BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 239535 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

#179680 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
LMAO!!! "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" simply means not subject to a foreign power at birth, this would mean the father must be a citizens of the US(Jus sanguinis).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179681 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pound sand!
Don't you get fed up with being shown up every single time? Pound sand? Proves you invented and lied at that same time. Poor loser.

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
You wrote : "But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do" Prove it now, BSr. NOW. Or will you tell me to find it myself.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179682 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
OMG, a major new outlet referred to Obama as "biracial". How can that be when "everyone' says he is black. Why even Obama claims he is .... black.
White mayor, black wife: NYC shatters an image
Associated Press
By JESSE WASHINGTON 6 hours ago
Another milestone is passing in America's racial journey: The next mayor of New York City is a white man with a black wife.
Even in a nation with a biracial president,......
http://news.yahoo.com/white-mayor-black-wife-...
More racial obsessions. Scours the internet for sexual perversions and racial topics and guns and and...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179683 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
More Americans are now unemployed than were unemployed during the Great Depression!!!
Please prove it. Or are you going to tell me to pound sand?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179684 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
LMAO!!! The only people that are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)" are citizen.(see 14th amendment)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179685 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
<quoted text>
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
Yes,that's what you said. And that post above, do you even know how full of "IT" you are?

The insurgency was full-blown. Americans AND Iraqis were killing each other by the ton whilst nothing was working. Wasn't it smarter to retire to barracks, wait for the withdrawal and let the different Moslem sects kill each other off, which, incidentally they were not doing when Saddam was in charge.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179686 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Jus sanguinis has been the law since 1868. Now we know why Gray made the following.
“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.”
"Tinker Bell!!! " ? Who else says that?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179687 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
LMAO!!

212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#179688 Nov 16, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for NOT replying relevantly in place of Rogue.
You can agree that our country is much worst off now than before Obama was elected?
Frank

Spokane, WA

#179689 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
The short answer is that we do not impeach presidents anymore.
Difference between Obama and Cruz is that Cruz was not born here.
We can impeach a President, we just can't impeach a Democrat President when the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Cruz is one hundred times the better man than Obama. Why would any one vote for a dishonest,corrupt carpet-beggar, who refuses to tell the truth?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179690 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" simply means not subject to a foreign power at birth, this would mean the father must be a citizens of the US(Jus sanguinis).
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".

“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).(May 23, 1866)

Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?

Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#179692 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Frank, the "Immigration department" never told any alien that their children born in the US would not be eligible to be President.(strike 1) The immigration department told immigrants that if they became citizens of the United States and had children,their children would be eligible to run for the office of POTUS.
Incidentally, the INS is not the Supreme Court (strike 2) Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United States. and Barack Obama's Obama's father never ran for President (strike 3, you're out). You admit the Barack Obama is the son of a Kenyan British Subject. Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United States.
<quoted text>
Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United States. The immigration department told immigrants that if they became citizens of the United States and had children,their children would be eligible to run for the office of POTUS. Barack Obama's father does not fall into that category.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179693 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".
“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).(May 23, 1866)
Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! In the Civil Rights Act, it made it very plain in the first sentence (twice) that people born in the US and subject to other nations would not be citizens, thereof.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179694 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!
212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Vattel's section 212 was clearly not the "natural law" Howard was referring to.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Applying Vattel's very own definition of jurisdiction to Howard's quote above is inconsistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis rule. Using Vattel's definition of jurisdiction or the definition as understood by every country and as stated in Black's Law Dictionary puts the lie to Dufus Dale's Play Law theory.

In other words, Play Law breaks down.

On the other hand, when "owing allegiance" is understood in the context of natural allegiance from common law to one born on the soil (and with the notion of local allegiance that applied to aliens (such as parents) in a foreign country) Howard's statements are fully consistent with his stated understanding of the applicability of the jus soli rule under the Constitution.

But Dale would rather play children's games with his broken fantasies.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel?
Howard stated his understanding of natural law as pertaining to citizenship, and it was not Vattel.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Vattel? Vattel's understanding of jurisdiction is at odds with Play Law. so is every other accepted definition of jurisdiction.
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.
The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
So Dale believes Howard's understanding of citizenship derives from Vattel, even though Howard plainly stated otherwise, and even Vattel's definition of jurisdiction is totally at odds with Play law.
p/QUOTE]
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179695 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it would mean the father must not be a foreign diplomat who would not be "subject to their laws".
“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).(May 23, 1866)
Senator Howard clearly didn't believe in the Play Law definition of jurisdiction. Neither did Bingham, Trumbull, the Federal courts nor just about anyone else.
Sorry:
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
"EVERY COUNTRY" wherein Dufus Dale's misinformed Play Law reading of the US Constitution could not possibly apply.
Little child Dale is trying to import his play law into Howard's understanding of the law, which Howard, Bingham, and Trumbull all rejected. All three were on board with jus soli and stated clearly so.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! The US Constitution has jurisdiction over this Republic and being "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" simply means the Constitution, for it is the law of the land.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179696 Nov 16, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United States. The immigration department told immigrants that if they became citizens of the United States and had children,their children would be eligible to run for the office of POTUS. Barack Obama's father does not fall into that category.
Barack Obama's father was not eligible to be POTUS. So what?

