BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 222798 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.

Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#130592 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
jacqazz, you can't use the word joke. One must understand at least one sliver of humor first! squidshat
Excuses already. I expected it, but not that fast. What a loser. Remember "Can you hear us coming?" Ha ha.
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#130593 Nov 29, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya don't say! AMBASSADOR Stevens was a citizen. Wowee-Zowee!
Now put your play robe and toy gavel away, your mommy won't give you milk and cookies if you leave your play room a mess.
<quoted text>
Justice ha ha Dale never knew that to be a U.S. Ambassador, one had to be a U.S. citizen. Never too late to learn, I guess.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130594 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Was there a ruling in these cases? Please post them.
Here is one:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/malihi...

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

Here are the words of 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.”

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.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

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”

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130595 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>an alien is an alien, wheather Indian or a German national, neither are subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, this was created only for the citizens, "We the People".
The Constitution was not created solely for citizens that is why the preamble states "We the People" not "We the Citizens". The constitution was created to protect ALL PEOPLE not just citizens.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)

That is why your understanding of the Constitution is flawed is because you do not equate People in the Constitution with people who are not citizens.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130596 Nov 29, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice ha ha Dale never knew that to be a U.S. Ambassador, one had to be a U.S. citizen. Never too late to learn, I guess.
Your stupidity is showing!
Oh, I get it, you just wanted to see your NPD thought in print.
Ho, me, me, me! You get'em sport!
STFU!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130597 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>finally, you are correct, they are not bound to the US Constitution by being subjects of it.
Indeed. EVERYONE who is in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Foreigners who are visiting the USA are not bound to the US Constitution, but if they have children in the USA, the children have allegiance to the US Constitution; they are Natural Born US Citizens.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130598 Nov 29, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was not created solely for citizens that is why the preamble states "We the People" not "We the Citizens". The constitution was created to protect ALL PEOPLE not just citizens.
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)
That is why your understanding of the Constitution is flawed is because you do not equate People in the Constitution with people who are not citizens.
Just who do you think the people are that form a government? Aliens have no say in our government, why, they are not subject to the US Constitution.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130599 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. EVERYONE who is in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Foreigners who are visiting the USA are not bound to the US Constitution, but if they have children in the USA, the children have allegiance to the US Constitution; they are Natural Born US Citizens.
no, the children born to aliens in this country assume the citizenship of their father's country, that is the right of that country and the US can not strip that citizenship away, unless requested by naturalization.
We practice the same, when our children are born off-shore.
All aliens while here are under, local, state and Fed. statutes by treaty, but never subject to the US Constitution. If they were subject to the Constitution, they could vote and participate in our government, which they can not.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130600 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Just who do you think the people are that form a government? Aliens have no say in our government, why, they are not subject to the US Constitution.
Aliens have no say in the government, but if they are in the USA they are subject to the USA, and their children if born in the USA are Natural Born US Citizens, who DO have a say in the government and are eligible to become president.
Learn to Read

United States

#130602 Nov 29, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Excuses already. I expected it, but not that fast. What a loser. Remember "Can you hear us coming?" Ha ha.
Careful Jacques, don't rattle the Birfoon's cage. Just when you least expect it the skunk may spray. "Can't you smell him coming? U-huh, u-huh, u-huh"
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130603 Nov 29, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya don't say! AMBASSADOR Stevens was a citizen. Wowee-Zowee!
Now put your play robe and toy gavel away, your mommy won't give you milk and cookies if you leave your play room a mess.
<quoted text>
You're a worthless POS.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130604 Nov 29, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuses already. I expected it, but not that fast. What a loser. Remember "Can you hear us coming?" Ha ha.
Another worthless POS wannabe! You are and will remain insignificant and irrelevant. Too damn bad for you jacqazz. LMAO!!!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130605 Nov 29, 2012
Big Puss wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful Jacques, don't rattle the Birfoon's cage. Just when you least expect it the skunk may spray. "Can't you smell him coming? U-huh, u-huh, u-huh"
Say what? I can't hear you. LMAO!!! Must be insignificant like jacqazz!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130606 Nov 29, 2012
A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States.

Not one of you dweebs can prove the US Constitution isn't the jurisdiction over the United States.

With that said, not one of you can prove that an alien is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", which is the Constitution.

Looks like Ark was DOA. Yep, just a piss-poor attempt to change the Constitution and failed.

Now! What are you going to do with 114+ years of BOGUS law?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130607 Nov 29, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
When traveling on vacation from the East coast to the West coast, you are subject to the jurisdiction of many states, but that does not give you citizenship to each of those states.
Now go put your play robe away and your toy gavel.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
Slopuke, F Off and die you worthless POS! LMAO!!!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130608 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no, the children born to aliens in this country assume the citizenship of their father's country, that is the right of that country and the US can not strip that citizenship away, unless requested by naturalization.
We practice the same, when our children are born off-shore.
All aliens while here are under, local, state and Fed. statutes by treaty, but never subject to the US Constitution. If they were subject to the Constitution, they could vote and participate in our government, which they can not.
That is your theory. But it is not the law. The US Supreme Court and all other courts have constantly ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. Foreigners in the USA cannot vote, but their US-children can vote and are eligible to be president.

“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.

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.”

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.”

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”
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130609 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens have no say in the government, but if they are in the USA they are subject to the USA, and their children if born in the USA are Natural Born US Citizens, who DO have a say in the government and are eligible to become president.
sorry, the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship and the US government can't strip a citizenship away, unless naturalized.
Aliens have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, if this were so you would be a citizen, just by setting foot on US soil.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130610 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States.
Not one of you dweebs can prove the US Constitution isn't the jurisdiction over the United States.
With that said, not one of you can prove that an alien is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", which is the Constitution.
Looks like Ark was DOA. Yep, just a piss-poor attempt to change the Constitution and failed.
Now! What are you going to do with 114+ years of BOGUS law?
That is your theory, the ruling of the US Supreme Court is the law.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#130611 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>hahaha!! They can shoot you on the spot without a trial. Hell, they could hang you for spitting on the sidewalk.
Well, certainly not if I'm a citizen of a member nation of NATO! Or are you backing off that ridiculous stance?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130612 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your theory. But it is not the law. The US Supreme Court and all other courts have constantly ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. Foreigners in the USA cannot vote, but their US-children can vote and are eligible to be president.
“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.
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.”
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.”
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”
Ark was an exception and the court was wrong! English common law was not followed in this country as it was in England. So everyone born on US soil is NOT a US citizen. Period.

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.

Des Plaines Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RealDave 1,420,538
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 30 min Actual Science 61,093
Bank Settlement Cash. Who Gets it? 56 min CONTINUED ARTICLE 2
america's hunters............pretty amazing. 1 hr CrunchyBacon 4
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 2 hr GEORGIA 1,953
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr GEORGIA 3,054
Trump for President, He will win. watch Aug 19 Daniel Boone 3

Des Plaines Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Des Plaines Mortgages