Clause, he would still be an alien.
Actually the framers clearly stated that they were on board with birthright citizenship for persons born in the US. According to the framers, dufus Dale is FOS. According to the framers, persons born of alien parents in the US are NOT subject to a foreign power. Foreign law has no force or effect in the United States of America, and having no effect in the United States, foreign law cannot impart any "foreign influence" under US law. That's what no force or effect means, Dufus.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Being born in Honolulu is like being born in Germany? Really? Being born in Honolulu is like being born on an Indian reservation? Really?
Dufus Dale is missing a few cards from his deck.
Miller Time? It can't hurt, Dale has no sense to be dulled.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184346 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Very relevant!
"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.
LMAO!!! How long did it take to read the Bancroft Treaties, did you know we have only one country left on the list, as of 1958 all persons born in the US of alien fathers are dual-citizens
and being a dual-citizen is no better that being a naturalized citizen, both are carrying the same baggage, subject to foreign influence.
PROST!!!
Sorry, loser, quoting Elk again is not getting you anywhere. Hawaii was not an Indian reservation so Elk is irrelevant. Bancroft treaties had nothing to do with natural born citizens born in the US. Totally irrelevant.

Grow up and get a life.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. Totally irrelevant.
Bancroft treaties concerned naturalization. Brothers Boisseliers were natural born citizens.
Sorry. Try again.
<quoted text>
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184347 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
The fact, therefore, that acts of congress or
treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born
out of this country to become citizens by naturalization,
cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this
country from the operation of the broad and clear
words of the constitution:‘All persons born in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States.’
US v Wong Kim Ark
LMAO!!! The "jurisdiction, thereof", was territory according to Gray, I have prove that to be wrong, remember Texas.

"All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens", this phrase means the same thing as, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and aliens have never been subject to the US Constitution.

PROST!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184348 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, quoting Elk again is not getting you anywhere. Hawaii was not an Indian reservation so Elk is irrelevant. Bancroft treaties had nothing to do with natural born citizens born in the US. Totally irrelevant.
Grow up and get a life.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! and Obama wasn't under the complete jurisdiction of thd Constitution.

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184349 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The "jurisdiction, thereof", was territory according to Gray, I have prove that to be wrong, remember Texas.
"All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens", this phrase means the same thing as, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and aliens have never been subject to the US Constitution.
PROST!!!
The Ark decision recognized that children born of US ambassadors in foreign countries were natural born citizens. As such, "jurisdiction, thereof" extended beyond territory in that limited situation. Dale is simply wrong, as usual.
wojar wrote:
The fact, therefore, that acts of congress or
treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born
out of this country to become citizens by naturalization,
cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this
country from the operation of the broad and clear
words of the constitution:‘All persons born in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States.’
US v Wong Kim Ark
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184350 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, quoting Elk again is not getting you anywhere. Hawaii was not an Indian reservation so Elk is irrelevant. Bancroft treaties had nothing to do with natural born citizens born in the US. Totally irrelevant.
Grow up and get a life.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Elk is very relevant, it explained all of the "W"'s, just like the framers of the 14th Citizenship Clause did.

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184351 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! and Obama wasn't under the complete jurisdiction of thd Constitution.
PROST!!!
He sure was under the complete jurisdiction of the US. There was no foreign law that had any power over him while in the US when he was born. It doesn't matter whether the Brits, or the Klingons considered him a citizen. Only US law counts in the US. Neither Britain nor Kenya have any say who is a US citizen.

Soooorrrreeeeeee!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, quoting Elk again is not getting you anywhere. Hawaii was not an Indian reservation so Elk is irrelevant. Bancroft treaties had nothing to do with natural born citizens born in the US. Totally irrelevant.
Grow up and get a life.
<quoted text>
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184352 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizenship clause? Dufus Dale already admitted it was a matter of statutory law, not Constitutional law.
Dufus Dale: "All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law."
Duh!
Howard?
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! No, the Citizenship Clause was not statutory law, it is in the Constitution. Don't be stupid, OK!

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184353 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The "jurisdiction, thereof", was territory according to Gray, I have prove that to be wrong, remember Texas.
"All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens", this phrase means the same thing as, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" and aliens have never been subject to the US Constitution.
PROST!!!
Wowee zowee, "remember Texas" is an articulation of a legal argument.

Perhaps according to Play Law.

