BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243004 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184859 Feb 4, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The Housing bubble was caused by legislation enacted by President Carter 30 years before the said bubble? Are you nuts? I debunked that fable at least 5 times and you keep coming back to it. I've even published parables on traffic lights to show how off and in left field you are, yet you just swallow, hide, and come back with it a few weeks or months later, and repeat the same fables, as you do for others. The bubble, the stock market crash, the greed, the housing crash, the crooked brokers and mtge brokers, they all happened under GWB's watch, not Carter's, not Clinton's.
Let me use your very own words right here, to wit, "In fact you are still blaming Bush for the Current economy even though he left office over five years ago." Don't you look silly now? FIVE YEARS? Yet you go back to Carter, 34 YEARS and Clinton, 14 YEARS, but that's okay. Aren't you even blushing? Hell, the other day, you mentioned WILSON, 93 years.
No I am NOT nutz, but you are in denial. Sure, Jimmy Carter and you Dems pushed through the housing reform in 1977 but it had no real teeth so in the early 1990s Bill Clinton and YOU Dems pushed most legislature through than made it real easy to sue the evil bankers,

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending
John Carney Jun. 27, 2009,

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184860 Feb 4, 2014
And another Democrat Congressman announces he will not run for reelection. It is starting to look like a Democrat stampeed to get the hell out of DC! 2014 looks like a very bad year for you Dummycrats.

[Democrat] NJ Congressman Rob Andrews to leave Congress amid ethics probe into improper use of campaign funds
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews will leave Congress within weeks after 23 years in office, according to a person with direct knowledge of the New Jersey Democrat's plans.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rob-...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184861 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Mitt Romney's job to make companies profitable for the share holders and it it made cent$ to move the jobs overseas, he did. But he made those decisions because the EPA, OSHA and DoL made employing people here in the U.S. to expensive.
Just raise the minimum wag to $10.10 per hour and you will see even more jobs go overseas!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting that, even though I'm sure it was hardly your intention. So, it's not just the progressives that are exporting jobs. What about Kellogg's? Closing its over-100 years old plants in Battle Creek amongst others and here in Ontario, Same for Heinz, the bastards, in order to move them to Asia, yes, Asia, even though none of the plants that will close has ever lost a single cent. All profitable, but "hey, we can pay $2. an hour in Asia and make even more money, better yet it's overseas, we can lop profits off the top, evade U.S. taxes...". You have the lowest minimum wage of the 34 OECD members. What's that done for you?
Minimum wage will drive jobs overseas? Since when? Some 3rd nation wages are slave wages, often 50 cents to $2. an hour, tops. So you think YOUR minimum wage should be in that range in order to compete? Do you realise that working for minimum wage in the U.S., even at $10.10 per hour, automatically forces the worker to apply for food stamps? In an economy like the U.S., the strongest in the world with a high cost of living, do you really think it's moral, even though it's legal, to pay employees a starvation wage of $7 an hour? And your gods, the big corporations, wouldn't even pay $7 and hour were they not obliged by law to do so.
Oh, thousands of businessmen have had to make that same decision but Mitt Romney is evil and not the EPA, OSHA and DoL? Just like the banks who were FORCED to make those bad home loans!!! Yep, Libtards are never wrong ..... because they mean well!!! Well, feel-good politics does not put a chicken in the pot!!!
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

#184862 Feb 4, 2014
You believe in fairy tales, huh???
Obama has proven nothing except that he had no U.S. father or legitimate birth certificate!
The child of 2 U.S. citizen parents born in a United States protectorate or controlled territory, who came back and lived in this country for the required 14 years of required residency is eligible to be the U.S. President.
See Senate Resolution 511 passed for John McCain.
Some people also believe that a person born in that United States protectorate or controlled territory, who is actually a citizen of that particular country, who came back and lived in this country for the required 14 years of required residency is eligible to be the U.S. President.
I am inclined not to agree with that 2nd opinion, as I am convinced that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presidential eligibility clause to exclude anyone not physically born in the U.S or a protectorate or controlled territory, who did not have the required 2 U.S. citizen parents, from becoming the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and President of the United States.
The Presidential eligibility clause was specifically created to prevent anyone with dual allegiance period, and especially at birth, from becoming the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Military and President of the United States.
The Constitution requires Obama to be a natural born citizen, and when the Founding Fathers used the term, they knew and understood it to mean just what Vattel said it meant, the child born on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens.
They had no need to define it in the Constitution, because as the writers they already knew what it meant.
It is up to Obama to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible, and since the questions concerning his Constitutional eligibility remain unanswered, Obama has not met that Constitutional burden.
Obama knows that he is not a Natural born citizen, that is why he calls himself a Native born citizen.
Obama knows that he is a dual citizen, that is why he tells you that his citizenship followed that of his Fathers, making him a dual U.S./British Kenyan citizen.
Obama refuses to release the best proof of his Hawaiian birth that he allegedly has to offer in the form of his original long form birth certificate.
This gives rise to the belief and possibility that the document in fact does not even really exist.
Why would Obama at the least not want to end the speculation concerning this?
So at this time, even his alleged FANTASY Hawaiian birth remains unproven and Obama refuses to end the controversy.
You think Obama is a Natural born citizen?
You gotta have faith, because you don't have the proof.
You think Obama was born in Hawaii?
You gotta have faith, because you don't have the proof.
You think Obama's released short form birth certificate is authentic?
You gotta have faith, because you don't have the proof.
Obama is truly a false god, because just like with God, you gotta have faith, because you don't have the proof, huh?
Unfortunately SHEEPLE don't deal in facts.
Native born citizen is not mentioned in the Constitution.
The term Natural born citizen appears in the Constitution, which the Founding Fathers intended for all future Presidents after the citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution were gone, would be the offspring of a U.S. citizen Father born on U.S. soil.
Native born citizenship only requires Jus soli, born on the soil, while Natural born citizenship requires Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, born on the soil, or in U.S. controlled territory, and blood relationship to at a minimum a U.S. citizen Father.
This is precisely why John McCain was found to be eligible as a Natural born citizen despite his birth in Panama, and precisely why Obama cannot be a Natural born citizen, even if he could prove his alleged Hawaiian birth as a fact.
Obama had no U.S. citizen Father.
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

#184863 Feb 4, 2014
Obama's Membership in Muslim Brotherhood - Verified - TREASON
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
There is only one original Grand Birther! You know who I am, right???
Lets be clear so you can lick, lick, lick!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184865 Feb 4, 2014
Re: "Native born citizenship only requires Jus soli, born on the soil, while Natural born citizenship requires Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, born on the soil, or in U.S. controlled territory, and blood relationship to at a minimum a U.S. citizen Father."

Who told you that?

It is wrong.

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“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.]

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184867 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Mitt Romney's job to make companies profitable for the share holders and it it made cent$ to move the jobs overseas, he did. But he made those decisions because the EPA, OSHA and DoL made employing people here in the U.S. to expensive.
Just raise the minimum wag to $10.10 per hour and you will see even more jobs go overseas!
<quoted text>
Oh, thousands of businessmen have had to make that same decision but Mitt Romney is evil and not the EPA, OSHA and DoL? Just like the banks who were FORCED to make those bad home loans!!! Yep, Libtards are never wrong ..... because they mean well!!! Well, feel-good politics does not put a chicken in the pot!!!
Please indicate forthwith where and when I said Mitt Romney was evil. He was no more or no less evil than all his big business colleagues who did the same, period. You have not commented on Kellogg's, on Heinz and your favourite, Freightliner, as you found out your truck was made in Mexico and sucked. Did Freightliner company care about you, about the Mexicans, about the job losses in the U.S. and Canada and the hit on unaware and '"not in the know" shareholders? Nope. "We'll make a good one-year profit, then they'll maybe find out we're peddling junk but hey, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" is what was no probably said by company CEOs and their underlings as they collect their "much-deserved" bonuses. "Anyhow, hey, the gov't will step in if we have financial problems, Repub or Dem, thems (sic) all the same."

I liked the comment in that fabulous book "Double Down". Strategists for Romney wanted him to tour Bain plants and talk to the workers. That would be splendid public relations just before the presidential ballot. Well and good, said a democrat pol, when is he leaving for China?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184868 Feb 4, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate forthwith where and when I said Mitt Romney was evil. He was no more or no less evil than all his big business colleagues who did the same, period. You have not commented on Kellogg's, on Heinz and your favourite, Freightliner, as you found out your truck was made in Mexico and sucked. Did Freightliner company care about you, about the Mexicans, about the job losses in the U.S. and Canada and the hit on unaware and '"not in the know" shareholders? Nope. "We'll make a good one-year profit, then they'll maybe find out we're peddling junk but hey, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" is what was no probably said by company CEOs and their underlings as they collect their "much-deserved" bonuses. "Anyhow, hey, the gov't will step in if we have financial problems, Repub or Dem, thems (sic) all the same."
I liked the comment in that fabulous book "Double Down". Strategists for Romney wanted him to tour Bain plants and talk to the workers. That would be splendid public relations just before the presidential ballot. Well and good, said a democrat pol, when is he leaving for China?
Sure, that was in 1997 when I got that Mexican-assembled Freightliner and it was a COMPANY truck. In other words, it was not mine, I just drove it. So when I bought MY truck, I checked, and it was made in Seattle, WA as was the second truck I bought!!!
Oh, most share holders do not care so long as they make their money. I bet most UNION works care where their investments and for the same reason.
Do you remember when many people divested themselves from stocks that had anything to do with South Africa? Why??? Was it because evil white people were using black Africans? But it is okay with YOU if the Chinese abuse their own people!!!!
And that is why you are a BIGOT!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184869 Feb 4, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Native born citizenship only requires Jus soli, born on the soil, while Natural born citizenship requires Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, born on the soil, or in U.S. controlled territory, and blood relationship to at a minimum a U.S. citizen Father."
Who told you that?
It is wrong.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“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.]
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
More reading on the subject:
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
From your own link;
"First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is,“What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?” This is a common exercise. There are many unresolved legal questions in our society. That is why we have the Court. It doesn’t mean that we have to like the decision or agree with it or that we even have to like the Supreme Court. That’s just the way we determine the law or the probable law in this country."

