BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 196955 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.

Dale

Wichita, KS

#181045 Dec 3, 2013
angel wrote:
<quoted text>Just curious....how does it feel to know that not one single person that matters agrees with you on this issue?
I mean the guy is a year into his second term.....OTHER TEABAGGERS are embarrassed by you and seek to distance themselves from 'birthers'..yet you still keep beating a dead horse.
It kind of sad.(in an utterly hilarious way.)
LMAO!!! When did your opinion ever matter?
Beat a dead horse (democrat party) long enough, it won't come back alive!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181046 Dec 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Birth on US soil is sufficient, and Obama really was born in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all show).
“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)”
Bingham is right, and you are wrong.
“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)”
Hatch is right, and you are wrong.
“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.]
The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong.
"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... )
The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong.
"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)
Graham is right, and you are wrong.
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...
(They are right, and you are wrong.)
LMAO!!! Sorry, but English common law wasn't used in creating the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181047 Dec 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Sorry, quoted Bingham twice and not Hatch:
“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).
And, like Bingham, Hatch is right, and Dale is wrong.
LMAO!!! With the ratification of the 14th Amendment this nation went under jus sanguinis

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181048 Dec 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And in your sick mind FDR did not ignore Pearl Harbor??? Ever hear of the Battle of Taranto which happened 13 months BEFORE the Pearl Harbor attack???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarant...
Oh, where was Bin Laden killed? It was not in Afghanistan, was it? Pakistan violated the Laws of Neutrality and we had every right to enter their country to get Bin Laden.
And you never explained WHO killed and maimed all those Iraqis, have you?!? But you do imply the U.S. did it ALL!!!
Why do you supply ammunition against your own very self? It's so Catch 22.

Yes, I was waiting for that one, for you to put the first foot into your gaping mouth. Yes, Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. Which begs the question, why'd Bush invade Afghanistan? DOH !

As to FDR, I've mentioned here in my posts, at least 5 times, but you don't read, do you?, that although it's mere speculation on my part, that FDR probably knew about Pearl Harbor. Just because he's a democrat does not mean he's not capable of doing this? LBJ was a democrat, but I have no difficulty stating that the faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident - and at what cost.

WHO killed all those Iraqis? The U.S. killed quite a few. But, Iraqis mainly killed each other, brought on by the U.S. invasion. There was much killing by Saddam before the invasion, yes, but peanuts compared to the killings after the U.S. occupation began, why, they make Saddam look like an altar boy. And look at today, with most U.S.troops out. Tell us how the situation has approved since deposing Saddam. Do tell us. BTW, there were no Catholic or Jewish persecutions under Saddam. How're they doing today? BTW, Hezbollah, Iranians, Al Qaeda, Taliban were not present in Iraq during Saddam's reign. They sure are now. Iraq fortress against your Iranian buddies is no more, Rogue. Oh, you forgot to ask who killed those 4,500 G.I.s and who maimed those 32,000 G.I.s. Were those G.I.s in Iraq on R and R? Who sent them in harm's way?

Quit being a loser apologist. Afghanistan and Iraq were unjustified, totally unjustified. Mistakes. Costly mistakes.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181049 Dec 3, 2013
Put those dancing shoes on, Rogue, and start the soft shoe. The DJIA is down for a 2nd straight day, or is that the 3rd straight day? Below 16,000. Keep praying, your wish of another recession may just come true. THAT'll show Obama, that BLACK msn unlawfully occupying the WHITE House.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181050 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Sorry, but English common law wasn't used in creating the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment.
Wrong.

Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS" Id at 120 (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted:[W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli Doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: "[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenć, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830)(Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

At common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship.. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

Finally, the court Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)
observed: "Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant."

Finally,“United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Now you need to explain as to why the courts for the past 180 years has gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws based on Jus Soli principle in English common law.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181051 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! With the ratification of the 14th Amendment this nation went under jus sanguinis
Wrong.

Case Law:

“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

"The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
Grand Birther

Painesville, OH

#181052 Dec 3, 2013
RUT ROH, BIRFOONS!

It looks like Republicans are trotting out their favourite faux scandals now that the ACA website is running more smoothly.

Benghazi and IRS already falling out Republicans feeble brains this week.

L O L
Dale

Wichita, KS

#181053 Dec 3, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Case Law:
“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)
"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)
“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)
"The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)
“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
LMAO!!! You seem to have forgotten what laws Howard used to frame the "Citizenship Clause".

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nation)and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States."

Offered and ratified in its entirety in 1868.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#181054 Dec 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Since Romper is innumerate the comment above is meaningless.
After a hard evening at play, Romper's caregiver will put him to bed so that he can be ready for a serious day of work in the Play Court in the morning. She gave up on his ever learning percentage.
You're still carrying on about this? LMAO! Did you stay up all night? LMAO! Grasshut Slumlord, you have absolutely no idea how dense you are! ROTFLMAO You'd give a one-legged dog a good run for its money! Where is that leash? LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#181055 Dec 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And Romper thinks that will get his foot out of his mouth?
Romper: 5.6T is 76% of 10.025T?
Hahahahahahahahahaha! That's business arithmetic?
And the demented fool keeps coming back.
He cannot comprehend middle school math, and that does "fairly represent the situation."
R O T F L M A O !!!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#181056 Dec 3, 2013
This guy has about as much class as our two fruitcakes combined! LMAO!

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/12/01/rob...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181057 Dec 3, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
RUT ROH, BIRFOONS!
It looks like Republicans are trotting out their favourite faux scandals now that the ACA website is running more smoothly.
Benghazi and IRS already falling out Republicans feeble brains this week.
L O L
Well, there are still Obama's wife and their two girls. Why should THEY be spared? Just the fact that they are part of Obama's family makes them prime suspects. And the family dog too while Republicans are at it. Regrettably, both of Obama's parents and grandparents are deceased, not much ammunition there, though that does not deter birthers and repubs from smearing them.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181058 Dec 3, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
This guy has about as much class as our two fruitcakes combined! LMAO!
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/12/01/rob...
You said yesterday that you were ignorant concerning Canada because you didn't like the cold and that you were not interested.

Well, it so happens that if you knew ANYTHING at all about Canada, you would know that Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, has been stripped of all his powers and budget AND employees. You would also know that Rob Ford is the shame of Toronto, Ontario and Canada. But more important, you would know that Rob Ford is the ultimate conservative, member of that party, often photographed with the prime minister, Stephen Harper, and holds unabashed views on gays and liberals.

Before you start trotting out any negative "gotcha" news on Canada, which is stupid and childish by the way, learn a little background on it. It would help because FYI, and assuming that little clip was for me, I abhor Ford's conduct, his actions, his reactions, and repeat that he should resign forthwith and be barred from running for office for life. Lastly, I will not react the way you do, namely to tell you to look after U.S. affairs, quite the contrary, I welcome you to return with more "scandals" that will allow me to showcase your total ignorance.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#181060 Dec 3, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You said yesterday that you were ignorant concerning Canada because you didn't like the cold and that you were not interested.
Well, it so happens that if you knew ANYTHING at all about Canada, you would know that Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, has been stripped of all his powers and budget AND employees. You would also know that Rob Ford is the shame of Toronto, Ontario and Canada. But more important, you would know that Rob Ford is the ultimate conservative, member of that party, often photographed with the prime minister, Stephen Harper, and holds unabashed views on gays and liberals.
Before you start trotting out any negative "gotcha" news on Canada, which is stupid and childish by the way, learn a little background on it. It would help because FYI, and assuming that little clip was for me, I abhor Ford's conduct, his actions, his reactions, and repeat that he should resign forthwith and be barred from running for office for life. Lastly, I will not react the way you do, namely to tell you to look after U.S. affairs, quite the contrary, I welcome you to return with more "scandals" that will allow me to showcase your total ignorance.
Wow! I quit reading after your first sentence! One is ignorant because they don't like the cold? LMAO!!! Must be some of that fruitcake logic.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#181061 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You seem to have forgotten what laws Howard used to frame the "Citizenship Clause".
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nation)and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States."
Offered and ratified in its entirety in 1868.
Senator Howard's opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is 200 years of case law which you still are unable to refute.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#181063 Dec 3, 2013
Re: "LMAO!!! Sorry, but English common law wasn't used in creating the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th amendment. "

That is what you say, but that is not what Bingham said, and he was the leader of the bill in the House.

“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.

That is what you claim, but that is not what Senator Lyman Trumbull said, and he was the leader of the bill in the Senate:

EllenHancock
August 27, 2012 at 9:31 pm |#4
Reply | Quote

Re:“The Founders relied upon Vattel’s definition ..”

IF the writers of the Constitution had relied upon Vattel’s definition, they would have said that they relied on Vattel’s definition. If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to refer to the parents of a candidate and not the place of birth, they would have said the parents, and not used the term that was enormously well-known because it was so very common, the term from the common law.

Instead, they gave no guidance, thus allowing Tucker and Rawle, and the six justices in the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and Meese, to all say that the meaning came from the common law. Well, it did, Vattel’s word “indignes” was not even translated as Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution was written.

Re: Minor vs Happersett: If I said to you that “it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up,” does that mean that you are required to wear both suspenders and a belt” Well, that is all that the Minor vs Happersett quotation says. It says that Minor had both birth in the USA and citizen parents and hence it cannot be doubted that she had both of the possible criteria and thus was a Natural Born Citizen. But it did not say that she or anyone else was required to have both criteria in order to be an NBC.

And to make it REAL SIMPLE, the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, so if Minor were a ruling (and it wasn’t), then the Wong Kim Ark decision would have overturned it.

Re Bingham. Bingham also 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)”

It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.

More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.

And here is what Lyman Trumball said:

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, 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)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#181064 Dec 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! With the ratification of the 14th Amendment this nation went under jus sanguinis
That is what you say, but your nutty view is only your nutty view. It is not shared by Lyman Trumbull, who lead the bill in the Senate:

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, 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)

There is nothing in that comment, or in the words of Bingham, shown above, that indicates that the USA went to jus sanguinis. The Heritage Foundation, which has a great deal more legal scholarship available to it than you have, says jus soli:

“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.]

Your nutty idea is simply your nutty idea.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#181065 Dec 3, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! I quit reading after your first sentence! One is ignorant because they don't like the cold? LMAO!!! Must be some of that fruitcake logic.
Thou shalt not bear false witness - do you happen to know that one, Loser? Well, it pertains to your little habit of lying, lying and lying. Of course you read it, but your ignorance keeps you from intelligently replying.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#181066 Dec 3, 2013
An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I, to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The “revisal of the laws” by a Committee of wch Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal
Code of every State in the most material points: they wd have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washin...

WE do not live under the monarchical code.

THAT is WHY WE[USofA] had a REVOLUTION!
To be FREE of it!

to ALL libTARDED dwIdioTs:

DARE to GO ...
where NO ONE of "your ilk"
has GONE before ...

THINK!

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr IBdaMann 54,547
News Finding a decent bottle of wine for $15 10 hr wine4all4wine 1
News Cigarette tax: California voters overwhelmingly... 13 hr informer 2
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 14 hr Pastor Pete 201,864
Best Mortgage Company 22 hr Chrisrock12 1
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) Mon anonymous 60,849
Mexico will reconquer California, Arizona and t... (May '12) Mon Armenian 35
More from around the web