BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 212937 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.

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

Arlington, 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

Arlington, 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.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130613 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The girl (or whoever) thinks English Common Law was strictly adhered to in this country. Wrong!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130614 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”
don't keep arguing the same old BOGUS law, Ark isn't worth the paper it was written on.
You better start wondering what you're going to do with 114+ years of BOGUS law. Damn, what a mess! Hell, you may be an alien!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130616 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The US Constitution does not mention dual citizenship AT ALL. So there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution meant for the children born in the USA who happen to be dual citizens to be treated any differently from the children born in the USA who do not happen to be dual citizens.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130617 Nov 29, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, certainly not if I'm a citizen of a member nation of NATO! Or are you backing off that ridiculous stance?
what rediculous stance?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130618 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The girl (or whoever) thinks English Common Law was strictly adhered to in this country. Wrong!
Mr. Howard told us the laws that were used to create the Citizenship Clause, English common law wasn't one of them.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130619 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>don't keep arguing the same old BOGUS law, Ark isn't worth the paper it was written on.
You better start wondering what you're going to do with 114+ years of BOGUS law. Damn, what a mess! Hell, you may be an alien!
I'm not an alien. Hell, you could be an alien. You are constantly arguing that the writers of the US Constitution held the US-born children of foreigners in lower regard than the US-born children of US citizens, when there is no evidence for that nutty idea, and when the Declaration of Independence said that "Be hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...." To be sure, there is evidence in the Constitution that some men were not considered equal, but there is NONE that says that the US-born children of foreigners should not be treated equally to the US-born children of US citizens, and there is nothing that says that dual citizens should not be treated equally to all other citizens.

In any case, you can rave on about the Wong Kim Ark case not following your nutty theory, but the fact is that it is THE LAW, and yours is just a nutty theory.

You do, however, have the Constitutional right to try to convince the members of Congress and three-quarters of the states to change the Constitution to specify that the US-born children of foreigners and dual citizens are not eligible to be president. However, currently they ARE.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130620 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution does not mention dual citizenship AT ALL. So there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution meant for the children born in the USA who happen to be dual citizens to be treated any differently from the children born in the USA who do not happen to be dual citizens.
You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there, to recognize a dual-citizenship will take an amendment.
The Fuller court had the same problem.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130621 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not an alien. Hell, you could be an alien. You are constantly arguing that the writers of the US Constitution held the US-born children of foreigners in lower regard than the US-born children of US citizens, when there is no evidence for that nutty idea, and when the Declaration of Independence said that "Be hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...." To be sure, there is evidence in the Constitution that some men were not considered equal, but there is NONE that says that the US-born children of foreigners should not be treated equally to the US-born children of US citizens, and there is nothing that says that dual citizens should not be treated equally to all other citizens.
In any case, you can rave on about the Wong Kim Ark case not following your nutty theory, but the fact is that it is THE LAW, and yours is just a nutty theory.
You do, however, have the Constitutional right to try to convince the members of Congress and three-quarters of the states to change the Constitution to specify that the US-born children of foreigners and dual citizens are not eligible to be president. However, currently they ARE.
the courts have using the premise that aliens are subject to the Constitution, they are not.
I don't have to argue or get an amendment, the Constitution has spoken.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130622 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there, to recognize a dual-citizenship will take an amendment.
The Fuller court had the same problem.
IT ISN'T THERE. There is no mention of dual-citizenship in the US Constitution. So, where did you get the nutty idea that dual citizens should be treated any differently than anyone else?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130623 Nov 29, 2012
How big of the non believers. If they don't believe then how can it be offensive to them? Dumbazzes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/29/ju...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130625 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Mr. Howard told us the laws that were used to create the Citizenship Clause, English common law wasn't one of them.
Re Howard. He also said:

"“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130626 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
IT ISN'T THERE. There is no mention of dual-citizenship in the US Constitution. So, where did you get the nutty idea that dual citizens should be treated any differently than anyone else?
there is no such thing in the Constitution, just by operation of the 14th, there aren't any dual-citizens, since if you are subject to another nation, you do not receive a US Citizenship as in, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", being the US Constitution.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130627 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The girl (or whoever) thinks English Common Law was strictly adhered to in this country. Wrong!
We know for sure that the common law was referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel is not mentioned at all. We know that the Constitution is filled with terms that come from the common law, such as habeas corpus and ex post facto, and we know that the US Supreme Court has ruled several times, including a ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall that the Constitution is to be read in the light of the common law.

Here are some articles on the subject:

http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/06/2...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...

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 Essential Politics: Campaign gets another Calif... 9 min Le Jimbo 6
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 13 min Jeff Brightone 5
News Travel Q&A: Best to trim route for 'epic' Calif... 35 min Sheri 1
News California Primary: How Hollywood Could Go for ... 2 hr Julie Jane 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr freelancehobo 58,768
anyone want to punish me? 3 hr Mintz3789 1
News Protesters clash as Donald Trump brings message... 3 hr Jane Ann 1
More from around the web