That is all we have asked for, a real court hearing and there has been NONE. There are several questions that have never been answered, one being if Obama WAS born in Hawaii .... or some place else. Both his CoLB and his long form BC are NOT copies of any any document.
And then their is the question of what is the definition of a NBC?
Both or Ted Crue's parents where U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Canada. Is he, or is he not, an NBC? If he becomes the Republican nominee, you on the Loony-left will demand that answer!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184870 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, that was in 1997 when I got that Mexican-assembled Freightliner and it was a COMPANY truck. In other words, it was not mine, I just drove it. So when I bought MY truck, I checked, and it was made in Seattle, WA as was the second truck I bought!!!
Oh, most share holders do not care so long as they make their money. I bet most UNION works care where their investments and for the same reason.
Do you remember when many people divested themselves from stocks that had anything to do with South Africa? Why??? Was it because evil white people were using black Africans? But it is okay with YOU if the Chinese abuse their own people!!!!
And that is why you are a BIGOT!!!


Oh, I see. It was just fine for Freightliner to manufacture junk as long as they screwed your employer, not you or the thousands of independent truckers who owned their own rigs. Good reasoning, Rogue. You are a trucker bigot.

Yes, the big shareholders do not care so long as they make money, even if the company turns out crap. Good reasoning, and the main reason why Asian quality has trumped ours and off we go crying. That is great reasoning, and even better after that first or second year when clients turn away and small shareholders are left holding the bag, with the preferred ones taking what's left of the company.

You just wrote :

"It's okay with YOU (me) if the Chinese abuse their own people " You are reading-deficient. You are telling me that after I've condemned dangerous working conditions, low wages, slavery, in China a few hours ago? You're defending outsourcing and serious loss of jobs now? If I were a flight inspector, I'd ground you as you are obviously in no mental condition to understand flying even a small airplane. As a matter of fact, Mr Bigot, it's people like Romney, Kelloggs, Heinz, Freightliner, Apple, Microsoft, Blueliner fish products, electronics companies, etc who think it's okay to abuse Chinese
Learn to Read

United States

#184871 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>From your own link;
"First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is,“What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?” This is a common exercise. There are many unresolved legal questions in our society. That is why we have the Court. It doesn’t mean that we have to like the decision or agree with it or that we even have to like the Supreme Court. That’s just the way we determine the law or the probable law in this country."

That is all we have asked for, a real court hearing and there has been NONE. There are several questions that have never been answered, one being if Obama WAS born in Hawaii .... or some place else. Both his CoLB and his long form BC are NOT copies of any any document.
And then their is the question of what is the definition of a NBC?
Both or Ted Crue's parents where U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Canada. Is he, or is he not, an NBC? If he becomes the Republican nominee, you on the Loony-left will demand that answer!!!
Both Ted's parents were US Citizens at the time of his birth? That will come as news to Ted and the man who thinks he is Ted's father.

The Congressional legal staff (and numerous courts) have stated that citizen at birth (regardless of parents or place) equals natural born citizen. Only a fool would continue to dive down this rabbit hole (which explains why you and Dufus treat it as your own personal carousel)
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184872 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
From your own link;
"First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is,“What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?....
Both or Ted Crue's parents where U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Canada. Is he, or is he not, an NBC? If he becomes the Republican nominee, you on the Loony-left will demand that answer!!!
Re:“What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?”

The answer to that is that the US Supreme Court HAS answered the question, in the Wong Kim Ark case.

It said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (just as Meese and the Heritage Foundation said) and that it refers to the place of birth and that every, repeat EVERY, child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen---except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders (just as Meese and the Heritage Foundation said):

It said:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.[The ruling also said that the term Natural Born Citizen is simply the US equivalent of Natural Born Subject].

And:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

So the US Supreme Court did rule on the matter (some birthers insist that it didn’t, but it did). And, as you can see, it said that “every child….of alien parents was a natural born subject…” and it said that the SAME rule applied in the 13 colonies, and in the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.(And that is a six-to-two ruling, one justice did not vote).

If you are one of the nutty birthers who insist that the Wong Kim Ark case ruling did not define Natural Born Citizen despite the words above, the answer is that ten appeals court cases on the subject of presidential eligibility ALL said that the ruling that binds their decision is the Wong Kim Ark ruling and that that ruling said that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.

If you don’t believe that statement, well, here are some of the TEN rulings:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184873 Feb 4, 2014
Continuing:

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling:“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

So Meese and Hatch and Graham and the cited articles are correct. The meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does include every child born on US soil (YES even including “anchor babies”) except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders. And, BTW, in October 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of the ten cases, which had ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. There can be many reasons for the US Supreme Court not to take a case, but surely one of the main reasons is that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court and finds no reason to review its decision. In any case, the action of the US Supreme Court in turning down the appeal means that the ruling of the lower court STANDS.

Re: "That is all we have asked for, a real court hearing and there has been NONE..."

As you can see there have been TEN appeals court rulings on the matter (meaning ten lower court rulings that they were appealed from), and every one of them birthers lost. And yet you say: "all we ask for is a real court hearing." Apparently you ignore the hearings and appeals that the birthers lost.(I wonder why???)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184874 Feb 4, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
From your own link;
"First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is,“What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?” This is a common exercise. There are many unresolved legal questions in our society. That is why we have the Court. It doesn’t mean that we have to like the decision or agree with it or that we even have to like the Supreme Court. That’s just the way we determine the law or the probable law in this country."
That is all we have asked for, a real court hearing and there has been NONE. There are several questions that have never been answered, one being if Obama WAS born in Hawaii .... or some place else. Both his CoLB and his long form BC are NOT copies of any any document.
And then their is the question of what is the definition of a NBC?
Both or Ted Crue's parents where U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Canada. Is he, or is he not, an NBC? If he becomes the Republican nominee, you on the Loony-left will demand that answer!!!
Cruz's daddy was a U.S. citizen when his son was born in Canada? Really? Do your phantasms have no limit? If you compare Cruz's U.S. citizen status with Obama's, then Obama is more American than George Washington and Cruz is either Canadian or Cuban, but NOT American. But hey, you can still have him, we don't want him,

You incredibly wrote : "That is why we have the Court. It doesn’t mean that we have to like the decision or agree with it or that we even have to like the Supreme Court. That’s just the way we determine the law or the probable law in this country." OMG!!! Is that how you reacted when the supreme court determined that Obamacare was constitutional? How John Roberts was bought out? You and LRS had your say on that. The so-called left did not agree with the 2nd amendment ruling, but far as I know, said left has not bawled about it and accused the court of any shenanigans the way you do when it doesn't go your way. The so-called left just dropped it.

Obama wins in 2008 and 2012. He cheated
The Supreme Court approves Obamacare and the Chief Justice swears in Obama twice, Roberts was either threatened or bought off.

Tell me again about accepting Supreme Court decisions, Mr Supreme Court bigot (Rogue scholar tm reg'd).
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184875 Feb 4, 2014
Re: ". Both his CoLB and his long form BC are NOT copies of any any document."

Answer they are BOTH official copies, certified by the DOH of Hawaii, with the official seal on the back (where it is supposed to be), and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent to him.

Re Cruz. You said: "Both or Ted Crue's parents where U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Canada..."

Answer. No, just one of them was, his mother.(Of course, you are asking us to take his word for it that she was a US citizen. We haven't seen HER birth certificate.)

The answer to your question whether Cruz who was born on Canadian soil and has we presume one US parent, is that I don't know. He MAY be a Natural Born Citizen (if he can prove that his mother was one). Some think that even kids born in foreign countries to ONE US citizen parent are Natural Born Citizens. Some, however, disagree--like Meese and the Heritage Foundation.

But Obama was not born overseas, He was born in Hawaii (and it is truly nutty to think that he even could have been born in another country), and the question of whether EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen has been settled. They are. That means that Obama is, and so are Rubio and Jindal. Cruz is a "maybe."

Here is what the Heritage Foundation said:

"
“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.] "

You see? It says that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, but that the NBC status of children born abroad of US citizens is "much less certain."
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184876 Feb 4, 2014
And now, Rogue Scholar '05, since I have answered all of your questions, why not try to answer mine?

For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

So, the question is, what are the chances that all three happened?

(Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying.)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184877 Feb 4, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Whale shit!!! The Eisenhower family arrived in this country in 1741,"
Like everyone, Eisenhower had FOUR grandparents.
Under strict construction, you cannot interpret the Constitution as barring something unless it actually says that it is barred, and it never says that dual citizens are barred from being president. And the common law INCLUDES dual citizens.
If Trumbull and Bingham had meant to exclude dual citizens from becoming citizens, they would have written it into the 14th Amendment, but they never did, and their quotations indicate that they intended that EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders would become a US citizen at birth.
Trumbull said: "... in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Bingham said: "“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Since both of those writers of the 14th Amendment say that EVERY person born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, it is a lie, repeat, A LIE, to say that they intended to exclude the US born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming citizens. If they had intended that, they would have written it into the 14th Amendment, or at least said it, but they never did. They never mentioned dual citizens at all. So, there is no reason to believe that they intended to treat them any differently than other citizens.
More importantly, TEN appeals courts have all ruled on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen for presidential eligibility, and the birther side lost in every single case. ALL ten courts ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined in the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, which ruled that EVERY CHILD born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders, is a Natural Born Citizen. There was no exception for dual citizens. Here are some of the rulings:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Whale shit!!! Howard, Trumbull and Elk v. Wilkins did made it clear, total jurisdiction, guess that left a dual-citizen in the cold!
Violations of the Constitution does not make law or precedents.
When speaking of jurisdiction, that would be the US Constitution, not some line in the sand and we all know that an alien while in this country is controlled by treaty, not the US Constitution, so his children born here are citizens of his country, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184878 Feb 4, 2014
Jacques,
One more comment about endangered species. And that is the piano manufacturing industry stopped using ivory on their keys decades ago.
They still use ebony for the blacks, but the ivory tradition was scrapped a long time ago, They now use some sort of plastic instead for the whites. It is very consistent and durable and has no bearing on sound.
That's your lesson for today.
loose
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#184879 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Whale shit!!! Howard, Trumbull and Elk v. Wilkins did made it clear, total jurisdiction, guess that left a dual-citizen in the cold!
Violations of the Constitution does not make law or precedents.
When speaking of jurisdiction, that would be the US Constitution, not some line in the sand and we all know that an alien while in this country is controlled by treaty, not the US Constitution, so his children born here are citizens of his country, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Only in Slimy Dale's dreams.

Trumbull said:

"....in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)"

And that does not support your position at all.

The Elk v. Wilkins case applies only to American Indians, and they were intended to be excluded from the Natural Born Citizen status because they were considered sovereign nations, with whom American had TREATIES. So they were like diplomats and their families. But a special law in 1924 changed all that. The ruling was BEFORE Wong Kim Ark in any case, and Wong Kim Ark said every, repeat EVERY, child.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And there is not a word in the US Constitution that says that either the US-born children of foreigners or 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 does 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 specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. 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?

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. They never said that they worried about the US-born children of foreigners or thought that they would be disloyal.(And two world wars have shown that they are just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens.)

And yet SLIMY Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) 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. Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184880 Feb 4, 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. In fact, 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 does 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 specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. 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 SLIMY Dale? Why?
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.
Why SLIMY Dale? Why?
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 (who never said any such thing) 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, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he NEVER said so. So why assume that he believed that your ancestors were less loyal and should be lower-level citizens than the US-born children of foreigners? 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?
Well, the views of Slimy Dale have not convinced the appeals courts, or the US Supreme Court (which rejected a birther appeal of the Farrar case). Nor has it convinced the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election twice UNANIMOUSLY (and that includes the votes of Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul). And it should not convince YOU.
Whale shit!!! By operation of the 14th amendment, it only creates two types of citizens, NBC (those that have no foreign attachments) and naturalized citizens (those that have questionable allegiance/foreign attachments). Now a dual-citizen explains itself, does it not. According to the framers of the 14th, Obama is an alien and according to you he is a dual-citizen, neither are authorized to be POTUS, both are subject to a foreign power.

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 Nov 2017 1,643,294
Trump is A 1 hr Kens head 75
Oregon the "33rd" state founded by Freemasons.. 1 hr Jesse Rishel 1
Are we still letting The FreeSouls do Cannibali... 1 hr Jesse Rishel 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr hojo 64,134
last post wins! (Apr '13) 3 hr Concerned_American 2,652
last post wins! (Dec '10) 3 hr Concerned_American 3,217

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages