BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243607 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.

LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105186 Sep 3, 2012
Airboat ride jokeboi? LMAO
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105188 Sep 3, 2012
Isn't it a requirement one must be a pedophile to follow Islam?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#105189 Sep 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Still just a citizen, despite all of you whining.
Hey, has anyone heard about Jimmy Carter? Boy, he is one lose canon in the Democrats arsenal. And I think Paul Ryan is baiting Jimmy too. If Obama rebut Ryan, it just might cause Jimmy "The White Peanut Man" Carter to speak up and he can do far more damage than Joe Biden can!

Ryan says Jimmy Carter era was better than Obama's
STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press--September 3, 2012

GREENVILLE, N.C.(AP)— Paul Ryan delivered a scathing criticism of President Barack Obama's stewardship of the nation's economy Monday, arguing that even conservative punching bag Jimmy Carter's presidency was better as Democrats streamed to the state to nominate Obama for a second term.
"The president can say a lot of things and he will," the Republican vice presidential candidate told more than 2,000 supporters in East Carolina University's student recreation center, about 230 miles east of the Democratic National Convention site in Charlotte. "But he can't tell you that you're better off. Simply put, the Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are right now."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ryan-says-...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105190 Sep 3, 2012
Isn't it also a requirement that one be must a liar to follow that perverse ideology?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#105191 Sep 3, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Normally I do not forward racist jokes and this is mildly racist ... but it is funny.
Just got this from a reliable source.(Word Is out!)
It has been leaked to the press that Barack Obama has chosen:
Sylvester Stallone for his 2012 running mate
Nancy Pelosi for Secretary of State
He is dropping Joe Biden from the ticket.
They will run as Sambo, Rambo and Bimbo, without Dumbo.
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
And THAT is what passes for "funny" in your social circle? That is so pedestrian as to be pitiable.
So, eye did give a disclaimer, didn't eye? It is not like eye claimed that someone was a purple butted simian, did eye?
Just in case you did knot no but "Sambo" was an Asian Indian and knot an African!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105192 Sep 3, 2012
Now, if you're a murderer, does that negate the first two requirements?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105193 Sep 3, 2012
Squeal you little piglets! You're going to the chopping block. LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#105194 Sep 3, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Birfoon Fantasies = frivolous nonsense. So says the court.
I'm sorry that you don't like the rulings of the SCOTUS.

The one living in fantasy land here is you.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#105195 Sep 3, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Birfoon Fantasies = frivolous nonsense. So says the court.
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry that you don't like the rulings of the SCOTUS.
The one living in fantasy land here is you.
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was the case, the SCOTUS would have taken no issue with calling him a "Natural Born Citizen"
It is AK who simply doesn't understand the ruling in Ark. The Court in Ark upheld "the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion," which BTW, made persons born in the US natural born citizens.


“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive, or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign- born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”
US v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 673-4 18 S.Ct. 456, 466 (1898).

Yet AkBirfoon seems to believe that the court in Ark "took issue" with Ark's natural born citizenship even though the Court's opinion supported his natural born citizenship.

Now where, AK, did the court "take issue" distinguishing the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of aliens in relation to the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of citizen parents?

Where?
Jacques Ottawa

Montréal, Canada

#105196 Sep 3, 2012
LRS wrote:
Isn't it a requirement one must be a pedophile to follow Islam?
A largwe number of priests and scout leaders would beg to differ.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#105197 Sep 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It is AK who simply doesn't understand the ruling in Ark. The Court in Ark upheld "the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion," which BTW, made persons born in the US natural born citizens.
I understand it completely.

Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a CITIZEN
Elg was ruled to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

I'm sorry that you see these imaginary visions of something else.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#105198 Sep 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

Now where, AK, did the court "take issue" distinguishing the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of aliens in relation to the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of citizen parents?
Where?
I already answered this, I am sorry that you wish to bury your head in the sand.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."- Minor V Happersett

In citing who was without question a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, the SCOTUS referred to the VATTEL definition- born of TWO US Citizens:

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

In discussing other forms, such as simply being born on our soil the court CLEARLY stated there was some question as to- NATURAL BORN status:

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

And just like today, they avoided the issue and kicked the can down the road:

