BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 240955 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.

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.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184881 Feb 4, 2014
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dual-citizen for POTUS don't count either.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#184882 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
First it was LMAO
then it changed to TURD
now it is morphed into Whale Shit

Is this an example of evolution or devolution?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184883 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...
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...
LMAO!!! A NBC is one that is born in the US and not subject to any foreign power.
The only thing that Ark v. US accomplished was to open the doors to a new type of citizen, one that would be on the same footing as a naturalized citizen and not eligible to be POTUS, a Dual-Citizen. Now if you want to have a dual-citizen as POTUS, I would suggest you get an amendment to the US Constitution, since that is a requirement for Art. 2 Sect. I, para. 5.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#184884 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! A NBC is one that is born in the US and not subject to any foreign power.
The only thing that Ark v. US accomplished was to open the doors to a new type of citizen, one that would be on the same footing as a naturalized citizen and not eligible to be POTUS, a Dual-Citizen. Now if you want to have a dual-citizen as POTUS, I would suggest you get an amendment to the US Constitution, since that is a requirement for Art. 2 Sect. I, para. 5.
Wong Kim Ark majority decision did not create a new type of citizen.

Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)

As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority's holding would allow Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen would be eligible to the presidency.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#184885 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Dual-citizen for POTUS don't count either.
Play law counts even less. Poor Dufus - dead wrong, dead last, DOA
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184886 Feb 4, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
First it was LMAO
then it changed to TURD
now it is morphed into Whale Shit
Is this an example of evolution or devolution?
LMAO!!! Free country, it is your choice, I don't care.
Obskeptic

Southfield, MI

#184887 Feb 4, 2014
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.
Any adult that finds themselves working a minimum wage job into their thirties or later simply failed to prepare themselves with the necessary skills or education to do better for themselves. Why is that my fault or anyone else? Most minimum wage earners receive an increase above the minimum within the first year of being a responsible employee. They should call the act to raise the minimum wage "The Black Teenage Unemployment Act", because they will most certainly suffer the greatest harm by raising it. This is just another effort by liberal democrats to establish a wedge issue that the low information voter will be motivated by to oppose voting republican. Just like the phony "war on women" or immigration reform.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/...

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184888 Feb 4, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wong Kim Ark majority decision did not create a new type of citizen.
Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)
As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority's holding would allow Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen would be eligible to the presidency.
LMAO!!!

......to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

The above can't be accomplished when born subject to you father's country of origin.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#184890 Feb 4, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wong Kim Ark majority decision did not create a new type of citizen.
Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)
As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority's holding would allow Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen would be eligible to the presidency.
LMAO!!!“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”(Ark v. US)

As you know the US can not strip a citizenship of a foreign country, unless requested by the naturalization process. Yep, the Ark case created a new type of citizen, a dual-citizen, which is on the same footing as a naturalized citizen.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184891 Feb 4, 2014
Grand Birther wrote:
You believe in fairy tales, huh???
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.
James Madison says you're an idiot.

"place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States;"

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184892 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”(Ark v. US)
As you know the US can not strip a citizenship of a foreign country, unless requested by the naturalization process. Yep, the Ark case created a new type of citizen, a dual-citizen, which is on the same footing as a naturalized citizen.
Blithering nonsense.

BTW, when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his US citizenship didn't 'strip a citizenship of a foreign country'. What is Dufus smoking?
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wong Kim Ark majority decision did not create a new type of citizen.
Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)
As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority's holding would allow Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen would be eligible to the presidency.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#184893 Feb 4, 2014
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Neither the natural born citizen born in the US of alien parents nor the naturalized citizen resident in the US is subject to a foreign power.

John Flanagan, born in the US of an Irish father and US mother is a US citizen. Ireland also calls him a citizen. Dufus Dale claims the US improperly "stripped" him of a foreign citizenship. Ireland says Dufus Dale is FOS and sent Mr. Flanagan an Irish passport, even though he never lived in Ireland or set foot there.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min CodeTalker 270,684
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min Grey Ghost 1,536,430
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 3 hr Russian Amb Grope... 8,624
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 13 hr WHAT 36,895
News Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 17 hr Eagle 12 70,633
News Fact check: Newt Gingrich spreads Seth Rich con... 17 hr Retribution 42
News Terri Schiavo's Painful Deprivation of Food and... (Mar '09) Sat The Marquis de Sade 1,222
More from around the web