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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...

Comments (Page 7,929)

Showing posts 158,561 - 158,580 of173,523
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Learn to Read

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179513
Nov 15, 2013
 
WelbyMD wrote:
I meant Obama IS an illegal-alien.
Thanks for correcting that. I didn't understand your meaning in the initial post
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179514
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Nasty, I am claiming that Mr. Howard was right or did you forget to read that post, also!
That is right, you are CLAIMING. Howard is not right. Bingham is.

“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)”

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179515
Nov 15, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Irrelevant!! We are now under Constitutional Law not English Common Law.
And what is the language of the Constitution based on?

Answer: English Common Law.

You would have us disregard our common law heritage from the English in which Chief Justice Marshall observed "whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws." U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

In fact, we are informed that "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers." In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

“In many cases, the language of the constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law is not only supposed by the constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpretation of its powers.“ James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826) page 316

And this is from your good buddy Chief Justice Moore of Alabama:
“Our jurisprudence explains that old English statutes are a part of the common law. The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which amend the law and are applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law.” Ex parte HH, 830 So. 2d 21, 33 (Alabama 2002)( Moore, C.J., concurring)

If the term in the Constitution "natural born" were to be construed other than its common law origin then in the words of Chief Justice Marshall "It is hardly conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our Constitution in the sense which has been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. So far as the meaning of any terms, particularly terms of art, is completely ascertained, those by whom they are employed must be considered as employing them in that ascertained meaning, unless the contrary be proved by the context." U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

“Where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived” quoting Alexander Hamilton, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429, 572 (1895)

Pop Quiz:
What country is the Pollock's court referring to when it mentioned "language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived?:
a. Iceland
b. France
c. England
1 post removed

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179517
Nov 15, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Sorry, but English Common Law citizenship hasn't been used since 1866/1868, citizenship is now by Constitutional Law.
Wrong.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the Jus Soli principle of the English common law.

These laws were in response to the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. The drafters of these laws acknowledged Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case in which he wrote:[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)

In 1927, almost sixty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, 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)

Moreover, "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."

“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 since the ratification of the 14th Amendment have gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws.
1 post removed
Learn to Read

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179519
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

American Lady wrote:
NOT from *FOX*
:D
~~~~~~~~~~

House passes Republican health bill with 39 Democratic votes
BY MARK FELSENTHAL AND SUSAN CORNWELL
WASHINGTON Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:34pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-...
What? They found something that some of the Democrats were willing to support? Don't tell SnowJob. He'll have a melt down! What's next? Cats and dogs living together?!?!
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179520
Nov 15, 2013
 
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you were high before but maybe it is liquor that stupefies your writing.
If you ask a question, use the proper punctuation. Logic would also be a nice addition to your posts.
It is okay that you are bitter at those of us who make you look silly.
LMAO!!! Wasn't asking a question, I knew the answer!
See it is silly know-it-all fuchs like you that get fragged.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179521
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court is correct and you are simply wrong. You can CLAIM that the US Supreme Court violated the Constitution, but that is only your OPINION. Nobody believes you, and besides, it is 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.]
LMAO!!! Nasty, STFU!!! I have already shown you that the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause) wasn't written with English Common Law. Must I make an ass of you again?
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179522
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the Jus Soli principle of the English common law.
These laws were in response to the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. The drafters of these laws acknowledged Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case in which he wrote:[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)
In 1927, almost sixty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, 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)
Moreover, "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."
“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 since the ratification of the 14th Amendment have gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws.
LMAO!!! Just because one is born in the US doesn't mean you are a citizen, their is a stipulation in the citizenship clause and we all know what that is and if you are subject to a foreign power, you don't meet the requirements of that stipulation.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179523
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

crap, now I have to clean my monitor, again!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179524
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Nasty, STFU!!! I have already shown you that the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause) wasn't written with English Common Law. Must I make an ass of you again?
You have showed that you believe that the 14th amendment wasn't using the common law. Your nutty belief is not the Constitution.

“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)”
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179525
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Just because one is born in the US doesn't mean you are a citizen, their is a stipulation in the citizenship clause and we all know what that is and if you are subject to a foreign power, you don't meet the requirements of that stipulation.
Every child born in the USA---other than the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders---is not only a US citizen, but a Natural Born US Citizen.

“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.]

"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... )
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179526
Nov 15, 2013
 
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment codified the Jus Soli principle of the English common law.
These laws were in response to the majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision. The drafters of these laws acknowledged Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case in which he wrote:[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)
In 1927, almost sixty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, 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)
Moreover, "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."
“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 since the ratification of the 14th Amendment have gotten it wrong about the source of our citizenship laws.
LMAO!!! You can post all you want, but you can't change the intent of the framers that wrote the Citizenship Clause.
1 post removed

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179528
Nov 15, 2013
 
Ladies, chose your bag wisely.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/lncwRnV4Gsg...
Being from Florida, I knew this was about to happen.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179529
Nov 15, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
crap, now I have to clean my monitor, again!!!
Oh, no you kerplunked on your computer?
wojar

Plainville, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179530
Nov 15, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Yep, you really need to find out what the stipulation is to our jus soli, and of course a statute citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen, which brings us back to the 14th amendment, it only makes two types of citizen (Natural Born and Naturalized).
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
According to Sen. Howard, it is children born of foreign ambassadors and certain foreign ministers who are born of parents owing allegiance to foreign powers. Other aliens owe temporary allegiance to the US while here. Howard recognized jus soli principle in the US. Dale is ignorant and irrational .
look

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179531
Nov 15, 2013
 
Check this out!! http://www.incomefy.com/...
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179532
Nov 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have showed that you believe that the 14th amendment wasn't using the common law. Your nutty belief is not the Constitution.
“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)”
Nasty! Yes, in 1869 all persons born in the US were Natural Born Citizen, since the 14th amendment (ratified 1868) did not give citizenship to children born here of alien fathers. They (children of aliens) were subject to a foreign power, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.
How many times have I shown you the laws that Mr. Howard used in the framing of the 14th amendment (citizenship clause), not one law had anything to do with English Common Law.
Now if you chose to ignorant, so be it.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179533
Nov 15, 2013
 
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You can post all you want, but you can't change the intent of the framers that wrote the Citizenship Clause.
the INTENT of the framers of the Constitution was very clear. They intented to apply English common law to terms of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925):

"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood."

Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.”[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999)(It is a well-established rule of construction that "`[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under ... the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.')(internal citations omitted)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179534
Nov 15, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no you kerplunked on your computer?
LMAO!! No, it keeps dropping off the fingers of you liberals.
Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179535
Nov 15, 2013
 
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>According to Sen. Howard, it is children born of foreign ambassadors and certain foreign ministers who are born of parents owing allegiance to foreign powers. Other aliens owe temporary allegiance to the US while here. Howard recognized jus soli principle in the US. Dale is ignorant and irrational .
Tinker Bell! I see you are just as ignorant as the rest of the sheeple.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 158,561 - 158,580 of173,523
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••