BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 240294 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

#114219 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Are children of US Citizens born overseas citizens of this country? Think real hard, but don't hurt yourself.
Sure, but that was by laws passed by Congress that added the ability of US citizens abroad to the existing rules which were, as the US Supreme Court held in the Wong Kim Ark case, based on the common law and including every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#114220 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Are children of US Citizens born overseas citizens of this country? Think real hard, but don't hurt yourself.
I see you're unwilling to answer the question.

That does not bode well for your case. You realize that a judge will ask the same simple question I asked, right?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#114221 Oct 4, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the matter, Thomas, no intelligent response to my comment?
Can't defend the dufus Bush????
Can't defend his absence at the convention???
Are you crying?
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#114222 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Don't need an amendment! The 14th is the law of the land! Follow it!
Gee, too bad for you that the US Supreme Court does not agree that you need citizen parents in order to be a US citizen at birth. The US Supreme Court has just turned down two birther appeals of the Georgia court ruling that held: "that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. " What is the effect of rejecting the appeal? It is that the ruling in Georgia stands.

If the US Supreme Court does not agree with you about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, then you have the right to try to get Congress and three quarters of the states to pass another Constitutional Amendment specifying that the 14th Amendment should be applied in the way that you think that it should. But until then, it will be applied the way that the US Supreme Court thinks that it should.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#114223 Oct 4, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is Bill Clinton after the debate? Who knows? Has it been that long? And Hillary Clinton? You know better than to even ask. In her role as secretary of state, she is respecting tradition in that a cabinet officer does not comment on the campaign.
Now, your turn. Where are Bush daddy and Bush son? Where is Grove? Where is Cheney? Where is Rumsfeld? I know you won't answer 'cuz you have zilch to say. Resembles your silence also on the Romney family military service, one dad, 3 sons, all talk, no enlistment.
Where's Waldo?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#114224 Oct 4, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is Bill Clinton after the debate? Who knows? Has it been that long? And Hillary Clinton? You know better than to even ask. In her role as secretary of state, she is respecting tradition in that a cabinet officer does not comment on the campaign.
Now, your turn. Where are Bush daddy and Bush son? Where is Grove? Where is Cheney? Where is Rumsfeld? I know you won't answer 'cuz you have zilch to say. Resembles your silence also on the Romney family military service, one dad, 3 sons, all talk, no enlistment.
I have not seen Rummy on TV today but he has been on in the past few days. Again, former REPUBLICAN presidents avoid commenting on politics but Bill Clinton has been actively involved with Obama's reelection. Oh, and I can understand why Hillary should avoid political comments especially after Kathleen Sebelius recent comments.
Now, if you want to go back to Romney's lack of military service, at least he did not dodge the draft like Bill Clinton did!!!
Another point about Dick Cheney is his age. When he turned draftable age, it was 1960 and we were not at war. Next, major drafting for the Vietnam War did not start until 1964 but by then he was 23 y/o and had married his wife and in 1966 his first child was born. The peak of the Vietnam era draft was in ..... 1966.
Now, do you want to talk about how Bill Clinton dodged the draft? He did get a draft notice, ya know!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#114226 Oct 4, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
A federal investigation was ordered in the Zimmerman case because obviously there was no local police investigation; or in any case a poor one.
The panther case on the other hand was politicized from the start and initiated by one of the Bush DOJ’s right wing political hacks. There simply was no case. The guy with the club was told to leave and he left. End of story. The other guy lived in the building and was a certified poll watcher.
“Hebert said in order to pursue a voter intimidation case, there should be depositions from voters who felt intimidated and the actions should be shown to be part of a larger campaign.
The Black Panther complaint provided little evidence to support the government’s allegation that the group conducted a coordinated campaign to intimidate voters.
“Frankly, the Philadelphia case [against the New Black Panthers] was on shaky ground from the beginning and was largely, I think, filed by the previous administration for the new administration to have to clean up, putting them in a difficult position,” said Hebert, a critic of the Bush administration’s management of the Justice Department who has written extensively about Section 11(b) for his current employer, the Campaign Legal Center”
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/12/23/the-bla...
Zimmerman's case went to the Grand Jury. No recommendation for charges.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#114227 Oct 4, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Tacky a Republican Party lemming? What a shock!
Don't worry, be happy. Obama is still ahead in the polls!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#114228 Oct 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The jurisdiction is the territory of the USA within which the law of the United States operates. Everyone born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA. That was ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, and dozens of cases cite it.
Birthers recently appealed the ruling of the court in Georgia which held: "that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." But the US Supreme Court turned down their appeal. The "subject to the complete jurisdiction theory" could not even get four justices on the court to call the case. What is the effect of the US Supreme Court turning down the appeal? It means that the ruling in Georgia stands.
And the Georgia case was by no means alone. Here are some others:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
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."
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
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"
Dumbass! The jurisdiction, thereof, is the US Constitution.
All of your posted cases are in violation of the 14th amendment, violations of the US Constitution does not set precedence.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#114230 Oct 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, too bad for you that the US Supreme Court does not agree that you need citizen parents in order to be a US citizen at birth. The US Supreme Court has just turned down two birther appeals of the Georgia court ruling that held: "that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. " What is the effect of rejecting the appeal? It is that the ruling in Georgia stands.
If the US Supreme Court does not agree with you about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, then you have the right to try to get Congress and three quarters of the states to pass another Constitutional Amendment specifying that the 14th Amendment should be applied in the way that you think that it should. But until then, it will be applied the way that the US Supreme Court thinks that it should.
Don't need an amendment. The law was ratified in 1868 and has not changed. The only thing that has change is our system of ruling on the law, which is in violation of the Constitution.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#114231 Oct 4, 2012
You’ll hear from me now. Obama got his ass kicked last night. Obama look like he was in a state of shock as Romney seemed to reverse every position he ever espoused. LOL
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#114232 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Dumbass! The jurisdiction, thereof, is the US Constitution.
All of your posted cases are in violation of the 14th amendment, violations of the US Constitution does not set precedence.
You are welcome to your dreams, but they are not the law. The US Supreme Court is the final ruler on the law, and it does not agree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Neither, by the way does the US Electoral College. Birthers tried to get some of the 600 or so members of the Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama using the claim that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, but not one single member of the Electoral College changed her or his vote. The count of votes from the Electoral College was exactly the same as the electoral votes determined in the presidential election.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#114233 Oct 4, 2012
Poppo wrote:
You’ll hear from me now. Obama got his ass kicked last night. Obama look like he was in a state of shock as Romney seemed to reverse every position he ever espoused. LOL
Don't worry, be happy. There is no presidential candidate debate next week. Yea, I know there is that little VeeP debate with Ryan and ..... ah ..... er... O'Binden but ......, I guess it is okay to worry just a little.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#114234 Oct 4, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're unwilling to answer the question.
That does not bode well for your case. You realize that a judge will ask the same simple question I asked, right?
I answered it very well, you just can't understand the answer.