"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Damn, I wish they had a crayon font for you Wojar.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#105199 Sep 3, 2012
I am wondering why they have people who died ten years ago who are still on the voting rolls. Normally if you miss a few elections they remove you from the rolls.
My own father passed on 04/04/04 and sure enough he got a primary ballot since he voted by absentee ballot as he was legally blind. Mt mother asked me what to do and I too the ballot and wrote "VOID" and listed his date of death and then I signed it.
But a few months later we got another ballot and this time I went down to the elections office to get it fixed. Now if I was a dishonest person I would have voted for myself and my father. Not that I am lily white but I do try and do the right thing.
But anyway, 1o years, give us a break and do your jobs!!!

30,000 Dead North Carolinians Registered to Vote
September 3, 2012

A Raleigh-based group devoted to reducing the potential for voter fraud presented the N.C. Board of Elections on Friday with a list of nearly 30,000 names of dead people statewide who are still registered to vote.
The Voter Integrity Project compiled the list after obtaining death records from the state Department of Public Health from 2002 to March 31 and comparing them to the voter rolls.

“Mainly, what we’re concerned about is the potential [for fraud],” said project director Jay DeLancy.“Since there is no voter ID law in North Carolina, anybody can walk in and claim to be anyone else.”
DeLancy said his group has found evidence to suggest voter fraud in these numbers, but will not quantify how much until he is able to do more analysis. Most cases of what look like a dead person voting are likely just administrative errors, such as a son named Junior voting in his father’s name instead of his own.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#105200 Sep 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand it completely.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a CITIZEN
Elg was ruled to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
I'm sorry that you see these imaginary visions of something else.
Huh? Right from the court's opinion: "the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion."

Geez, I don't see the new rule "just a citizen" by birth within the dominion. Do you?

Do you have a clue what the "established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion" entailed?

Eh?

BTW, Elg was ruled to be a natural born citizen because Ark was a natural born citizen: born in the USA without regard to parentage.

Read the holding and underlying rationale that was affirmed by the USSC: Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (App.D.C. 1938) modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

I'm sorry that you fantasize that the USSC "took issue" with Ark's natural born citizenship. No person born a citizen in the United States has ever been considered anything but a natural born citizen.

FACT. Even the dissenting opinion, as noted by ATF, recognized the implications of the majority ruling. Ark would be eligible for the Presidency. So you think Chief Justice Fuller was afflicted by "these imaginary visions of something else"? Eh?
wojar wrote:
It is AK who simply doesn't understand the ruling in Ark. The Court in Ark upheld "the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion," which BTW, made persons born in the US natural born citizens.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105201 Sep 3, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
A largwe number of priests and scout leaders would beg to differ.
Too bad THEY were not the subject. Swine.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#105203 Sep 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW, Elg was ruled to be a natural born citizen because Ark was a natural born citizen:
Your an idiot. Wong Kim Ark was referenced exactly TWO times in the entire Elg case, and it was simply to determine CITIZENSHIP and if said citizenship could be lost because of the actions of the parents, not the natural born status of such you moron.

"It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties."- Perkins v Elg

Note the part about- "where his parents RESUME their FORMER allegiance"-

At the time of birth the parents of Elg where citizens and held SOLE allegiance to the US- they later returned and RESUMED their allegiance to Sweden.

Parental citizenship and allegiance were KEY in deciding NATURAL BORN STATUS. That is why:

Ark- still just a citizen
Elg- Still natural born citizen

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#105205 Sep 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I already answered this, I am sorry that you wish to bury your head in the sand.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."- Minor V Happersett
In citing who was without question a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, the SCOTUS referred to the VATTEL definition- born of TWO US Citizens:
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
In discussing other forms, such as simply being born on our soil the court CLEARLY stated there was some question as to- NATURAL BORN status:
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
And just like today, they avoided the issue and kicked the can down the road:
"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Damn, I wish they had a crayon font for you Wojar.
Huh? The Court in Ark resolved the "doubts". What RU smoking? There were no doubts after the Ark decision whether to "include as citizens [just as children of citizen parents born in the country] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." There is nothing in Ark taking "issue" distinguishing the citizenship status of any person born in the US a citizen based on parentage. Indeed, the court rejected the notion that parentage had anything to do with whether a person born in the US was born a citizen per the ancient rule of citizenship by birth.

