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
163,541 - 163,560 of 176,808 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184824
Feb 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184825
Feb 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184826
Feb 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184834
Feb 3, 2014
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And who caused the stock market to go up ARTIFICIALLY? Bernanke!!! And how did he do it? Quantitative Easing 1, 2 & 3 !!!! And all that did is prop up the banks and the stock market but did NOTHING for the economy'
But, AGAIN, you blame evil rich people when all they are doing is making sound financial decisions? Why my net worth has doubled under Obama!!! But I did not vote for him,

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184835
Feb 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Dale wrote:
Catch y'all later.
Pinto beans, cornbread, fried taters and a big onion!!!!!!!!!
Watch out for the big storm tonight!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184836
Feb 3, 2014
 
loose cannon wrote:
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
They also mentioned it on Fox News earlier today.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184838
Feb 3, 2014
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so you think Communist controlled governments are good while all businessmen need to be shot?
I never said, intimated, or hinted that. Those so-called Chinese Communists are as capitalist as our guys, sometimes more so. Our big business people ship jobs overseas and from then on voluntarily shut their eyes on methods used to fabricate their goods or produce their food. Hence the "fake" surprise when it is said that there is slave labour, that employees work long hours for a pittance, that conditions are as poor as they were in Adam Smith's and Ayn Rand's wildest dreams. They know, Rogue. The communists are of course guilty, but so are your guys, my guys. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.

I believe that China has now surpassed Canada as the U.S.'s biggest trading partner. Strange, that you would give such incredible advantages to a closed, dictatorial, non-democratic regime, shorn of human rights that still treats Tibetans like serfs. Is Cuba worse than China, yet a traveller out of Havana can't even bring ONE cigar or a bottle of rum home to the U.S. Do you think that makes any sense?

And quit using that demonic word "communist" every time you have a grievance. That term is old, not unlike your 1950s jokes. Two Communist nations only still exist, North Korea and less and less communist Cuba which is at last, at long last, opening up a tiny bit.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184839
Feb 3, 2014
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And who caused the stock market to go up ARTIFICIALLY? Bernanke!!! And how did he do it? Quantitative Easing 1, 2 & 3 !!!! And all that did is prop up the banks and the stock market but did NOTHING for the economy'
But, AGAIN, you blame evil rich people when all they are doing is making sound financial decisions? Why my net worth has doubled under Obama!!! But I did not vote for him,
No, not Bernanke. We're talking DJIA here Rogue. Try to stay focused please. The brokers, banks, rich 1% manipulate the DJIA, like they did when they caused the 2008, aided and abetted by the central bank, GWB and his cronies, not to mention deregulation and intentional lack of oversight. Those same 1% are working the DJIA good now. Not to worry for them, they'll make a buck, a solid buck. Look how well they did since 2008, DJIA more than doubled. Also, do you think it can do that and still not run into a correction? And what is a correction? Easy, as it has, the 1% figure, reach its peak and needs to go down, They broadcast inflation fears (why? been doing that 4 years now, still not happening), divest themselves of stocks high , market goes down, they re-buy low. And so it goes.

But hey, so much easier to blame Obama. As you did daily until you realised it made no sense and , ha ha, come back yesterday and tell me that presidents don't decide how goes the DJIA. Laughable, you blamed Obama every time it went down, remained silent or thanked the Rep Congress when it zoomed up. Oh well...

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Abby 8-22 4 min Toj 5
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Aphelion 1,096,258
Chicagoans head to Ferguson to join protests 9 min reality is a crutch 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 min Pippa 97,832
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 29 min JOEL 68,855
Defrocked priest pleads not guilty to new sex a... 30 min nOgOd 2
Word (Dec '08) 42 min not a ghost 4,634

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••

Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at August 22 at 8:28AM CDT

•••
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 ]
•••