The "immigration department" said? Since when did the "immigration department' determine who is eligible to be President?

Frank, did you forget your Aricept?

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#179697 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
<quoted text>
Where did I say that? No, it started before 2009. In fact it started right after we captured Iraq.
But Obama stopped fighting it and ordered our troops to remain in the camps so they would not get hurt.
Ya know, if policemen remain in the police stations, very few cops will get hurt. But by doing so they turn the streets over to the criminals and many more innocent people become crime victims.
Rouge realy we could never win in Vietnam The French was there from 1887 to 1954 they could not win. When the Japanese were they they could not win. Google Walter Cronkite & President Kennedy in a interview said Vietnamese must fight their own battles we can train them but they MUST DO THE FIGHTING. Also read NSAM 263 and the RECOMMENDATIONS
One part says A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time
If President Kenned had lived No Vietnam War.
Gen Douglas MacArthur said Never get involved in a land war in Asia. How right he was.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179698 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The only people that are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution)" are citizen.(see 14th amendment)
That is not stated in the 14th Amendment, was never stated by Howard, Bingham or Trummbull, or by the courts. It is also inconsistent with the definition of jurisdiction held by every independent nation of the world.

Dufus Dale believes that only the US is not fully a sovereign nation and needs permission from foreign countries to exercise authority over all persons within its dominions.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#179699 Nov 16, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Vattel's section 212 was clearly not the "natural law" Howard was referring to.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
Applying Vattel's very own definition of jurisdiction to Howard's quote above is inconsistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis rule. Using Vattel's definition of jurisdiction or the definition as understood by every country and as stated in Black's Law Dictionary puts the lie to Dufus Dale's Play Law theory.
In other words, Play Law breaks down.
On the other hand, when "owing allegiance" is understood in the context of natural allegiance from common law to one born on the soil (and with the notion of local allegiance that applied to aliens (such as parents) in a foreign country) Howard's statements are fully consistent with his stated understanding of the applicability of the jus soli rule under the Constitution.
But Dale would rather play children's games with his broken fantasies.
<quoted text>
p/QUOTE]
LMAO!!! The citizenship clause is about who will be citizens, is it not.
When one is born in the US of an alien father that child automatically receives the citizenship and allegiance of his father's country of origin.
The US hasn't the right to strip a foreign citizenship from anyone, unless requested by the holder.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#179700 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell!!! Jus sanguinis has been the law since 1868. Now we know why Gray made the following.
“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.”
Not (jus sanguinis) according to Justice Gray (and the majority), who Dufus is quoting. The court held that persons born here are natural born citizens even if the parents are aliens. That was the reason why Ark was held to be a citizen: he was natural born and needed no naturalization.

According to Dufus Dale, jus sanguinis has been the law, but no one knew it. Not even Howard, Bingham, or Trumbull. Now what happened to all those presumptive citizens who lost their citizenship after the 14th was ratified? According to Play Law their children are also aliens, and so 99% of the public in the US are ALIENS!

Moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, Dale cannot understand a word Howard said. Howard was 100% in support of the jus soli rule and he stated so.
“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).(May 23, 1866)
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).
So either Howard did not understand his own words or Dale is terribly confused and illiterate.

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 Neil Gorsuch opposes the Kelo decision - a terr... 1 min Hillary got thumped 7
News ICE Agents 'Stalking' Criminal Courts To Captur... 3 min spytheweb 14
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Cheech the Conser... 1,509,619
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Uncle Tab 262,463
News Collapse of Obamacare repeal plan puts Freedom ... 4 min Denny CranesPlace 200
News Ivanka Trump: A White House force, just not an ... 4 min Trump your President 187
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 5 min You got what you ... 1,289
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 9 min swampmudd 7,650
News Fights erupt at pro-Trump rally on California b... 20 min Lawrence Wolf 149
Gay Skype !! 28 min jasonb210b 125
News Ellison says Democrats must fight Republicans a... 1 hr Hillary got thumped 148
More from around the web