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

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 ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184810 Feb 2, 2014
Grand Birther wrote:
Obama's Membership in Muslim Brotherhood - Verified - TREASON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FlQFEv6WulwXX
Grand Birther's membership in looney tooney birfoon buffoon birther clubs - Verified - TREASON

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184811 Feb 2, 2014
"To be clear: individual consumers and musicians are not the focus of any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement investigations pertaining to the Lacey Act, and have no need for concern about the confiscation of their instruments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service"
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184812 Feb 2, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Eisenhower was born a dual US-GERMAN citizen at birth due to old German laws that made the GRANDchildren of its citizens German citizens, the Bancroft treaty could not have covered him. And, BTW, it did not cover Wilson either. He really was a dual citizen of the USA and Britain at the time of this birth.
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?
Whale shit!!! The Eisenhower family arrived in this country in 1741, now how many "greats" were there before D.D. Eisenhower, count them?
A dual-citizen is no better than a naturalized citizen, both have foreign attachments/influence and a dual-citizen fully explains itself.
You are correct, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there and a dual-citizen isn't there, get yourself an amendment to recognize a dual-citizenship status. GOOD LUCK!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184813 Feb 2, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”— Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“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.]
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 you want gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. 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. And yet you would like to throw out that principle too---why?
Sorry, Howard and Trumbull made it very plain that persons born in the US would be citizen, only if they were subject to the complete jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution).
You have only two choices, either Obama is a dual-citizen (not eligible for POTUS) or an alien, but according to the framers, Obama is an alien.
The intent of Howard and Trumbull was accepted and ratified in 1868, becoming Constitutional Law and to change it will take an amendment. GOOD LUCK!!!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184814 Feb 2, 2014
Catch y'all later.
Pinto beans, cornbread, fried taters and a big onion!!!!!!!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#184815 Feb 2, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, Howard and Trumbull made it very plain that persons born in the US would be citizen, only if they were subject to the complete jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution).
You have only two choices, either Obama is a dual-citizen (not eligible for POTUS) or an alien, but according to the framers, Obama is an alien.
The intent of Howard and Trumbull was accepted and ratified in 1868, becoming Constitutional Law and to change it will take an amendment. GOOD LUCK!!!!
And Dale endlessly argues long after he has hopelessly lost. Dale needs way more than an amendment.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184816 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques
One of the the headlines on the HuffPo today said that Beyonce 'stole the spotlight' at the Suprbowl half-time performance.
Somehow, I am not at all surpried.

You couldn't pay me to listen to that cheap and trashy sort of bunk ever again.
loose
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#184817 Feb 3, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>And Dale endlessly argues long after he has hopelessly lost. Dale needs way more than an amendment.
I'm sure that Dufus needs a break ... I'll bet he was up all night firing off complaints about the Coca-Cola Super Bowl commercial.

Speaking of ... any bets as to which "Constitution Hugging" State Legislator will be first to declare that America the Beautiful MUST be sung only in English "the way the Founders intended"?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184818 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques,
My time is far too valuable to waste watching a stupid football game.
That being said, I never for one second believed that Janet Jackson suffered a 'wardrobe malfunction' at her iconic Superbowl halftime performance ten years ago.
I have always believed that it was planned in advance, staged and deliberate.
Obskeptic

Canton, MI

#184819 Feb 3, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence shows that mankind **contributed** to the warming that has been observed. Sorry, Rougie, the idea that climate scientists are unaware of solar irradiance is pathetically stupid.
There is not a single computer weather model that can factor water vapor and its cooling effects
into the temperature predictions in the future. Not only that, but even one major volcano eruption changes the whole game for a decade, let alone multiple eruptions. Man is arrogant is the only scientific conclusion of their predictions, and mostly wrong.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#184823 Feb 3, 2014
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.”

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.”
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#184824 Feb 3, 2014
Here are more rulings:

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."

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

And, on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.

In addition, there are articles like this:

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

and this:

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

and this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#184825 Feb 3, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
A dual-citizen is no better than a naturalized citizen, both have foreign attachments/influence and a dual-citizen fully explains itself.
You are correct, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there and a dual-citizen isn't there, get yourself an amendment to recognize a dual-citizenship status. GOOD LUCK!!!
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.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#184826 Feb 3, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Whale shit!!! The Eisenhower family arrived in this country in 1741,"

Like everyone, Eisenhower had FOUR grandparents.....”
Sorry Ellen. Another Dufus Dale play law principle - women don't count. Only the citizenship of Ike's father, paternal grandfather, etc carry any weight in the court of play law.

