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

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 ... Full Story
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#99793 Aug 14, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What Reporters?
Ah, the US District Court of Southern District of Mississippi was not shown the actual document but a photo copy!
No independent document expert has been allowed to examine any of Obama's documents. And a jpg image on the internet is not a document.
If I knew, as Obama knows, that I was born in Hawaii, and shown certified copies of my BC, let me tell you, no one, absolutely NO ONE, out of principle for my rights under the constitution, no one I repeat, would ever lay eyes on my original BC, my school papers or anything that alludes to my private life. Give 'em hell, Mr President.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#99794 Aug 14, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for Clint Eastwood, who has noticed that actors who back the Repubs every election yeat are mostly "B" actors while the Dems get the cream of the crop backing them? I wonder why that is?
Jacques Ottawa.

Yeah. We have all noticed the quality of Hollywood promoted "cream of the crop". Like solid bodily waste matter that has been excreted from the body, as often as not, they rise to the top.

Ronald

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99795 Aug 14, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Wojo, you forgot the "s", as in "parents who were its citizens".
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
Sorry, Rougie Baby, I didn't forget the "s". I understand English. Parents of children means something entirely different than "two parents of a particular child."

Does Rougie think "mothers of children" means each child must have two mothers?

Grow up! Learn English. Puh-effing-lease!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. By birth or naturalization. The Court in Minor realized that citizens by birth were natural born citizens.
"At common-law,
with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted
that all children born in a country of parents who
were its citizens became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also."
Yup. They were natural born citizens, as they became citizens themselves, "upon their birth" in this country.
Guess what birfoon? It was later determined that children of aliens born in this country "became citizens themselves, upon their birth."
Duh!
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#99796 Aug 14, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jacques Ottawa.
Yeah. We have all noticed the quality of Hollywood promoted "cream of the crop". Like solid bodily waste matter that has been excreted from the body, as often as not, they rise to the top.
Ronald
Nice try. Do you even realise that your 2nd sentence makes no sense?

Jacques
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#99797 Aug 14, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen up; I have answered your ridiculous question in every way possible in the English language. Do you want me to say that we should get Obama out of the White House? Is that what you want me to say? Well, tough! I answered your question in at least three posts. If you can't figure out what I'm saying, SCROLL.
Bullchit! You've avoided it at all costs which tells me you simply do not want to answer it. It wasn't about "O". It was a HYPOTHECTICAL situation! You many want to put your helmet on. DAB

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99798 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>An alien never loses his allegiance to the country of origin, unless naturalized. "Old Goat, Constitutional Law of the United States,(2012).
Ipse dixit. Who TF cares?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the President was born a citizen in this country, a natural born citizen. A subject OF a foreign power per operation of foreign law does not make one "subject TO a foreign power."
No. A visiting alien can be prosecuted for treason, unlike a foreign ambassador. The visiting alien owes temporary allegiance to the host country.
"§ 439 Treason is a breach of allegiance, and it will be observed that the statute restrict the definition of the offense to persons owing allegiance to the United States.
This allegiance may be one of full citizenship, or one based upon the presence of an alien, and the commission of the treasonable act, within the territorial limits of the United States. In an earlier chapter it has been pointed out that an alien within the territorial limits of a State, whether domiciled or not, owes for the time being a qualified allegiance to that State.“ Westel Woodbury Willoughby, 3 The Constitutional Law of the United States, 834 (1910).

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99799 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I guess we never have any US citizens born outside of our borders?
Interesting!
Huh? Where did the birfoon get that idea?

Clue, BirfoonBoy, citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.

Duh!

Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the President was born a citizen in this country, a natural born citizen. A subject OF a foreign power per operation of foreign law does not make one "subject TO a foreign power."
No. A visiting alien can be prosecuted for treason, unlike a foreign ambassador. The visiting alien owes temporary allegiance to the host country.
"§ 439 Treason is a breach of allegiance, and it will be observed that the statute restrict the definition of the offense to persons owing allegiance to the United States.
This allegiance may be one of full citizenship, or one based upon the presence of an alien, and the commission of the treasonable act, within the territorial limits of the United States. In an earlier chapter it has been pointed out that an alien within the territorial limits of a State, whether domiciled or not, owes for the time being a qualified allegiance to that State.“ Westel Woodbury Willoughby, 3 The Constitutional Law of the United States, 834 (1910).
<quoted text>
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#99800 Aug 14, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Rogue, because he is black. Period.
BS. If he were white the numbers would still suck and the people would want a change. This is not a black and white issue. To try and promote it as such is, in fact, supporting racism. I honestly don't care if the guy is purple. His actions and policies are what I don't like. They have done nothing to better this nation but have managed to divide us (somewhat).

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

#99801 Aug 14, 2012
Thought Police wrote:
Has anyone figured out what Obama did in 2008 to be worthy of being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize?
He replaced Bush in those Socialist mind, so that alone warranted it. How with a straight face the narcissist could actually accept it is beyond the pail funny.
Old Goat

United States

#99802 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ipse dixit. Who TF cares?
<quoted text>
Oh, treaties have taken care of the allegiance problem. Yep, visiting aliens do not owe allegiance while here, if this were not so, they could be forced into our military to fight against their country of origin.
Old Goat

United States

#99803 Aug 14, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Where did the birfoon get that idea?
Clue, BirfoonBoy, citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
Duh!
Grow up!
<quoted text>
Split the post so you don't look so stupid!!! Hahahah!!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99805 Aug 14, 2012
The Civil Rights Act of 1866

April 9, 1866

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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/librar...

Tee hee hee
American Lady

Danville, KY

#99806 Aug 14, 2012
....and you "obots" think our Founder & writers of OUR Constitution, "The LAW of The Land"......were DUMB!!!!!!

