BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243239 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.

ballantine

United States

#102717 Aug 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I declare Dale the winner!
Well that settles it. You have decided our courts, our congress, our scholars are all wrong because Dale, who cannot cite any authority and has no legal education, says they are wrong. Is there any birther on this thread who graduated high school? Can any read the mountain of authority cited by Atticus and me? I guess not. The G0P has become the modern know-nothing party populated by the uneducated and illiterate. In the real world, the birther arguments are rejected as a joke as the courts have ruled and such is the rule of law. I suggest birthers move on to the sovereign citizen movement where they can be laughed at for claiming there is a 14th amendment citizen and what not. Those who ignore what our constitution says as defined by our courts, our government, our scholars and the framers themselves aew not patriots.
1 post removed

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#102719 Aug 24, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought so. No further comment required.
Jacques, I did check Snopes on this and they said it was not said by Ben Stein. Now normally I question anything Snopes says about political issues but I think I know Ben Stein well enough to say he probably did NOT say this.

Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."
1 post removed
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102721 Aug 24, 2012
ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that settles it. You have decided our courts, our congress, our scholars are all wrong because Dale, who cannot cite any authority and has no legal education, says they are wrong. Is there any birther on this thread who graduated high school? Can any read the mountain of authority cited by Atticus and me? I guess not. The G0P has become the modern know-nothing party populated by the uneducated and illiterate. In the real world, the birther arguments are rejected as a joke as the courts have ruled and such is the rule of law. I suggest birthers move on to the sovereign citizen movement where they can be laughed at for claiming there is a 14th amendment citizen and what not. Those who ignore what our constitution says as defined by our courts, our government, our scholars and the framers themselves aew not patriots.
Thank you for respecting the judge's (me) decision.
1 post removed
Grand Birther

Springfield, NJ

#102723 Aug 24, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT do they mean then, o smart one?
Especially in light of Supreme Court Justices "referring" to iT....hummmmm
Use your kind of logic there, and come up with some BIG lie ...:)
This can't be serious.

You mean to tell me that every mention of the law of nations is also a mention of The Law of Nations?

And you also think that every mention of Vattel has to do with citizenship?

Yep, you need a nap.
3 posts removed
American Lady

Danville, KY

#102727 Aug 24, 2012
The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives

A President who abuses his executive order authority undermines the constitutional separation of powers and may even violate it. History will show that President Clinton abused his authority in a variety of ways and that his disrespect for the rule of law was unprecedented. Given this pattern, no one should be surprised that President Clinton sometimes abused his executive order authority as well. But it would be a mistake to try to restrict a President's lawful and proper executive order authority because of one abusive President.

Moreover, defenders of executive authority will find much in President Clinton's use of executive orders and proclamations that is instructive--even if they dispute the lawfulness or policy goals of the individual decrees. In short, some helpful lessons can be learned from recent experience about how an aggressive President can use his power for appropriate and beneficial purposes, and these lessons can help guide the current and future Presidents of the United States in making executive decisions.

President Clinton's most significant departure from President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush was his use (and abuse) of his powers under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate millions of acres of federal land as protected national monuments. The most controversial was Proclamation 6920, which established the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, but other designations are equally outrageous.(See Table 2.) Since the law was passed, Presidents have established over 100 monuments, covering 70 million acres.

Civil Rights.

Approximately 18 executive orders contain a significant civil rights component. Of these, several are plainly unconstitutional because they attempt to impose preferential governmental treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity with no remedial justification. These unconstitutional orders should be revoked as soon as practicable and replaced with orders that ensure equal treatment and equal opportunity for all Americans. Another order should be issued to implement the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), which held that all federal preference programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Despite the Clinton Administration's efforts to resist these and other court rulings, the Bush Administration should undertake a careful review of all federal preference programs, whether created by statute or regulation, and take action consistent with the Adarand ruling.

A presidential pardon is another example of a decision squarely within the President's discretion.61 President Thomas Jefferson believed that the Sedition Act of 1798 was unconstitutional, although the courts had upheld over 10 convictions under it. President Jefferson could not overturn the convictions, but he did drop the remaining prosecutions when he assumed office and pardoned the two individuals still in prison. Jefferson's pardons were not subject to challenge. Likewise, President Clinton's pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists (FALN pardons) on August 11, 1999, and his many questionable pardons on January 20, 2001, are not subject to challenge in court--regardless of Clinton's alleged political or other improper motives in granting the pardons. The fact that the Sedition Act truly was unconstitutional62 and Clinton's pardons were arguably corrupt still does not make one more or less subject to challenge. The congressional probe into President Clinton's FALN pardons was questionable unless Congress was willing to consider impeachment proceedings for an improper motive.63 Even then, nothing can change the effect of a duly issued pardon.64

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001...
1 post removed
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102729 Aug 24, 2012
boot the failure BO wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies, lying sack of shit.
Hang on just a sec. I think he's about to claim he was attacked by a lone gun! He'll tell the court, "the gun did it". LMAO
American Lady

Danville, KY

#102730 Aug 24, 2012
Legal Memorandum #85
This is a Legal Memorandum On Legal Issues

The Mysterious Disappearance of International Law Arguments from Juvenile Sentencing in Miller v. Alabama

Abstract: For almost a decade, activists have asserted that, through the mechanism of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments,” international law either forbids or constrains states from exposing the roughest juvenile criminals to the toughest sentences. Relying in part on those arguments, the Supreme Court of the United States has diminished sentencing options, for adult and juvenile offenders alike, at every turn. However, in Miller v. Alabama, foreign and international law are conspicuous only for their absence. This may signal a welcome shift in the Court’s jurisprudence. Activists will no doubt continue to cite foreign and international sources in making their cases against domestic sentencing practices, but Miller at least suggests that the Court has grown wary of such arguments.