In fact - some of the decisions you cited were written by women - so they certainly can have no effect or authority.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184827 Feb 3, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques
One of the the headlines on the HuffPo today said that Beyonce 'stole the spotlight' at the Suprbowl half-time performance.
Somehow, I am not at all surpried.
You couldn't pay me to listen to that cheap and trashy sort of bunk ever again.
loose
I didn't see the half-time show. All I saw was a football slaughter.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184829 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
DJIA analysis by Rogue Scholar :
Thursday, DJIA up. not Obama's doing
Friday, DJIA down, Obama's fault
Monday, DJIA down, Obama's fault
Tuesday DJIA up, not Obama's doing
Wednesday, DJIA down, Obama's fault
Today, DJIA up, not Obama's doing.
Do you have any comment this afternoon? Yea, I know, it is all Bush's fault!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184830 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see the half-time show. All I saw was a football slaughter.
They slaughter a 'football'? I think some one got Peyton's nutz starting with the first snap.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#184831 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether it be dry wall, dry goods, toys, electronics, and MOST important, food, China is less than half guilty if it ships defective goods or poisoned foods. It takes two to tango. Oh , our multinationals plead "no knowledge" of tainted products or slave labour shops, how convenient, when scandals like dry wall are discovered or slave labour camps are exposed. So, the Chinese take advantage of our "courageous" 1% who harm the nation in every conceivable way, namely by exporting jobs to China and other parts of Asia and creating unemployment at home, then step back and allow the Chinese and others to break every law in the book concerning labour and quality of output, only to plead ignorance when the house of cards collapses. "Oh, we had no idea that this plant housed 1,000 workers who all died when the building collapsed. We had no idea there were so many workers, and that the building was defective even though state inspectors had pointed it out" We had no idea the shellfish were fed poultry droppings, that the fish farms were all polluted, that mushrooms were fertilized in human waste, we had no idea there were excessive amounts of lead in toys that children put in their mouths". And so it goes. Yes, the Chinese do screw us whenever they can, but thanks to our stalwart entrepreneurs who let them, you, I, we all pay.
Ah, so you think Communist controlled governments are good while all businessmen need to be shot?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#184832 Feb 3, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any comment this afternoon? Yea, I know, it is all Bush's fault!
No president's fault, you know I've always been saying that. Not your way of seeing it, though. They are lopping off that cushion they've created in the last 6 months, like I said yesterday. And the rich 1% are selling off with a huge profit, and will buy back the moment it hits what THEY figure is bottom, at 25% to 30% less than what they sold and not until then. May be tomorrow, may be in 6 months, we'll see. In the meantime, they will buy bonds, making them rise - and will do the same they did to DJIA, sell high, and go back to stocks, low.

Big individual and institutional investors win, the little guy with the mutual or pension fund loses because his capital is small and he has no inside big investor's knowledge and manipulative powers. Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#184833 Feb 3, 2014
Jacques,
In ten years I have not made a single solitary peep about what Janet Jackson did at the Superbowl.
The only reason I made a comment about it earlier, after all these years, is because there was an article in the HuffPo today which stated that it was the most memorable moment in all of SuperBowl history.
How pathetic is that?
loose

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Nostrilis Waxman 1,141,384
Who were the biggest White Gangs? (Apr '10) 4 hr new some 41
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr IBdaMann 48,365
1 in 3 Chicagoans living paycheck-to-paycheck 6 hr CUU 5
abby 11-21 8 hr Shari23 6
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 8 hr Wolverine33 692
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 8 hr KiMerde 51,234
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:00AM
Predictions for Bears' Week 12 Matchup
NBC Sports 7:46 AM
Jay Cutler wants to keep on rolling (out)
NBC Sports11:16 AM
Colts rule out Dwayne Allen and Gosder Cherilus
NBC Sports12:50 PM
Rob Gronkowski fined $8,268 for bouncer move
NFL 1:30 PM
Colt McCoy 'pushing' Robert Griffin III, Gruden says