“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” WKA v. US (1898)

Last time I checked the UK and Kenya were independant nations.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#114235 Oct 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, but that was by laws passed by Congress that added the ability of US citizens abroad to the existing rules which were, as the US Supreme Court held in the Wong Kim Ark case, based on the common law and including every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Sorry, the 14th Citizenship Clause wasn't based on common law, it was based the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (National law) and natural law.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#114236 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I answered it very well, you just can't understand the answer.
“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” WKA v. US (1898)
Last time I checked the UK and Kenya were independant nations.
So we use Kenyan law when determining who are our citizens here in the US?

That's news to us.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#114237 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The comma has several uses in English grammar, all related to marking-off separate elements within a sentence.
Justice Derp, how do you think the commas function in that sentence. Parse the meaning of the separate elements.

Don't be scared, this is only fifth grade sentence structure.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#114238 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I answered it very well, you just can't understand the answer.
“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” WKA v. US (1898)
Last time I checked the UK and Kenya were independant nations.
That is right, and so are we, and it is our law that applies in the USA. Our law says that regardless of what other countrys' laws say, a child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen.

The US Supreme Court has just rejected two birther appeals of the ruling in the Georgia case that held: " that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. " What is the effect of the US Supreme Court rejecting the appeal? It is that the Georgia ruling stands.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#114239 Oct 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are welcome to your dreams, but they are not the law. The US Supreme Court is the final ruler on the law, and it does not agree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Neither, by the way does the US Electoral College. Birthers tried to get some of the 600 or so members of the Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama using the claim that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, but not one single member of the Electoral College changed her or his vote. The count of votes from the Electoral College was exactly the same as the electoral votes determined in the presidential election.
My so-called dreams are the law per the 14th.
How can Obama be a Natural Born Citizen, he's an alien.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#114240 Oct 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, the 14th Citizenship Clause wasn't based on common law, it was based the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (National law) and natural law.
Sorry, but the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said that the common law applies, and so---by the way---did the Minor v Happersett ruling. And in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the US Supreme Court said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min huntcoyotes 265,032
News Black Lives Matter* (Oct '15) 8 min R12 Freon 1,998
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 10 min huntcoyotes 145
News US Sen. Elizabeth Warren launches book tour 11 min anonymous 97
News Is Trump building a blueprint for mass deportat... 11 min Fucisil 44
News Nation-Now 47 mins ago 7:57 p.m.First protected... 18 min huntcoyotes 18
News Comments 19 min anonymous 1
Gay Skype !! 1 hr latinhairy 341
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 hr uIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 1,520,792
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 4 hr davy 197
More from around the web