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
115,041 - 115,060 of 176,650 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130641
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ark was an exception and the court was wrong! English common law was not followed in this country as it was in England. So everyone born on US soil is NOT a US citizen. Period.
Wrong. We do follow the English common law principle of Jus Soli or right of soil.

Case law:

“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)

The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)

"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. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

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. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130642
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Howard didn't use common law when penning the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment, did he. Would you please tell us what laws he used, we will be waiting.
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?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130643
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Howard didn't use common law when penning the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment, did he. Would you please tell us what laws he used, we will be waiting.
Who says that he did not use the common law? And he was by no means the only one who wrote the 14th Amendment, and who says that they did not use the common law?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130644
Nov 29, 2012
 
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
AS I stated before, everyone born in the USA except the children of foreign diplomats is born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and is not subject to another nation. You are right about dual citizenship not being mentioned. By it not being mentioned, it means that dual citizens born in the USA are to be treated just like every other child born in the USA.
no such thing as a dual-citizen in the US, per the Constitution. The US government does not have the authority to strip a citizenship from a child that is passed from his father and the father's nation. That will have to be done by naturalization later in his life.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130645
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
THE MEANING of Natural Born does not come from Vattel because the words "Natural Born" was not in any English language translation of Vattel until ten years AFTER the US Constitution was written, while it had been used in the common law for about three hundred years before the Constitution was written and by far most of the writers of the US Constitution were lawyers and justices.
As for the Minor v. Happersett ruling, the Wong Kim Ark ruling was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it said that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law. And, the historical evidence of the writings at the time is very clear. It shows American writers always used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, and never used it the way it was used in Vattel.
Correct.

Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)

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 has 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);

Furthermore, "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(internel citations omitted)

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.

In other words, in absence of specific intent of Congress to abrogate a common law principle then it presumed that Congress intended to incorporate the common law principle as part of our jurisprudence.
TeaPartyWoman

Springfield, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130646
Nov 29, 2012
 
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment. "Arms" are any weapon that can be used by an individual. A machine gun, bazooka, etc. are crew served weapons but an fully automatic assault rifle is and there are no provisions in the Second Amendment that allows any one or any government to infringe in your rights to have, own, carry a AK-47.
Whispers to you: I know. I was just humoring the silly little libbie.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130647
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says that he did not use the common law? And he was by no means the only one who wrote the 14th Amendment, and who says that they did not use the common law?
The drafters of the Constitution did not write the Constitution in a vacuum but were cognizant of English common law. "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)

Moreover, "“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205 , 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting)

In fact even Justice Thomas acknowledged the influence of common law in the Constitution. "[I]s true that we frequently consult English history and common law in attempting to determine the content of constitutional provisions.” Loving v. United States, 517 US 748, 779 (1996)(Thomas, J., dissenting)

Similarly the Supreme Court in Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270(1875) noted:“That is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.” Id at 274

Chief Justice Marshall noted the influence of English common law on our laws when he wrote "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

As such, the Constitution itself must be read in light of our English common law heritage. "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130648
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130649
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

Toronto, Canada

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

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130657
Nov 29, 2012
 
Ah, HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130658
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••