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

Hmmmm, Nancy, exactly what should the Catholic Church do to enforce their laws?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-cathol...
Should their be a priest in every woman's bedroom? Should the nuns do virginity exams on all women prior to their first marriage? Okay Nancy, I would like to know. You are Catholic and you should have an opinion!

AmericanLady wrote:

Livestock | Define Livestock at Dictionary.com
noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) the horses, cattle, sheep, and other useful animals kept or raised on a farm or ranch. Origin: 1650–60; live 2 + stock
dictionary.reference.com/browse/livestock
Is THIS what you are?
Swedish stock IS what your comment sounded like......Ya know this WHOLE Country used to be rural, and everyone raised STOCK of some kind.....It WAS our ONLY way of "eating".....
What are YOU gonna do, when ALL the farm land is gone?
STARVE...is WHAT you're gonna do.

STOCK, according to Oxford dictionary amongst other definitions : "A line of ancestry, ex: a woman of Irish stock".
But I suppose, Oxford being a British dictionary, its definition cannot be trusted.

On Feb. 24, 1761, James Otis argued in a Boston courtroom against "writs of assistance," a form of compulsory process being employed by the royal customs inspectors, but which the colonists thought inconsistent with their RIGHTS AS ENGLISHMEN. A 25-year-old neophyte lawyer who had the good fortune to find a seat in the gallery would later write of Otis’s argument that, "American independence was there and then born; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown."
.
The young lawyer’s name was John Adams.
.
Otis spoke for five hours. The following is perhaps the best-remembered passage from his argument:
Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Customhouse officers may enter our homes when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court, can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient....

What a scene does this open! Every man prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor’s house may get a writ of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood ....

Trumbull said that birthright citizenship depended on whether the parents of children born in the United States were living permanently, "domiciled," here. Revisionist consensualist scholars have frequently cited Trumbull's public statements as significant evidence in favor of their interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Yet this previously unanalyzed letter shows that consensualist

""""" reliance on Senator Trumbull in fact runs contrary to his actual position on citizenship.""" """"

In making this connection, Trumbull drew on settled legal understandings. Domicile had an unambiguous definition in 1866: one acquired domicile in a nation or a particular place by moving there with the intention of making it one's permanent residence.(12)

****From a LINK I had on here previously Chief Justice Joseph Story Art II sec I clause 5*****

In Justice Story's words, domicile is "where [a person] has his true, fixed, permanent home ... to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning"; it is "that place ... in which [a person's] habitation is fixed, without any present intention of moving therefrom." (13)

Only two prerequisites must be satisfied, Story said, for domicile to exist: "residence; and ... intention of making it the home of the [person]"; (14) he makes no reference to governmental consent to or authority over domicile.

Story's view of domicile was subsequently endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court,(15) federal circuit courts,(16) and state courts.(17)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+significanc... 's+conception+of...-a022558043 0

*******Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/docum...

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Hmmmm, Nancy, exactly what should the Catholic Church do to enforce their laws?
Should their be a priest in every woman's bedroom? Should the nuns do virginity exams on all women prior to their first marriage? Okay Nancy, I would like to know. You are Catholic and you should have an opinion!

No wonder that someone who is so ignorant and uneducated (unable to qualify for appointment to the United States Military Academy -- which admits nearly every breathing applicant)does not even KNOW the meaning of the term "enforce" in connection with law.
It is a good thing that people this stupid get to continue to suck at the teat of the taxpayer-funded welfare programs known as government pensions. How pathetic to be one of the traitors to this great nation.

The Civil Rights Act, Apr 9, 1866, was our first National Law defining who were citizens of the USA.
This law was still in effect during the debates of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.

An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (not subject to any foreign power), is by virtue of natural law and national law( Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Offered and ratified 1868.

There is only one reason the 14th Amendment was created, an Act is too easy to overturn.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the Senator from Maine this question: if Congress, under the Constitution now has the power to declare that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States," what is the necessity of amending the Constitution at all on this subject?

Mr. Howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and rights of citizens and freemen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.

The Congressional Globe, 2896, May 30, 1866

It is very evident the framers of the 14th Citizenship Clause refused citizenship to those who were born in the US, subject to a foreign power.

Jacques in Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
STOCK, according to Oxford dictionary amongst other definitions : "A line of ancestry, ex: a woman of Irish stock".
But I suppose, Oxford being a British dictionary, its definition cannot be trusted.

YOU are entirely RIGHT.......BUT....

Do YOU "want" to be referred to as STOCK?
Because that is EXACTLY what is OCCURRING......

YOU have a number, SOON you're gonna have a TAG....WE are already treated as that NUMBER......

I, for ONE, do NOT want to be referred to as STOCK!

Another question.....
WHY do people go out and pay BIG bucks($) for PURE BRED dogs........to keep their "bloodline" clean.....

YET, people do NOT seem to CARE what THEY "mix" their BLOOD with.....

Don't make SENSE to me!!!!!!!!!!