[T]he laws and practices of other nations and international agreements [are] relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are…controlling but because the judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the Court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.[16]

Sudden Disappearance: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

Not surprisingly, foreign and international law made a prominent appearance in 2012 when the Court heard two more cases on juvenile sentencing: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.[18] Like 24 other states, Alabama and Arkansas permitted the imposition of JLWOP for specific types of homicide. Jackson’s capital felony murder conviction and Miller’s conviction for murder in the course of arson each carried a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

Conclusion: Miller’s Silver Lining?

It would be premature, at the least, to declare a lasting victory over the misuse of foreign law on the basis of a single decision. In Roper, the Court used foreign law as a confirmation of an emerging national consensus against the imposition of the juvenile death penalty. Unable to find a national consensus in Graham, the Court used foreign law to buttress the conclusion that it said it had reached on other grounds. Having established its juvenile-sentencing precedents based on foreign law, the Court simply may not have felt the need to cite foreign sources in Miller and Jackson. The damage had already been done, and it was enough just to cite Roper and Graham.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012...
1 post removed
ballantine

United States

#102732 Aug 24, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Need more......
Have PLENTY ...:)
Have plenty of what? None of the autborities you cite say Vattel wa relevant to our citizenship. Do you have a reading problem? The supreme court rejected such argument a century ago and no court has questioned such conclusion. Citizenship is not a matter of the law of nations, but municipal law as our court has said over and over. Why do you hate our country to much to ignore what our courts have said.
1 post removed

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#102734 Aug 24, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Domicile in a foreign country does not affect the fact of citizenship, nor work a forfeiture of political rights. When the territory and government of a kingdom pass to and become merged in the territory and government of another nation, all of its subjects pass also. The tie which binds them is not bodily presence, but allegiance.
Brown v.United States, 5 Ct. of CI. 571.
Now see if BirfoonLady can figure out what it means.

Hee hee hee.

BTW, Brown was a native of Hanover. During his stay in the United States, Hanover was overtaken by Prussia. Brown was thus considered a subject of Prussia, even though he lived in the United States, and was never a US citizen. His permanent allegiance was transferred to Prussia, but his temporary allegiance to the US while in the US was never questioned.

Got a clue BirfoonLady?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#102735 Aug 24, 2012
Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower

The following is a list of the 10 most significant apologies by the President of the United States in his ****first four months of office**** as they relate to foreign policy and national security issues.

1. Apology to France and Europe ("America Has Shown Arrogance")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

2. Apology to the Muslim World ("We Have Not Been Perfect")
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas ("At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms")
President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders ("Some Restoration of America's Standing in the World")
News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]

5. Apology for the War on Terror ("We Went off Course")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France ("Sacrificing Your Values")
Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]

7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament ("Our Own Darker Periods in Our History")
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas ("The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors")
Opinion editorial by President Obama: "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16, 2009.[8]

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA ("Potentially We've Made Some Mistakes")
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9]

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington ("A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies")
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009...
Jacques Ottawa

Mississauga, Canada

#102736 Aug 24, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, yes there were slaves in Canada.
Afua Cooper states that slavery is, "Canada's best kept secret, locked within the National closet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canad...
From your own sebsite. Slavery indeed.

Slavery in what now comprises Canada existed into the 1830s, when slavery was officially abolished. Some slaves were of African descent, while others were aboriginal (typically called panis, likely a corruption of Pawnee). Slavery which was practiced within Canada's current geography, was practiced primarily by Aboriginal groups. While there was never any significant Canadian trade in African slaves, native nations frequently enslaved their rivals and a very modest number (sometimes none in a number of years) were purchased by colonial administrators (rarely by settlers) until 1833, when the slave trade was abolished across the British Empire.

A few dozen African slaves were forcibly brought as chattel by Europeans to New France, Acadia and the later British North America (see chattel slavery) during the 17th century, but large-scale plantation slavery of the sort that existed in most European colonies in the Americas, from New York to Brazil, never existed in colonial Canada or Newfoundland because the economies were not based on plantation agriculture. The largest industries were based upon the exploitation of natural resources, such as the fur trade. So, while some Canadian slaves performed agricultural labour, most were domestic house servants.

Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was so minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practiced elsewhere in the Americas - most famously in the American South, and infamously in the colonial Caribbean. Afua Cooper states that slavery is, "Canada's best kept secret, locked within the National closet."

I don't think my forebears were any better or worse than the Americans or Spaniards and Portuguese in South and Central Ameerica. We just abidded by British law which never legalised slavery.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102737 Aug 24, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Now see if BirfoonLady can figure out what it means.
Hee hee hee.
BTW, Brown was a native of Hanover. During his stay in the United States, Hanover was overtaken by Prussia. Brown was thus considered a subject of Prussia, even though he lived in the United States, and was never a US citizen. His permanent allegiance was transferred to Prussia, but his temporary allegiance to the US while in the US was never questioned.
Got a clue BirfoonLady?
So, do you go by Piotr or Roger? LOL Either way you're still on the list. LMAO

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#102738 Aug 24, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Without question is where the problem arises. Sorry Buttlick.
You can question whatever you wish. You’ve obviously been at it for over four years to no avail.
ballantine

United States

#102739 Aug 24, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
This can't be serious.
You mean to tell me that every mention of the law of nations is also a mention of The Law of Nations?
And you also think that every mention of Vattel has to do with citizenship?
Yep, you need a nap.
Yes it is sad that birfoons don't understand referances to "law of nations" mean "international law," not Vattel's book. There were many books called the "law of nations." The ignorance is astounding.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#102740 Aug 24, 2012
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, just stating a fact. Aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Just stating a bare assertion. Ipse dixit.

Pathetic.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#102741 Aug 24, 2012
boot the failure BO wrote:
<quoted text>
21 years for the Norway shooter, they wanted to send a strong message. For slaughtering 77 people. Hitler might have gotten life.
That's where progressives will take us.
POS Romneys getting away with FELONIES...that's where rightwing scumbags will get us.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102742 Aug 24, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
I am still waiting for anyone to explain how a registrar's stamp can be moved on a computer created document if the file was created as a scan only.
You can only do that if the registrar's stamp was put on the document by a computer.
If a document that contained a registrar's stamp was only scanned into a computer, that stamp could not be moved.
You and I both know they can't explain it because it's faked. Just as he is a fake. Omammie will look like a fool during the debates!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#102743 Aug 24, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
This can't be serious.
You mean to tell me that every mention of the law of nations is also a mention of The Law of Nations?
And you also think that every mention of Vattel has to do with citizenship?
Yep, you need a nap.
This is all we have to say in this first book. A more minute detail of the duties and rights of a nation, considered in herself, would lead us too far. Such detail must, as we have already observed, be sought for in particular treatises on the public and political law. We are very far from flattering ourselves that we have omitted no important article; this is a slight sketch of an immense picture:

but an ---intelligent--- reader will without difficulty supply all our omissions by making a proper application of the general principles: we have taken the utmost care solidly to establish those principles, and to develop them with precision and perspicuity.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01....
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102744 Aug 24, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can question whatever you wish. You’ve obviously been at it for over four years to no avail.
What sane person wouldn't question Omammie? Faked BC and hidden records doesn't raise a red flag for you? If not, there is no hope for ya.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#102745 Aug 24, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
From your own sebsite. Slavery indeed.
Slavery in what now comprises Canada existed into the 1830s, when slavery was officially abolished. Some slaves were of African descent, while others were aboriginal (typically called panis, likely a corruption of Pawnee). Slavery which was practiced within Canada's current geography, was practiced primarily by Aboriginal groups. While there was never any significant Canadian trade in African slaves, native nations frequently enslaved their rivals and a very modest number (sometimes none in a number of years) were purchased by colonial administrators (rarely by settlers) until 1833, when the slave trade was abolished across the British Empire.
A few dozen African slaves were forcibly brought as chattel by Europeans to New France, Acadia and the later British North America (see chattel slavery) during the 17th century, but large-scale plantation slavery of the sort that existed in most European colonies in the Americas, from New York to Brazil, never existed in colonial Canada or Newfoundland because the economies were not based on plantation agriculture. The largest industries were based upon the exploitation of natural resources, such as the fur trade. So, while some Canadian slaves performed agricultural labour, most were domestic house servants.
Because early Canada's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was so minor, the history of slavery in Canada is often overshadowed by the more tumultuous slavery practiced elsewhere in the Americas - most famously in the American South, and infamously in the colonial Caribbean. Afua Cooper states that slavery is, "Canada's best kept secret, locked within the National closet."
I don't think my forebears were any better or worse than the Americans or Spaniards and Portuguese in South and Central Ameerica. We just abidded by British law which never legalised slavery.
But, but, but Zzzhauk, you said "not for one minute"! Liar DAB

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Repub Lies Manufa... 52,363
News Bipartisan deal would create 12-year citizenshi... 3 min Doe 202
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RoxLo 1,683,257
News Trump says he's 'like, really smart,' 'a very s... 8 min mr gleeble 512
News Conservatives balk at GOP plan to avert governm... 11 min mr gleeble 51
News GOP committee blasts 'Schumer shutdown' as chai... 20 min mr gleeble 27
News Sales of Trump properties suggestive of money-l... 21 min mr gleeble 9
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 31 min cpeter1313 17,463
News Leaders say Trump presidency is at odds with ML... 45 min General Kabaka Oba 234
More from around the web