BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243106 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Dale

Wichita, KS

#193353 Jun 13, 2014
Miller time!!! Of course it has been Miller Time all day. Yep, I have cut and replaced 100 ft of gutter covers, built a new step to my deck and refinished two deck chairs.
Amazing what one can do without this thread!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193354 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
Yeah, MORON, really. That is what the court stated. Of course, according to Play Law, the Court stated something entirely different. Illiteracy is bliss, according to Play Law.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
According to the Court, "[t]he question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 652 (1898)
Nowhere in the majority opinion did the court discuss whether or not China was Wong Kim Ark's "homeland".
In fact, the court answer the question by stating "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Id at 705
Frank

Spokane, WA

#193355 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for Dufus, a person born in the US of parents who are ordinary aliens have never been considered "under the influence of a foreign power." Play Law doesn't count, and it never has.
That leaves Dufus Dale out in his fantasy world.
<quoted text>
All the drugs Obama took must be affecting his brain, he said that 30% to 40 % of students in the United States were illegal aliens,then he said that those students were the future of our country. Obama doesn't know the difference between an illegal alien and a legal alien,actually he simply doesn't care,he only cares about his own political agenda. Obama believes that illegal aliens will eventually vote,then will vote only for Democrats.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#193356 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You think I'm a 73-year old demented Serbian from Chicago babbling about "energy crises and water masses depletions which imperil the Earth's survival, fluids MEHC, QCMEHC and QCNDMEHC combat"?
Hahahahahahahahah!
LMAO!!! Irrelevant, you are a loser, just like all of your communist friends!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193357 Jun 13, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
According to the Court, "[t]he question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 652 (1898)
Nowhere in the majority opinion did the court discuss whether or not China was Wong Kim Ark's "homeland".
In fact, the court answer the question by stating "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Id at 705
Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China. Exception! Now hush.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193359 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, MORON, really. That is what the court stated. Of course, according to Play Law, the Court stated something entirely different. Illiteracy is bliss, according to Play Law.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say you're illiterate, you just don't know what a coma means! LMAO!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193361 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China. Exception! Now hush.
OMG is Romper stupid. He quotes the position of the losing attorney. PATHETIC.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
According to the Court, "[t]he question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 652 (1898)
Nowhere in the majority opinion did the court discuss whether or not China was Wong Kim Ark's "homeland".
In fact, the court answer the question by stating "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Id at 705
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193362 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG is Romper stupid. He quotes the position of the losing attorney. PATHETIC.
<quoted text>
You are a major dumbazz, aren't you? That snipet spelled out the law perfectly, though. That's why I posted it, dumbazz......to show Ark was an EXCEPTION. Batboy has bat shyt for brains. LMAO!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193363 Jun 13, 2014
Not to mention Batboy is a flat out liar! Anchor baby.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193364 Jun 13, 2014
Keep your papers handy, anchor baby! LMAO!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193365 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say you're illiterate, you just don't know what a coma means! LMAO!
Romper fantasizes that US courts for over 100 years don't understand the comma.

PRICELESS.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, MORON, really. That is what the court stated. Of course, according to Play Law, the Court stated something entirely different. Illiteracy is bliss, according to Play Law.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193366 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a major dumbazz, aren't you? That snipet spelled out the law perfectly, though. That's why I posted it, dumbazz......to show Ark was an EXCEPTION. Batboy has bat shyt for brains. LMAO!
Sorry Romper, but the opinion of the loser in a USSC case does not spell out the law. Now why did Romper post the rejected theory that is not the law?

Because he is a dumb fool who doesn't have a clue how to read a court opinion.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG is Romper stupid. He quotes the position of the losing attorney. PATHETIC.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193367 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Romper, but the opinion of the loser in a USSC case does not spell out the law. Now why did Romper post the rejected theory that is not the law?
Because he is a dumb fool who doesn't have a clue how to read a court opinion.
<quoted text>
It most certainly did. Too bad you can't understand it. Ark was an exception. No two ways about it, batboy.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193368 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Romper, but the opinion of the loser in a USSC case does not spell out the law. Now why did Romper post the rejected theory that is not the law?
Because he is a dumb fool who doesn't have a clue how to read a court opinion.
<quoted text>
You sure blow a lot of smoke for such a small puffer! Oh, still waiting for you to "splain dat chit"! LMAO DILBERT!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#193369 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Really.
"Really". The trailer trash's most impressive reply of the week. One word, and no profanity. God will surely felicitate you tonight when you have your daily talk with HIM. Say hi for me, and ask him, after he's looked at you, how he figures he created you in His image. You're God's Edsel, LOSER.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#193370 Jun 13, 2014
Dale wrote:
Miller time!!! Of course it has been Miller Time all day. Yep, I have cut and replaced 100 ft of gutter covers, built a new step to my deck and refinished two deck chairs.
Amazing what one can do without this thread!!!
No one who has read your above post will ever ever drink Miller again. Ewww

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193371 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
Not to mention Batboy is a flat out liar! Anchor baby.
Hahahahahahaha,

I'm a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

But Romper thinks I'm a Serbian immigrant because I posted a Serbians' patent abstract? And because of Romper's Law of Two Google Searches?

Romper,l get your head on straight.

Romper's Law of Two Google Searches: If two (related) searches somehow connect to Chicago, it means that wojar is some Serbian guy who lives in Chicago.

Way cool, schizo-boy.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193372 Jun 13, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
"Really". The trailer trash's most impressive reply of the week. One word, and no profanity. God will surely felicitate you tonight when you have your daily talk with HIM. Say hi for me, and ask him, after he's looked at you, how he figures he created you in His image. You're God's Edsel, LOSER.
J A C Q T A R I opens his toothless orifice and gently slides his head in. Now, FART! Go tend to your marital problems you sorry excuse of a man.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#193373 Jun 13, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It most certainly did. Too bad you can't understand it. Ark was an exception. No two ways about it, batboy.
That's not what the court said. Loser.

Play Law doesn't count except in Play Land and at Chuck E. Cheese's..

Don't forget to ask your momma for a toy with your pizza.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#193374 Jun 13, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahahahahaha,
I'm a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
But Romper thinks I'm a Serbian immigrant because I posted a Serbians' patent abstract? And because of Romper's Law of Two Google Searches?
Romper,l get your head on straight.
Romper's Law of Two Google Searches: If two (related) searches somehow connect to Chicago, it means that wojar is some Serbian guy who lives in Chicago.
Way cool, schizo-boy.
Proof, yet again, you can't read. Try "entirely" different searches. No two words were alike. Spain dat chit, anchor baby.

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) 2 min EditorAtLarge 1,660,527
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Patriot AKA Bozo 64,316
News Use of 'retarded' as derogatory term is offensi... (Jun '08) 9 min B GoneTardoDems 6,658
Trump is A 34 min wake 199
Who was the bouncer they called "Tubby" in the ... 45 min tbirdsPAL 2
News Random act of kindness in turbulent world (Jan '10) 3 hr chugs 8
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr honeymylove 11,604

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages