BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 214643 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

#111070 Sep 25, 2012
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>While the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act, which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed," were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.
As noted, Trumbull and Bingham had different views. And the amendment was passed by several hundred members, some of whom sided with Trumbull and Bingham, and some perhaps sided with Howard. Thus the intent of the writers of the amendment from what a few of them said gets only so far. The job of determining the meaning of legislation and the Constitution is that of the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court determined in the Wong Kim Ark case (which was by a vote of six to two, one justice not voting), that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. It also ruled that the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" did not exclude the children of aliens born in the USA. Unless they were the children of foreign diplomats, they also were subject to the jurisdiction. That is the law, and the chance of the US Supreme Court reversing it is so low as to be considered laughable. But, unless and until the US Supreme Court reverses that ruling (or we pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn it, which is equally unlikely), that will continue to be the law.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111071 Sep 25, 2012
Well, to the best of my knowledge, sodomy is still a violation of the UCMJ and it does not matter if you are of the same sex or male/female sex. Sooooo, it looks like his Air Force Lieutenant Colonel will be taking the "Long Course" at Fort Leavenworth.
Oh, the Army also has it's Command and General Staff school there and they call that the "Short Course" so just because someone goes to Fort Leavenworth, does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing.
Oh, and if you do an unnatural sex act with a child or during a rape, it is life w/o parole!!!

AF Officer Charged After Facebook Chats With Teen; Sep 25, 2012
Orlando Sentinel| by Susan Jacobson

An Air Force Reserve lieutenant colonel was arrested Monday after he exchanged sexually-charged Facebook chats with a 17-year-old boy, court documents show.
The parents of the teen contacted the FBI in Maitland on Sept. 11 to report the inappropriate messages between their son and Stephen "Steve" Governale, a protocol officer at MacDill Air Fore Base in Tampa.
The boy told agents he met Governale, 49, in October 2009 through a group affiliated with the military. Governale invited the boy in September 2010 to attend a conference in Brevard County, and the two stayed together in a hotel room, documents state.

Governale, a protocol officer, and the boy watched a pornographic movie, shared a bed and engaged in sexual conduct, according to the government. Governale assured the boy that what they were doing "was not gay," paperwork states.
Last spring, Governale picked the boy up in Seminole County and drove him to a function at Patrick Air Force Base in Brevard, the teen told investigators. The two again stayed together in a hotel and engaged in similar behavior, prosecutors said.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/25...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111073 Sep 25, 2012
I don't care what the size of Michelle's butt is. Besides some guys like women with bug butts. But she needs to leave other people's butts alone.
I think it odd that Liberals want government out of women's vaginas but it is okay for them to get into our stomachs!!!

Queen of Mean’s heavy hand on school cafeterias
Michelle Obama should butt out of the food chain

Obese youngsters going to school should no more be deprived because of their girth than in-your-plate First Lady Michelle Obama should be called on her capacious caboose.

Any weight challenged student will tell you It is difficult enough getting through school without being set apart because of their weight.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/arti...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#111074 Sep 25, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Please take your fantasy to another country (perhaps China) and explain to them how you are not subject to their jurisdiction and thus can't be punished for violating their laws
Dale thinks a group of Muslims in Dearborn can legally stone a woman to death for adultery.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#111075 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques,
I have been reading up on Islamic jihad.
It should be required reading for everyone of sound mind and body.
I am planning to start my own little mini-series here expounding on my horrific discoveries entitled "Islam 101".
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111076 Sep 25, 2012
So far, the birther-birfoons, under the leadership of Rogue and Sioux, have claimed :

1. That the US Ambassador to Libya was raped before he died;
2. That the US Ambassador was personally killed by an ex-Gitmo detaineeè;
3. That the Ambassador was homosexual.

We are awaiting confirmation of the above three low, cheap, mean reports conveyed via Obama-hate internet sites by these two birfoon birther leaders. In the meantime, would they, excluding obscenity, comment?
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111077 Sep 25, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re "tens of thousands of miles." Referring to the round trip for his mother, of course. BTW, there were no direct flights, and the normal way of going from the USA to Kenya was via Los Angeles, New York, London, Rome and Cairo.
Oh, I get it, this is satire. Well, the notion of Obama's mother spending great deal of money on a long and risky trip to give birth in Kenya when there were good hospitals in Hawaii (and her son got a birth certificate showing that he was born in one of them) is already a huge laugh.
"is already a huge laugh" - as is every birther - birfoon.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111078 Sep 25, 2012
I guess this means the Fogbow people are .... worried. But I bet Obama already has his copy!

