BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243001 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

#130648 Nov 29, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The personal opinions of the Howard in the drafting of the 14th Amendment was irrelevant into the meaning of the final language of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)
Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)
Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)
Want more?
Switching so soon Mobarf? LMAO!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130649 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So he said two different things. And by the way, the only people who are born in the USA who are "foreigners, aliens" are those who are the children of foreign diplomats.
John Bingham, another of the writers of the 14th Amendment, 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)”
And still another, Senator Lyman Trumbull, said:
"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)
I see you are having problems with the comma, also see you have not pointed out the laws Howard used in penning the Citizenship Clause.
Finish your assignment!
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#130650 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Switching so soon Mobarf? LMAO!!!
What's that, Toby?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130651 Nov 29, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The personal opinions of the Howard in the drafting of the 14th Amendment was irrelevant into the meaning of the final language of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)
Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)
Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)
Want more?
that is funny, it was ratified just as he wrote it, it is the law.
How did that law come about?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130652 Nov 29, 2012
Hey Slopuke, just how many puppets do you use? What an immature wittle wimp. unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant! LMAO wittle manchild
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130653 Nov 29, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What's that, Toby?
Did I not admit to that dipshat? And how many times did it happen? Once.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130654 Nov 29, 2012
Besides that jacqazz, I told you I let my real name slip, did I not? Well, nickname but close enough! Thought you had something didn't ya? LMAO!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130655 Nov 29, 2012
James Tiberius Kirk wrote:
<quoted text>
The personal opinions of the Howard in the drafting of the 14th Amendment was irrelevant into the meaning of the final language of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)
Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)
Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)
Want more?
Please tell us where the 14th came from and why.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130656 Nov 29, 2012
The Buttflaps or should I say, Buttflap has been clownstomped! Buttflaps are unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant! LMAO!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130657 Nov 29, 2012
Ah, HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130658 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I see you are having problems with the comma, also see you have not pointed out the laws Howard used in penning the Citizenship Clause.
Finish your assignment!
fu
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#130659 Nov 29, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean, ask any past President to show his BC for 5M to the charity of his choice and they'd jump on it. That doesn't say anything to you?
<quoted text>
No he hasn't shown any copies of either his BC or CoLB. Jpg images are not documents. Just try showing a police officer a jpg of your drivers licence, registration and proof of insurance and see what he says!
Obama posted his jpg voluntarily and was not ordered to do so by law. Can you figure out the difference between that and being asked to show your DL, etc. by a police officer?
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#130660 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
I see Omama is so lost that he's called in the big gun.....Romney! Don't tell him a thing Mitt. LMAO!
I thought you laughed your AO a long time ago. I thought GB didn't have a life but it was you who repeatedly posted all day on Thanksgiving while others were spending time with their loved ones. Can't you find anything more productive to do with your life?
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#130661 Nov 29, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
The point being that you are trying to draw a connection between Yucaipa with Watts and East LA (East Los to the locals) where there isn't one.
The Mason-Dixon line isn't imaginary, it's real.
Being in Southern California in now way connects one with the South, the land of backwards red-necks. You obviously don't know that when people refer to the South, they are talking about the States in Rebellion.
Do you consider South Dakota to be part of the South as well????
I thought the connection was Interstate 10. ; )
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130662 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
fu
LMAO!!!!!
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#130663 Nov 29, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You consider $5M to a charity a stunt? Wonder how the charities feel about that? Omama didn't "cowboy up"! sad very sad
Seriously? No particular charity was ever named so why would any charity have any feelings about not receiving the money?
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130664 Nov 29, 2012
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>ALSO then everybody would know Obama is illegal and went to Occidental & Columbia as a foreigner with a 2.6GPA and penchant for unmentionable acts with other men.
Dream on. Obama has released his birth certificate (short form and long form) and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it and it is further confirmed by the Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. The story that Obama attended school as a foreigner comes from AN APRIL FOOL's article, and it is hardly likely that a man who went on to attend Harvard Law School and graduated from it MAGNA CUM LAUDE, got only a 2.6 GPA.

Much more likely is that Mitt Romney, who also did not show his college transcripts or passport records, got a 2.6 GPA.

In any case, it is an excellent thing that Obama did not take up Trump's $5 million offer. It is not good precedent for the President of the United States to do anything for money, even money offered to charity.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130665 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!!!
fu too.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130666 Nov 29, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
fu too.
LMAO!!! That was 2 fu's you gave me, you want to make that 3! hahahaha!!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#130667 Nov 29, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That was 2 fu's you gave me, you want to make that 3! hahahaha!!!!
Sure.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min River Tam 42,304
News Trump's popularity is slipping in rural America... 12 min Quirky 1,388
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 17 min Quirky 281
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 30 min Rattlesnake Pete 1,642,915
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 31 min DR X 120
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 1 hr Quirky 33
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Concerned 14,188
News Sen. Al Franken accused of inappropriate behavi... 6 hr Bill Clinton 61
News Sen. Al Franken Accused Of Sexual Assault By LA... 6 hr YouDidntBuildThat 87
More from around the web