And the dolt fantasizes that all US courts don't know a friggin' thing about Texas?

C'mon BOY, what's your half-baked fantasy about Texas?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184354 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ark decision recognized that children born of US ambassadors in foreign countries were natural born citizens. As such, "jurisdiction, thereof" extended beyond territory in that limited situation. Dale is simply wrong, as usual.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! An ambassador takes his country with him.

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184355 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! No, the Citizenship Clause was not statutory law, it is in the Constitution. Don't be stupid, OK!
PROST!!!
Sorry Dufus, you are addressing an issue that was never raised.

may I refresh your memory?

Dufus Dale: "All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law."

Now that is a false statement.

The citizenship clause has nothing to do with it.

Admit your elementary stupid pathetic error BOY.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizenship clause? Dufus Dale already admitted it was a matter of statutory law, not Constitutional law.
Dufus Dale: "All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law."
Duh!
Howard?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184356 Jan 18, 2014
Dufus Dale: "All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law."

Care to back that up? Eh little boi?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184357 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! An ambassador takes his country with him.
PROST!!!
Sorry, loser, but an ambassador's children in an American parochial school are not in a foreign country, but they are not under the jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with territory. That is fiction.

Does Dale have a point?

Does Dale know what a point is?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ark decision recognized that children born of US ambassadors in foreign countries were natural born citizens. As such, "jurisdiction, thereof" extended beyond territory in that limited situation. Dale is simply wrong, as usual.
<quoted text>
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184358 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
He sure was under the complete jurisdiction of the US. There was no foreign law that had any power over him while in the US when he was born. It doesn't matter whether the Brits, or the Klingons considered him a citizen. Only US law counts in the US. Neither Britain nor Kenya have any say who is a US citizen.
Soooorrrreeeeeee!
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Now how was he under the complete jurisdiction of the Constitution, since he was a citizen of his father's country. That just don't happen, not even in "The Wizard of Oz".

Here, let's change Obama to a dual-citizen, he is still facing the same thing, his citizenship is no better than that of a naturalized citizen, he is still saddled with being subject to a foreign power.

To even change Obama to a statutory citizen he still isn't a NBC.

PROST!!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184359 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
Dufus Dale: "All persons born to citizens outside the US are citizens of the US, of course this statutory law, not Constitutional Law."
Care to back that up? Eh little boi?
LMAO!!! Sure can, read the citizenship clause, even you can understand that.

PROST!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184360 Jan 18, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but an ambassador's children in an American parochial school are not in a foreign country, but they are not under the jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with territory. That is fiction.
Does Dale have a point?
Does Dale know what a point is?
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You are really reaching, now!!! Didn't you know that an ambassador and his family have never left their home country.

PROST!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184361 Jan 18, 2014
wojar, you are becoming such a bloody mess, I will give you the last word, while I drink my last 4 beers.

PROST!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184362 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Now how was he under the complete jurisdiction of the Constitution, since he was a citizen of his father's country. That just don't happen, not even in "The Wizard of Oz".
Here, let's change Obama to a dual-citizen, he is still facing the same thing, his citizenship is no better than that of a naturalized citizen, he is still saddled with being subject to a foreign power.
To even change Obama to a statutory citizen he still isn't a NBC.
PROST!!!!
Stuck on Stupid Dale cannot comprehend that his (Obama's) citizenship in a foreign country was purely by operation of foreign law which HAS NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Now, Dufus Dale, how does foreign citizenship law that has NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA operate to do any friggin' thing at all? Does Dufus Dale understand what 100%- 0% equals? No force or effect = 0% bub. 100%-0%= 100%.

Does that explain it? The math is really elementary.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184363 Jan 18, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You are really reaching, now!!! Didn't you know that an ambassador and his family have never left their home country.
PROST!!!
The legally ficticious claim that an ambassador and their family have never left their country is understood as ficticious. They are understood to be under the jurisdiction of their home country; it has nothing to do with territory. Jagoff. Learn the law, Moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but an ambassador's children in an American parochial school are not in a foreign country, but they are not under the jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with territory. That is fiction.
Does Dale have a point?
Does Dale know what a point is?

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 Nuculur option 1,394,901
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Fit2Serve 60,042
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 10 min Ize Found 70,715
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 20 min Dregs Historian 102,456
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 51 min Fa-Foxy 28
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 8,858
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr GEORGIA 1,664
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages