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
163,001 - 163,020 of 177,226 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184247
Jan 17, 2014
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. Nor does it say that a dual citizen at the time of birth cannot be president (and in fact both Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower were dual citizens at their births). There is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles, neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not allow the taking away of the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not do so for US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things or allow the taking away. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they never said so, so why assume that they were? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale. Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
Explain why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS, then you will under stand what a Natural Born Citizen is.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184248
Jan 17, 2014
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Explain why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS, then you will under stand what a Natural Born Citizen is.
The irony is that Dufus Dale doesn't understand what a natural born citizen is and he doesn't have a clue the definition of jurisdiction. He conflates citizenship and jurisdiction, cannot understand that foreign countries cannot determine who is a US citizen, doesn't have a clue that his fantasy violates the principle of of sovereignty ....

Pathetic. He will never understand what is a natural born citizen. He will never understand that he will never have any authority or respect or a clue in matters of law. He will never understand that he is a grandiose delusional schizophrenic either.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184249
Jan 17, 2014
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Just showing that citizenship begins at birth, not 20 years down the road.
Obama's US Natural Born Citizenship began at the moment of his birth in Honolulu.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184250
Jan 17, 2014
 
“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."
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184251
Jan 17, 2014
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's US Natural Born Citizenship began at the moment of his birth in Honolulu.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution :
“ 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.” National Born Citizenship is a birthright given to a child by his father,it can not be affected by any one in Congress and there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184252
Jan 17, 2014
 
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution :
“ 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.” National Born Citizenship is a birthright given to a child by his father,it can not be affected by any one in Congress and there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
Sorry Frank, there is nothing in the Constitution stating that birthright citizenship derives from parentage.

"[B]ut 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

Frank, do you have a clue what "it is what applies in the United States" means?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184253
Jan 17, 2014
 
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution :
“ 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.” National Born Citizenship is a birthright given to a child by his father,it can not be affected by any one in Congress and there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
A child's birthright is his or her own. It isn't depended upon the status of the father or mother.
A child's nationality is based solely upon the place of birth.

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, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)(emphasis added)

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, THAT EVERY PERSON OWES A NATURAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THAT COUNTRY IN WHICH HE IS BORN. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184254
Jan 17, 2014
 
Trayvon Martin A Knockout Game King, George Zimmerman The Victim?

Was Trayvon Martin a knockout game king and George Zimmerman the real victim? That’s how some in the media are now portraying history…

Some people seem to think Trayvon left a different type of legacy. During the George Zimmerman trial some focused on Trayvon Martin’s drugs and guns photos found in his cell phone records and claimed the man was merely a thug. Others pointed out how Trayvon Martin’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, became rich due to merchandising and million dollar lawsuits. His legacy was trashed even further when some people claimed Trayvon a “bigot” for thinking Zimmerman might be gay.

To make matters worse, a whistleblower named Ben Kruidbos linked Trayvon to marijuana and various other things. But he tried to provide these documents to George Zimmerna’s defense team without the State Attorney’s office approval. For this, Kruidbos was fired and called “abhorrent,”“untrustworthy,” and “unscrupulous.” While these documents wouldn’t have altered the outcome of the trial, they were never allowed to be considered.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1098432/trayvon-mart...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184255
Jan 17, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Has anyone heard any good Obama jokes lately?

neither have I! All my Obama jokes are so scary I have to wait until Halloween o tell them!!!
.

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184256
Jan 17, 2014
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>A child's birthright is his or her own. It isn't depended upon the status of the father or mother.
A child's nationality is based solely upon the place of birth.

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, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)(emphasis added)

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, THAT EVERY PERSON OWES A NATURAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THAT COUNTRY IN WHICH HE IS BORN. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
Therefore Hussein should be president of Kenya. Or maybe a janitor in the U.S.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184257
Jan 17, 2014
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Has anyone heard any good Obama jokes lately?
neither have I! All my Obama jokes are so scary I have to wait until Halloween o tell them!!!


I have.

In November, 2008, John McCain lost to Barack Obama

In November, 2012, Mitt Romney got clobbered by Barack Obama. Rogue had to put his dancing shoes away.

Last year, the supreme court approved Obamacare on the heels of both houses of Congress. Rogue had inside info, Roberts was gonna nix it. LMAO LRS-Dale tm reg'd)

Last summer, truckers were going to invade Washington and show Obama what-for, so predicted Rogue. Joke's on him, ha ha.

But the best Obama joke is GWB himself. Went into Afghanistan to "get" Bin Laden. Er, NOT. Obama GOT Bin Laden. Where, in Afghanistan? Nope, in GWB's allied Pakistan.

I'll tell ya, Rogue, what would we do without you? Who'd make us laugh to tears? Oh, what about that corruption index? Were you right on that one? More laughs. How about having no carriers to defeat the Japanese At Coral Sea (tk you, LTR) and Midway? New carriers 6 months after Pearl? Hmmm. Guffaws.

Let's have some GWB jokes now, Rogue. How about, when he said, or tried to say "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, er, hmm, how'd that go again?" Awww, a born comedian. How about a Mitt Romney joke, like "For sure these liberals on welfare, 47% of the population will automatically vote for Obama", thereby losing any hope of reining some in.

But I like your jokes best of all, Rogue, like the racist ones yesterday about the "Japs" (you still don't know it's pejorative to call 'em that 68 years after war's end?). And the anti-Semite ones about the Jews? Racism just courses naturally in your veins, doesn't it? Some DNA you must have, bet scientists can't wait to do that autopsy on you.
Frank

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184258
Jan 17, 2014
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Frank, there is nothing in the Constitution stating that birthright citizenship derives from parentage.
"[B]ut 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
Frank, do you have a clue what "it is what applies in the United States" means?
"there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. "

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184259
Jan 17, 2014
 
Frank wrote:
<quoted text> "there is no law of the United States under which nationality acquired by the act of his father can be removed or changed. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British Subject and was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. "
“[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)
Truth Detector

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184260
Jan 17, 2014
 
It has been a long hard fought battle.
Declassified Docs & Senate Investigation Vindicate Those Seeking Truth About Benghazi-Gate
Truth Has Come Out: Bit By Bit Unmasking Obama; Death By A Thousand Cuts; Lie After Lie
Bleep: Who Gave Obama Video Protest Narrative; Wanna Nail Son Of A B!tch Who Created Narrative
Obama Won Reelection On Lies: We Have All Been Defrauded Of The Election Of 2012
Gallups: Wait Until March When Sheriff Arpaio and Lt. Zullo Release Obama Findings
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184261
Jan 18, 2014
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Explain why a naturalized citizen can't run for POTUS, then you will under stand what a Natural Born Citizen is.
A naturalized citizen cannot be POTUS.(Anyone or any thing---Micky Mouse, is a frequent example---can run for POTUS, check the words.)

Why cannot a naturalized citizen be POTUS? Because a naturalized citizen is one who was born on foreign soil and the writers of the US Constitution were worried about the loyalty of people who were not born on US soil. IF they were worried about the US-born children of foreigners being disloyal, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, but they didn't. They did say so about naturalized citizens, excluding them by making only Natural Born Citizens eligible. But they DID NOT say it about the US-born children of foreigners.

So, under strict construction, if they did not say it, you cannot infer that they meant it. And under libertarian principles you cannot take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically takes away that right or authorizes taking it away. And neither is said in the Constitution. There is not a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not just as good citizens as the US-born children of US citizens---nor did any of the writers of the US constitution ever say so in any of their writings.

Unless there is something in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners were not created equal to the US-born children of US citizens, they are equal to the US-born children of US citizens.

Once again, naturalized citizens are NOT equal. The Constitution says that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible. But all Natural Born Citizens are eligible, and there is nothing in the Constitution---not one word---that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not Natural Born Citizens.

But they were NOT worried about the loyalty of the children who were born on US soil
JBH

Delta, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184262
Jan 18, 2014
 
Fracking Joeq-Blow-Low is still here, only on the other side, day and night, wanting to learn English and American politics, would even think of English as self-accredited LANGUAGE, AS LONG AS THERE ARE THOSE having the same stand to defend Joeq-Blow, being in line with their thinking.

But he does not know much English and other things.


Fracturing dummy not knowing much English and other things, looks around, reads some comments, then would call Gibberish , yet he does not know what Gibberish is, as he just can't define it, for that reflects the poor standard of his make up--primary coming from lacking basic education.

Because frigging wacko is shortage in the language and head, he would call someone to decipher what he does not understand.

No wonder this country has few talents and goes down as well, because Blow-Joe-Jacq-low is so low in life that he has been deprived of any education.
Consequently Jacq -Blow-Low is under-educated , so that he has nothing in life that makes sense, and therefore would come to Topix by humiliating self like the blundering muppet.

Blow-Jacq-Low is the proletariat peasant, who has seen too many same hillbillies like him, being far away from the madding crowds, wants to make a change to demonstrate if he is really happy being dumb on Topix, because as long as any comments make him dis-oriented and fainted, that is what he would say, "Gibberish."

What a Fanatic-Cannie-maniac is-- that this proletariat folly's life of Jacq-Blow-Low is all that is, as being put down all the time, because his calling deciphering Gibberish proves that true facts indicate that all his thinking is merely the neo-radical molded robot with no education speaking -- this hillbilly of no talent peasant from this country thinks he can defend Obama, by having to be damned down instead?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184263
Jan 18, 2014
 
"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
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184264
Jan 18, 2014
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text> The irony is that Dufus Dale doesn't understand what a natural born citizen is and he doesn't have a clue the definition of jurisdiction. He conflates citizenship and jurisdiction, cannot understand that foreign countries cannot determine who is a US citizen, doesn't have a clue that his fantasy violates the principle of of sovereignty ....
Pathetic. He will never understand what is a natural born citizen. He will never understand that he will never have any authority or respect or a clue in matters of law. He will never understand that he is a grandiose delusional schizophrenic either.
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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184265
Jan 18, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's US Natural Born Citizenship began at the moment of his birth in Honolulu.
Sorry, a natural born citizen does not have any foreign influence, Obama was never a NBC.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184266
Jan 18, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Trayvon Martin A Knockout Game King, George Zimmerman The Victim?

Was Trayvon Martin a knockout game king and George Zimmerman the real victim? ThatÂ’s how some in the media are now portraying historyÂ…

Some people seem to think Trayvon left a different type of legacy. During the George Zimmerman trial some focused on Trayvon Martin’s drugs and guns photos found in his cell phone records and claimed the man was merely a thug. Others pointed out how Trayvon Martin’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, became rich due to merchandising and million dollar lawsuits. His legacy was trashed even further when some people claimed Trayvon a “bigot” for thinking Zimmerman might be gay.

To make matters worse, a whistleblower named Ben Kruidbos linked Trayvon to marijuana and various other things. But he tried to provide these documents to George Zimmerna’s defense team without the State Attorney’s office approval. For this, Kruidbos was fired and called “abhorrent,”“untrustworthy, ” and “unscrupulous.” While these documents wouldn’t have altered the outcome of the trial, they were never allowed to be considered.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1098432/trayvon-mart...
More of the same obsession Rouge?

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.

•••
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 ]
•••