Who are the "dumbo's"?!?!......
.
.
.
.
The "DUMBOcrats" :)

tee hee hee
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#99807 Aug 14, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullchit! You've avoided it at all costs which tells me you simply do not want to answer it. It wasn't about "O". It was a HYPOTHECTICAL situation! You many want to put your helmet on. DAB
This from the ignorant juvenile who writes that I edited his post, I ask him when and where I did that and he says for me to find it. To call you an uncouth ignorant lout of a slug would be to compliment you, so low and puerile a sod are you. How it must suck to be a 190-lb intellectual and physical pigmy.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#99808 Aug 14, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
BS. If he were white the numbers would still suck and the people would want a change. This is not a black and white issue. To try and promote it as such is, in fact, supporting racism. I honestly don't care if the guy is purple. His actions and policies are what I don't like. They have done nothing to better this nation but have managed to divide us (somewhat).
wow, you're losing it. You forgot dumazzbastard. There, did it for you.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99809 Aug 14, 2012
Ronald wrote:
Recent scientific discoveries have sharpened the debate within the scientific community that seeks to determine whether or not the African is a related species to more highly evolved Euro-man and Mongoloid-man.
Ronald
Scientific community?

What an effing joke.

YouTube is not the "scientific community," jagoff.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99810 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, treaties have taken care of the allegiance problem. Yep, visiting aliens do not owe allegiance while here, if this were not so, they could be forced into our military to fight against their country of origin.
Sorry, birfoon, in the case of war, they can be given a choice to leave or submit to local allegiance. Get real.

[QUOTE who]"wojar"]
<quoted text>
Ipse dixit. Who TF cares?[/QUOTE]

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99811 Aug 14, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>Split the post so you don't look so stupid!!! Hahahah!!
RE: BirfoonBoy: "So, I guess we never have any US citizens born outside of our borders?"

Huh? RU on drugs?

Again: citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.

Get a clue.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Where did the birfoon get that idea?
Clue, BirfoonBoy, citizenship according to statute does not depend upon natural allegiance per jus soli doctrine.
Duh!
Grow up!

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#99812 Aug 14, 2012
Conservative girl wrote:
<quoted text>He replaced Bush in those Socialist mind, so that alone warranted it. How with a straight face the narcissist could actually accept it is beyond the pail funny.
Could be he thought maybe the money would do some good.

$250,000 to Fisher House, which provides housing for families of patients receiving medical care at military and veterans hospitals.
$200,000 to the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, which raises funds for long-term relief efforts in Haiti.
$125,000 to College Summit, an organization dedicated to increasing college enrolment rates.
$125,000 to the Posse Foundation, which provides scholarships for public high-school students with extraordinary academic and leadership potential who may be overlooked by traditional college selection processes.
$125,000 to the United Negro College Fund, which enables more than 60,000 students each year to attend college through scholarship and internship programs.
$125,000 to the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the leading Hispanic scholarship organization in the United States.
$125,000 to the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation, which provides scholarships so young men and women from Appalachia can pursue higher education.
$125,000 to the American Indian College Fund, which provides scholarships for American Indians.
$100,000 to AfriCare, whose programs, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa, address needs in three principal areas: health and HIV/AIDS; food security and agriculture; and water resource development.
$100,000 to the Central Asia Institute, which promotes and supports community-based education and literacy, especially for girls, in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Institute's co-founder, Greg Mortenson, was also a Nobel Peace Prize nominee this year, whose book, Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace, One School at a Time, recounts his attempt to successfully establish dozens of schools and promote girls' education in rural Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/oba...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#99813 Aug 14, 2012
sloopy21 wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans passed the first Civil Rights Act, in 1866
Thanks to Republicans beginning to appreciate the heritage of our Grand Old Party, it has become better known that Republicans in Congress supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Indeed, the legislator most responsible for breaking the Democrat filibuster was a Republican senator, Everett Dirksen.
And now, the question that should be before us: How did that landmark legislation come to be? The answer to that is a source of pride for all Republicans today.
The origin of the 1964 Civil Rights Act can be traced back to the Reconstruction era. That was when the Republican Party enacted the first civil rights act ever, the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Never heard of it? Democrat history professors would rather you didn’t. With that law, Republicans took a big step toward making Abraham Lincoln’s vision for “a new birth of freedom” a reality.
Ominously, the assassination of the Great Emancipator had left the presidency to his Democrat vice president, Andrew Johnson. Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), co-author of the 13th Amendment banning slavery, also wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Republican support was nearly unanimous, while Democrats were unanimously opposed. This would be the first time Congress overrode a presidential veto of a significant bill.
The law conferred U.S. citizenship on all African-Americans, according them “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Despite Democrat objections, Republicans made sure African-Americans had the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/17/republi...
Sorry, the 14th amendment conferred citizenship to ALL PERSONS born in the United States, inter alia.(Subject to certain exceptions, such as persons born of foreign ambassadors.)


Last time I checked, "all persons" is not limited to African-Americans.

Now go look up "plain meaning".
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? "[A]ll white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...." recognized the jus soli principle, but limited to white persons.
Get your head on straight.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage 2 min Rev Don Wildmoan 25
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min USMail XXXII 304,034
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min John Galt 1,172,084
Bobby Jindal: 'Let's be honest here, Islam has ... 5 min positronium 235
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min The Phanton Hell ... 307,749
Can Obama's presidency be saved? 7 min Who Guessed It 1,564
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min dirtclod 141,667
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 12 min Quirky 11,149
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 40 min Injudgement 167,929
Obama to seek wilderness designation for Alaska... 1 hr theidiotsareunited 1
More from around the web