God said "stick to YOUR own KIND!"

You SEE, what a MESS this COUNTRY has become from that, DONCHA!

You reckon "maybe", He "does" KNOW what He is talking ABOUT?

Birfoons he is recognized as President by Newt

wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct. And it still is at it was in 1868.
“’[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.‘ This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (App.DC 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
<quoted text>

jus naturale - law of nature.

the classical Greeks originated the "natural law" idea, but it was greatly elaborated upon by the Romans, including Marcus Aurelius and Cicero; natural law scholars argue that law has a metaphysical source (God, nature) and is apprehensible by rational humans; the law transcends tiem, place, and circumstance

jus sanguines - the "right of blood" or "law of descent" - at birth an individual acquires the nationality of her or his parents. In contrast to jus soli.

jus soli - the "law (or right) of the soil" - the legal principle that an individual's nationality is determined by that person's place of birth (that is, the territory of a given state)

Contrast to jus sanguines

http://people.virginia.edu/~rjb3v/latin.html
----------

Citizenship Denied: The Insular Cases and the Fourteenth Amendment
by Lisa Maria Perez
94 Va. L. Rev. 1029 (2008) View PDF

Pursuant to the doctrine of territorial incorporation established in the Insular Cases, Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated” territory, and as such, it does not form part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. As a result, persons born in Puerto Rico are not “born in the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and are not constitutionally entitled to citizenship. Because they enjoy only statutory citizenship, Congress arguably is able to expatriate most Puerto Ricans if the island is declared independent. Moreover, the inferior citizenship status of Puerto Ricans reveals a grave inconsistency in the law of the Fourteenth Amendment that has never been addressed. In response to Dred Scott, the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the common law doctrine of jus soli, which provides that all persons born on U.S. territory and not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign are native-born citizens, regardless of race. Pursuant to this interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, persons born in Puerto Rico have been “born in the United States” since the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. By retroactively narrowing the scope of the term “United States,” the Supreme Court took advantage of the unique geographical circumstances of the insular territories and prevented their inhabitants from obtaining equal citizenship. Thus, the doctrine of territorial incorporation reasserts Dred Scott’s race-based approach to citizenship and should be overruled.

http://virginialawreview.org/articles.php...

AmericanLady wrote:

<quoted text>
jus naturale - law of nature.
the classical Greeks originated the "natural law" idea, but it was greatly elaborated upon by the Romans, including Marcus Aurelius and Cicero; natural law scholars argue that law has a metaphysical source (God, nature) and is apprehensible by rational humans; the law transcends tiem, place, and circumstance
jus sanguines - the "right of blood" or "law of descent" - at birth an individual acquires the nationality of her or his parents. In contrast to jus soli.
jus soli - the "law (or right) of the soil" - the legal principle that an individual's nationality is determined by that person's place of birth (that is, the territory of a given state)
Contrast to jus sanguines
http://people.virginia.edu/~rjb3v/latin.html
----------
Citizenship Denied: The Insular Cases and the Fourteenth Amendment
by Lisa Maria Perez
94 Va. L. Rev. 1029 (2008) View PDF
Pursuant to the doctrine of territorial incorporation established in the Insular Cases, Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated” territory, and as such, it does not form part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. As a result, persons born in Puerto Rico are not “born in the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and are not constitutionally entitled to citizenship. Because they enjoy only statutory citizenship, Congress arguably is able to expatriate most Puerto Ricans if the island is declared independent. Moreover, the inferior citizenship status of Puerto Ricans reveals a grave inconsistency in the law of the Fourteenth Amendment that has never been addressed. In response to Dred Scott, the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the common law doctrine of jus soli, which provides that all persons born on U.S. territory and not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign are native-born citizens, regardless of race. Pursuant to this interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, persons born in Puerto Rico have been “born in the United States” since the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. By retroactively narrowing the scope of the term “United States,” the Supreme Court took advantage of the unique geographical circumstances of the insular territories and prevented their inhabitants from obtaining equal citizenship. Thus, the doctrine of territorial incorporation reasserts Dred Scott’s race-based approach to citizenship and should be overruled.
http://virginialawreview.org/articles.article...

an so he IS President

AmericanLady wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU are entirely RIGHT.......BUT....
Do YOU "want" to be referred to as STOCK?
Because that is EXACTLY what is OCCURRING......
YOU have a number, SOON you're gonna have a TAG....WE are already treated as that NUMBER......
I, for ONE, do NOT want to be referred to as STOCK!
Another question.....
WHY do people go out and pay BIG bucks($) for PURE BRED dogs........to keep their "bloodline" clean.....
YET, people do NOT seem to CARE what THEY "mix" their BLOOD with.....
Don't make SENSE to me!!!!!!!!!!
God said "stick to YOUR own KIND!"
You SEE, what a MESS this COUNTRY has become from that, DONCHA!
You reckon "maybe", He "does" KNOW what He is talking ABOUT?

You wrote : "God said "stick to YOUR own KIND!" He did? When? And if he did, well, one more reason to ignore him.

Your comment on "stock" makes no sense. It is what it is.

Old Goat wrote:

The Civil Rights Act, Apr 9, 1866, was our first National Law defining who were citizens of the USA.
This law was still in effect during the debates of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (not subject to any foreign power), is by virtue of natural law and national law( Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Offered and ratified 1868.
There is only one reason the 14th Amendment was created, an Act is too easy to overturn.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the Senator from Maine this question: if Congress, under the Constitution now has the power to declare that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States," what is the necessity of amending the Constitution at all on this subject?
Mr. Howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and rights of citizens and freemen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
The Congressional Globe, 2896, May 30, 1866
It is very evident the framers of the 14th Citizenship Clause refused citizenship to those who were born in the US, subject to a foreign power.

2012 post on..........

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons "born"

or "naturalized"

in the United States, and

""subject" to the jurisdiction thereof,""

are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constit...

Many people born in the United States, incorrectly believe they are natural born citizens, not having known that one parent was not a citizen, and therefore are naturalized citizen.

Supreme Court decisions in cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment have ruled persons born in the territory controlled by the United States, are entitled to obtain citizenship based on their place of birth (jus soli). Those persons are required to choose between the citizenship of their parent or parents and the citizenship that, due to their place of birth (the United States) entitles them to claim. Their citizenship begins at the age of majority, not at birth.

The system of citizenship "jus soli," citizenship law based on birthplace is an addition to the system of citizenship of "jus sanguinis, citizenship law based on parents citizenship, not a replacement. Both systems, allow for numerous combinations to be a citizen in the United States;

Person who has no choice about their citizenship
natural-born native born citizen-both parents US citizens
neither parent a citizen by naturalization

natural-born foreign born citizen-both parents US citizens
neither parent a citizen by naturalization

Persons who have to choose their citizenship
foreign born naturalized citizen-neither parent a US citizen

native born naturalized citizen-neither parent a US citizen

foreign born naturalized citizen-1 US citizen parent; 1 foreign national parent

native born naturalized citizen-1 US citizen parent; 1 foreign national parent

http://natural-borncitizens.net/home.html

Florida wrote:

<quoted text>
an so he IS President

But, not for long.....
Sit BACK and WATCH!

Florida wrote:

<quoted text>
2012 post on..........

I see, I have left you speechless.

Old Goat wrote:

The Civil Rights Act, Apr 9, 1866, was our first National Law defining who were citizens of the USA.
This law was still in effect during the debates of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause.
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Offered and ratified 1868.
There is only one reason the 14th Amendment was created, an Act is too easy to overturn.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the Senator from Maine this question: if Congress, under the Constitution now has the power to declare that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States," what is the necessity of amending the Constitution at all on this subject?
Mr. Howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and rights of citizens and freemen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
The Congressional Globe, 2896, May 30, 1866
It is very evident the framers of the 14th Citizenship Clause refused citizenship to those who were born in the US, subject to a foreign power.

Stocks rose on Thursday after a labor market report indicated the economy was slowly recovering, but the data was not enough to push the S&P convincingly above a 10-month high.

Equities have rallied more than 8 percent so far this year, and more than 20 percent from lows reached in October, leading many to believe further upside is limited as the S&P flirted with the 1,360 level, a high hit last May.

The index has been unable to break convincingly above the point over the last several sessions. While a convincing break above 1,360 could trigger more gains, the likelihood of a pullback increases with each failed attempt.

"Right now there's a question of what other bazookas the bulls have to keep driving gains, and there doesn't seem to be many," said Roger Volz, director of cash equities at BGC Financial in New York.

Jacques in Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Congratulations.I take it you are of Swedish stock.

min far ar Svensk

Citizenship Denied

1. The Racist Underpinnings of the Doctrine of Territorial Incorporation.....1060

2. Redefining the Citizenship Clause..1064

III. THE PLAUSIBILITY OF COLLECTIVE DENATURALIZATION: STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.....1067

A. Afroyim, Bellei, and the Significance of Constitutional Citizenship........1068

B. The Protective Role of the Due Process Clause......1071

C. The Likelihood of Puerto Rican Independence........1078

CONCLUSION...1080

http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs...

Florida wrote:

<quoted text>
Stocks rose on Thursday after a labor market report indicated the economy was slowly recovering, but the data was not enough to push the S&P convincingly above a 10-month high.
Equities have rallied more than 8 percent so far this year, and more than 20 percent from lows reached in October, leading many to believe further upside is limited as the S&P flirted with the 1,360 level, a high hit last May.
The index has been unable to break convincingly above the point over the last several sessions. While a convincing break above 1,360 could trigger more gains, the likelihood of a pullback increases with each failed attempt.
"Right now there's a question of what other bazookas the bulls have to keep driving gains, and there doesn't seem to be many," said Roger Volz, director of cash equities at BGC Financial in New York.

I have two dogs!