Update: Fogbow reports that a transcript of the [Federal Court hearing at Jackson, MS yesterday] hearing has been ordered for the reader’s pleasure. Those who want to contribute, please donate at the Fogbow.com . Transcripts are notoriously expensive but this one may be worth every penny.

Latest from Sterngard:
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111079 Sep 25, 2012
Obama is right now speaking at the UN. So far so good, why, he was just applauded after speaking of the right of every American to express themselves, that he is very much criticized himself and will fight to the death the right of anyone to criticize him. Spoke of freedom of that LA person to make that film on Mohamad even if he does not agree with it, and will defend the right of all to criticize christianity, which he said was HIS religion. Anyhow...
Dale

Wichita, KS

#111080 Sep 25, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As noted, Trumbull and Bingham had different views. And the amendment was passed by several hundred members, some of whom sided with Trumbull and Bingham, and some perhaps sided with Howard. Thus the intent of the writers of the amendment from what a few of them said gets only so far. The job of determining the meaning of legislation and the Constitution is that of the US Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court determined in the Wong Kim Ark case (which was by a vote of six to two, one justice not voting), that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. It also ruled that the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" did not exclude the children of aliens born in the USA. Unless they were the children of foreign diplomats, they also were subject to the jurisdiction. That is the law, and the chance of the US Supreme Court reversing it is so low as to be considered laughable. But, unless and until the US Supreme Court reverses that ruling (or we pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn it, which is equally unlikely), that will continue to be the law.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote:“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
The Fuller court tried to change the Constiution and failed.
Jacques Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada

#111081 Sep 25, 2012
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
I have been reading up on Islamic jihad.
It should be required reading for everyone of sound mind and body.
I am planning to start my own little mini-series here expounding on my horrific discoveries entitled "Islam 101".
Why don't you read the Old Testament first, parts of which were used to "inspire the koran?".

The Old Testament, which has been canonized by the Holy See, and is accepted as the true word of god, clearly orders you to stone to death any adulterer and homosexual. We can conclude from this command that we have a duty to stone these sinful people, no matter that we will be prosecuted, as we would be martyrs, victims of persecution as were the first christians. If you are a good christian, Loose, you HAVE to start the murderous stoning of these evil adultererers NOW or else renounce your faith.

After you've finished with the above, then I suggest you move on to Islamic Jihad.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111082 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
So far, the birther-birfoons, under the leadership of Rogue and Sioux, have claimed :
1. That the US Ambassador to Libya was raped before he died;
2. That the US Ambassador was personally killed by an ex-Gitmo detaineeè;
3. That the Ambassador was homosexual.
We are awaiting confirmation of the above three low, cheap, mean reports conveyed via Obama-hate internet sites by these two birfoon birther leaders. In the meantime, would they, excluding obscenity, comment?
Well then Jacques, you should have no problem showing us where "I" claimed those things!
Now, typical Libtardian Logic, if I post a source, that means I accept that as fact!

This from the Washington Times;
PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org , citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered.......:

UPDATE 2 9/15/12:
The AFP has sent out the following statement:
Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing.
A news report made by the Libyan Free Press was also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed. Their video was removed.

Read more: PICKET: UPDATE - AFP not behind report of purported rape of murdered U.S. ambassador to Libya - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111083 Sep 25, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re a funny man Mr. liars. That Obama is calling for a balanced approach to deficit reduction I believe is shared by the majority of Americans. Do you feel oppressed now that we have a black president Mr. Liars? Did the patriot act give you a sense of extended freedom?
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Gramps, isn't that the same line of BS Omama fooled you guys with 4 years ago? We must have a balanced approach to deficit reduction....that one is almost as good as Omama's transparency pledge! What a joke. Gramps, we don't have a black President. We have a bi-racial President. Don't worry, I'm sure your "entitlement" check will be there on the 1st. How come people are leaving Clownifornia in droves? I mean it's such a well run state and really has its finances in order!!! Plus, it's a sanctuary state.....LMAO y'all really got it going on out there in Clownland.
The only thing is that Obama's idea of a "balanced approach" is not the same as most people have. Reducing spending by 0.3% is NOT BALANCED!

Since: Aug 12

AntiObama

#111084 Sep 25, 2012
Did Whoopie Goldberg endorese Obama yet?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111085 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Obama is right now speaking at the UN. So far so good, why, he was just applauded after speaking of the right of every American to express themselves, that he is very much criticized himself and will fight to the death the right of anyone to criticize him. Spoke of freedom of that LA person to make that film on Mohamad even if he does not agree with it, and will defend the right of all to criticize christianity, which he said was HIS religion. Anyhow...
But at the same time Obama and O'Biden will shake down newspapers and TV networks who did not report things they way they would have liked. Just a few weeks ago Axelrod wanted Gallup to go to the White House to explain their methodology for their polling!!! Can you spell INTIMIDATION of free speech?!?
Oh, if Bush had done that the LSM would rail in horror!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111086 Sep 25, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you read the Old Testament first, parts of which were used to "inspire the koran?".
The Old Testament, which has been canonized by the Holy See, and is accepted as the true word of god, clearly orders you to stone to death any adulterer and homosexual. We can conclude from this command that we have a duty to stone these sinful people, no matter that we will be prosecuted, as we would be martyrs, victims of persecution as were the first christians. If you are a good christian, Loose, you HAVE to start the murderous stoning of these evil adultererers NOW or else renounce your faith.
After you've finished with the above, then I suggest you move on to Islamic Jihad.
Excusez-moi, s'il vous plaît, but the Pope did no such thing. The Gospels of the New Testament as accepted as the words of God as is the Ten Commandments. The rest of the Bible is inspired by God. Not the same thing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#111087 Sep 25, 2012
Ten Commandments - by George Carlin

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#111088 Sep 25, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
In US v Ark, the USSC affirmed the jus soli principle as the rule which applies to persons born in the US. The rule, per binding precedent, applies to Ark, to President Obama, to Mitt Romney, and anyone else born within the US.
The court was presented with the question of whether Ark was a citizen. The court answered that Ark is indeed a citizen because all persons born in the US (with rare exceptions) are natural born citizens.
Marie Elg prayed the court to find her a natural born citizen, and the court of appeals answered appropriately: She was a natural born citizen because she was born in the US, without regard to the citizenship of her parents. The court relied on the precedential ruling of US v Ark.
Nevertheless the birfoon wishes to distinguish Elg on the basis of facts that had no bearing on the decision. Sheer lunacy.
<quoted text>
Agree.

Even Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case understood that the majority's ruling comfirmed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen when he wrote:

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)

Learn to Read

United States

#111089 Sep 25, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Dale thinks a group of Muslims in Dearborn can legally stone a woman to death for adultery.
Dale doesn't think

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#111090 Sep 25, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was the case we would have been left with the Hamilton Clause-
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
They didn't think "born a Citizen" was enough protection from foreign influence in the Presidency, so they changed it to Natural Born which carried a more stringent requirement than simply birth.
The issue presented is what is the difference between "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born citizen"?

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, it was presumed that state citizenship was primary and that federal citizenship was derivative. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377 (1918)("It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon").

The reason that the drafters of the constitution did not define who was a citizen was result of the drafters' desire to "avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves." Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815, 828-829,(1971)

This controversy as to who can be a citizen in the United States reached its zenith in the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Taney wrote:

we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857)

In other words, Justice Taney believed that national citizenship is dependent upon state citizenship and that each state has the right to confer rights and privileges of citizenship upon whoever the state wishes.

With this understanding of the state/national citizenship controversy at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the reason that Hamilton's version "born a Citizen of the United States" was not considered was because each state could determine who was a citizen. The Constitution version "natural born citizen" would supersede any state's version of who was a citizen since "natural born citizen" would be defined by its common law meaning.

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
Need Urgent Financial assistance or Loan? Conta... (Jun '13) 2 hr Lisa 15
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr The Donald_ 59,545
fun with kimmie 4 hr Gold6242 1
News As Lake Mead dwindles, can an interstate water ... 4 hr Three Psyche 3
If Hillary Elected, Putin Says He Will "Prepare... 4 hr RuA 4
Investing in Russia 5 hr RuA 1
News Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, ren... 9 hr Go Blue Forever 4
More from around the web