Before Ark: "[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also...." That's why they were natural born citizens, they were born citizens in the country. All persons born citizens in a country are natural born citizens. There has never been any other rule, and no such rule was ever suggested by any court in the history of the United States.

After Ark: There is no doubt that all children born in a country of alien parents are born citizens. Not born citizens of a secondary class of born citizens. No such rule ever existed.

YOU CAN QUOTE MINOR V. HAPPERSETT TILL THE COWS COME HOME but there is not stated there or by any other authority that a person born a citizen in a country can be anything other than a natural born citizen.

Now if you can find the imaginary rule whereby some citizens who are born citizens in this country are distinguished from other citizens born citizens in this country you will earn a gold star on your report card. It's not in Minor v. Happersett.

But you have to learn to comprehend written English to do so.

Good luck!
wojar wrote:
Now where, AK, did the court "take issue" distinguishing the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of aliens in relation to the citizenship of persons born citizens in the country of citizen parents?
Where?

“impeach now replace later”

Since: Sep 09

Dump Trump now

#105206 Sep 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I can, poor old Wong Kim Ark. Poor guy was only declared a citizen by the SCOTUS, too bad he didn't meet the requirements that Elg did when she was declared a natural born citizen.
If Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen then please explain why Chief Justice Fuller tell us in his dissent that because of the majority ruling that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be president with the following words "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."? United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)

Furthermore, if Wong Kim Ark was only a "citizen" as you stated then why was Chief Justice Fuller having a hysterical fit over the majority's ruling that would allow children of foreigners of the MONGOLIAN race who happened to be born to them while passing through the United States are eligible to the presidency?

If Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent understood that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because he was eligible to the presidency then why can't today's birthers understand the same logic and reasoning that so apparent to Chief Justice Fuller back in 1898?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105207 Sep 3, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
If Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen then please explain why Chief Justice Fuller tell us in his dissent that because of the majority ruling that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be president with the following words "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."? United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)
Furthermore, if Wong Kim Ark was only a "citizen" as you stated then why was Chief Justice Fuller having a hysterical fit over the majority's ruling that would allow children of foreigners of the MONGOLIAN race who happened to be born to them while passing through the United States are eligible to the presidency?
If Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent understood that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because he was eligible to the presidency then why can't today's birthers understand the same logic and reasoning that so apparent to Chief Justice Fuller back in 1898?
Terrible Tuna!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#105208 Sep 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? The Court in Ark resolved the "doubts". What RU smoking? There were no doubts after the Ark decision whether to "include as citizens [just as children of citizen parents born in the country] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents." There is nothing in Ark taking "issue" distinguishing the citizenship status of any person born in the US a citizen based on parentage. Indeed, the court rejected the notion that parentage had anything to do with whether a person born in the US was born a citizen per the ancient rule of citizenship by birth.
Before Ark: "[I]t was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also...." That's why they were natural born citizens, they were born citizens in the country. All persons born citizens in a country are natural born citizens. There has never been any other rule, and no such rule was ever suggested by any court in the history of the United States.
After Ark: There is no doubt that all children born in a country of alien parents are born citizens. Not born citizens of a secondary class of born citizens. No such rule ever existed.
YOU CAN QUOTE MINOR V. HAPPERSETT TILL THE COWS COME HOME but there is not stated there or by any other authority that a person born a citizen in a country can be anything other than a natural born citizen.
Now if you can find the imaginary rule whereby some citizens who are born citizens in this country are distinguished from other citizens born citizens in this country you will earn a gold star on your report card. It's not in Minor v. Happersett.
But you have to learn to comprehend written English to do so.
Good luck!
<quoted text>
Jokie, how many sockpuppets do you have? LMAO at this clown.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California now world's 5th largest economy, sur... 4 hr Gray Water 15
News California: The Crazy State 6 hr guest 343
News Is a new Southern California job worth a $24,40... 17 hr ThomasA 2
News California bans state travel to Oklahoma over i... Fri Annie Oakly 13
News Disabled Veteran's Life Ruined By Illegal Immig... Fri davy 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Fri TheFartingClintone 64,852
News Consumer Choice is the key to California's clea... Fri Solarman 1