BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 240348 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132678 Dec 11, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And LilRomperStomper sings
"Mem'ries,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were ..."
You should be beaten silly for even mentioning "The Way We Were"! What a tool. LMAO!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#132679 Dec 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
You are WRONG bub!
He works FOR "US" ...
Anyone that employs anyone is ALLOWED "proper ID" from that employee!
He is NOT "eligible" to be prez.
Because he is NOT a "natural born" citizen ...
Only a "citizen" ...IF even that!
Sorry loser. The President is not your employee and you are not his supervisor.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132680 Dec 11, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts? You going to ruin a good fable with facts?
That's funny cause I watched him say it on several videos last night. "I will cut the deficit in half in my first term or I will be a one term president". Doesn't get much plainer. Sorry dolt! LMAO!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132682 Dec 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry loser. The President is not your employee and you are not his supervisor.
Sure we are. Just as everyone in D.C. works for US! Who do you think pays their salary? dumbsquid

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#132684 Dec 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Today is 12/11/12 and Omama is still a liar and a fraud.
UR a loser in a dream world. Put your hood and robe away.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#132686 Dec 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's talking about white hoods? Paranoid? Do you think the KKK is coming to get ya? LMAO! It's not the KKK but Omama and the DIMs that oppress the minorities such as you. You're being held in slavery and don't even have a clue. LMAO!!!
Your white hood has brown stains dribbling from the pie hole.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#132688 Dec 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure we are. Just as everyone in D.C. works for US! Who do you think pays their salary? dumbsquid
Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.
-Judge Clay D. Land

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#132689 Dec 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's talking about white hoods? Paranoid? Do you think the KKK is coming to get ya? LMAO! It's not the KKK but Omama and the DIMs that oppress the minorities such as you. You're being held in slavery and don't even have a clue. LMAO!!!
Pity the poor enslaved college professors. ROFLMAO.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132690 Dec 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>UR a loser in a dream world. Put your hood and robe away.
That definitely sounds like a, Waaa Waaa Waaa!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132691 Dec 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Your white hood has brown stains dribbling from the pie hole.
Sorry pollock, I've never owned a white hood. Check with Leaky Lizard about stains, he knows all about them. LOL
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132692 Dec 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so doesn't make it so.
-Judge Clay D. Land
Irrelevant. Try again?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132693 Dec 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Pity the poor enslaved college professors. ROFLMAO.
ROFLMAO!! Would that be the Biology Prof or the Chemistry Prof or the Patent Pusher Prof? LMAO!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#132694 Dec 11, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
A mere citizen can be born in the US of TWO foreign parents, with loyalties that can be to other countries.
This is a citizen by birth alone.
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
A child born in the United States has only one loyalty and that loyalty is the United States. To have a "dual loyalties" a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of its citizens with another country.

Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn't inherit a parent's allegiance at birth.[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132695 Dec 11, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
A child born in the United States has only one loyalty and that loyalty is the United States. To have a "dual loyalties" a child must be under the jurisdiction and control of TWO sovereignties at birth in the United States which is a legal impossibility since the United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of its citizens with another country.
Unlike hair color or eye color, a child doesn't inherit a parent's allegiance at birth.[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)
"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)
As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)
Unhide that location Mo! LMAO

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#132696 Dec 11, 2012
One Sunny day in January 2013, an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where
he ' d been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
like to go in and meet with President Romney ."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Romney is not the President."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away. The following day the same man
approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go
in and meet with President Romney ."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Romney not the President."
The man thanked him and again just walked away. The third day the same man
approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying,
"I would like to go in and meet with President Romney ."The Marine,
understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is
the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Romney . I ' ve
told you already that Mr. Romney is not the President. Don ' t you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said,
"Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132697 Dec 11, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
One Sunny day in January 2013, an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where
he ' d been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
like to go in and meet with President Romney ."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Romney is not the President."
The old man said, "Okay," and walked away. The following day the same man
approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go
in and meet with President Romney ."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Romney not the President."
The man thanked him and again just walked away. The third day the same man
approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying,
"I would like to go in and meet with President Romney ."The Marine,
understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is
the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Romney . I ' ve
told you already that Mr. Romney is not the President. Don ' t you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said,
"Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir.
Copycat huh? It's true that you flaps have no original thoughts. Sad. Just a flock of sheep. Baaahhhhh

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132698 Dec 11, 2012
I like it when you Libtards claim that elections have consequences. Well, what is happening in Michigan? If you don't like it, in two more years you can change it back.
Now at the Federal level the Democrats are in the White House and the Senate but the Republicans rule the House. So, go ahead, make my day!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132699 Dec 11, 2012
t clms wrote:
<quoted text>
and tears your anal sphincter.
And how do you know?
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#132700 Dec 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I like it when you Libtards claim that elections have consequences. Well, what is happening in Michigan? If you don't like it, in two more years you can change it back.
Now at the Federal level the Democrats are in the White House and the Senate but the Republicans rule the House. So, go ahead, make my day!
True, the Republicans rule the house, but those same republicans are finding out that Obama's mandate was renewed, and that the majority of Americans agree with a reasonable tax rise for the +$250,000 or 2%. Pressure's on those republicans and why? Simple. The people have spoken, and if the politicians don't come to a reasonable agreement on the fiscal cliff, they the people will blame the republicans for obstruction. I don't often predict, but will go out on a limb on this one : Obama will prevail, albeit with some concessions either on the $250,000 which may go up or on the tax rate that may go down. But that's normal, you want something, you gotta give up something. The art of the compromise.
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#132701 Dec 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Copycat huh? It's true that you flaps have no original thoughts. Sad. Just a flock of sheep. Baaahhhhh
As usual, you don't get it. NOT copycat, just a reality check. You do know Romney's not president, or are you still in denial?

I think you should petition for a constitutional amendment, LRS. Let it be proposed from now on, that the candidate who gets the fewer popular and electoral votes be declared the winner and president. Then you would no longer have to be in denial, and Mitt, instead of pumping his own gas, whould be president and have it done for him.

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 Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sanctuary cities threatened with loss of federa... 6 hr butters_ 47
News Supreme Court won't hear condemned Alabama inma... 17 hr anotherview 1
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) Mon helmsenator 61,387
News News 11 Mins Ago California moves _ slowly _ to... Mon MountainHouse 8
News Legal rulings could force Texas back into feder... Apr 23 Laredo 1
News Court again finds intentional voter discriminat... Apr 23 Retribution 18
News Arkansas carries out first of several planned e... Apr 22 Geezer 2
More from around the web