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 3,935)

Showing posts 78,681 - 78,700 of167,594
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88401
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

IT was *NEVER* doubted.... that all children born in a country of parents(PLURAL) who were its citizens,
WERE "natural BORN" citizens........

NOW!

WHAT does THAT tell YOU "blooming IDIOTS" ?????????
Regret Obama Vote

Windsor, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88402
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

This is the wrong time for Obama & Democrats to rasie taxes with Obamacare. We didn't need a big mess like this. They way overdid it.

“WestieLover”

Since: Apr 12

The city that I reside

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88403
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Regret Obama Vote wrote:
This is the wrong time for Obama & Democrats to rasie taxes with Obamacare. We didn't need a big mess like this. They way overdid it.
Vote him out then, and save yourself, family, and friends future financial hardship.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88404
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

American Lady wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, it, natural born citizen, was universally understood to be someone who was born on American soil.
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.‘No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 246 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
“In the convention of the people of Pennsylvania, which was held in November, 1787, to take into consideration the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it [giving up of common law rights] was objected because the word ‘appeaIs’ was used in that instrument, that the trial by jury was intended to be given up, and the civil law introduced in its stead.(See Wilson’s Works, and Hall’s Amer. Law Journal 321, 423, 426.)”
“And this rooted partiality for the common law, resulted in the adding of the express provisions securing to the people the right of trial by jury, and other common law rights, which are to be found in the amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
"And this rooted partiality for the common law ...." Yet birfoons insist the Revolution was all about getting rid of common law.
Nope.
But don't let facts get in your way, birfoons, it would spoil your fantasy.
----------
'Put it on record!'
'This judge can't get out; if he screws around, he's violating law'
The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.
The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/unexpected-turn-in...
----------
Huh? Because a birfoon is pissing in the wind it means that settled law is not settled law?

BTW, according to Vattel, "natives" are born of citizen parents. Obviously, according to the 14th Amendment, Vattel was rejected.

According to Vattel, natives are natural born citizens. In this country, native born citizens do not require citizen parents. Hence, they are natural born citizens.

According to common law as well as the "law of nations" a person who is born a citizen in a country is a natural born citizen.

Please point to a rule held in this country wherein a person born in the country a citizen is not a natural born citizen (except during a revolution).

Sorry, Sheriff Joe and Klayman have nothing to do with it.

Never happened.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88405
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Worthless did you say? Appreciated 15% against the Euro last 3 months, 5% against the Canadian dollar.
Yeah, but that doesn't count. It doesn't support his fantasy.
Grand Birther

Waukesha, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88406
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Kentucky Moron wrote:
<quoted text>
Question?
How many parents does it take for a person to have citizen parents?
Answer.
TWO!
Anymore questions?
Those born in the US with one US parent, or even no US citizen parents are considered to be 14th Amendment Native born citizens.
THEY ARE BORN A DUAL CITIZEN, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You STILL have not figured out what 'necessary' and 'sufficient' mean in re: Minor?

No wonder you're a birfoon, you must have a learning disability.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88407
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you read some of Hansen's actual papers and get your facts straight.
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean like, according to Dr. Hanson, that 2005 was cooler than 2004, that 2006 was cooler than 2005, that 2007 was cooler than 2006, that 2008 was cooler than 2007, that 2009 was cooler than 2008, that 2010 was cooler than 2009 and that 2011 was cooler than allof those years!!!
Why don't you quote Dr. Hansen, and not some illiterate boob who said that he said that ....

“Record high global 12 month running mean temperature for the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010.”

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE, Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4004 / 2010.

You see Rouge, there is a difference between what Hansen actually said and what some illiterate boob says he said.
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a Birfoon - facts make him break out in hives.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88408
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

All this hot air over some dude who was born in Kenya.

Where's the micro film?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88409
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

American Lady wrote:
IT was *NEVER* doubted.... that all children born in a country of parents(PLURAL) who were its citizens,
WERE "natural BORN" citizens........
NOW!
WHAT does THAT tell YOU "blooming IDIOTS" ?????????
Not sure what it tells "blloming idiots", but it tells me that you are a pathetic ignorant moron that can't comprehend basic English.
Grand Birther

Waukesha, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88410
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LOL at the morons thinking they just got hit with a tax increase.

You're return will be slightly smaller--maybe. If you don't buy insurance and don't pay the penalty associated with doing so, there's NO CONSEQUENCE.

If, however, you're a moron, carry on being a moron.

cc: Rogue Moron, Moron Lady, Kentucky Moron.
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88411
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Native born citizens are natural born citizens. That has always been understood in this country and has never been held otherwise. Even according to Vattel, all citizens born in a country are natural born citizens.
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.–St George Tucker
<quoted text>
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1
Document 18
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29
1803 <<<---<< LQQK at the DATE of YOURS...then LQQK at Justice Story's after DEBATE!

==========
==========

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

1.Records of the Federal Convention
2.Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73,
1833 <<<<----< HERE!

==========

The Founding FATHERs spent YEARS on GETTING this Constitution right!!!!!!

NOW the BIG 0 is tearing it down in one (1) TERM!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88412
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, Earth to Jacques. The EARTH is made up of SEVEN continents and seven oceans of which North America is only about 5% of!!!
Both NASA-MSFC and NASA-GISS (Dr. James Hanson) agree that the Earth has been cooling for 13 (MSFC) or 7 (GISS) years. Are you calling Dr. James Hanson (Columbia University) a LIAR?!?
<quoted text>
Hmmmm, how about Greenland and Antarctica? They have both been gaining ice mass ..... and the result is that global ocean levels have gone DOWN a quarter of an inch!
“Record high global 12 month running mean temperature for the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010.”

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE, Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4004 / 2010.

Rouge thinks this translates in Birfoonese to: "the Earth is cooling."

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><> <><><>

"We use only those stations
that have a period of overlap with neighboring stations
(within 1200 km) of at least 20 years [see Hansen et al.,
1999, Figure 2], which reduces the number of stations
used in our analysis to about 6300."

That's 6300 stations, Bozo.

Quit making up sh!t.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to you, I wrote that North America and 2012 are not indications of global warming, longer periods are. Read, please.
As to New Zealand, where it snowed (DOH, it's winter down under), NZ comprises roughly 1/10 of /% of the earth's surface, considerably less than North America,which is a pretty fair-size continent.
Myu gosh, like teaching a stubborn child who just cannot abide by accepted standards.
1 post removed
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88414
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1
Document 18
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29
1803 <<<---<< LQQK at the DATE of YOURS...then LQQK at Justice Story's after DEBATE!

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/docum...
==========
==========
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
1.Records of the Federal Convention
2.Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73,
1833 <<<<----< HERE!

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/...
==========

Here are the links....
Sorry =)

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88415
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Cancer on the pResidency wrote:
Penalty or a tax!
It can't be both!
It can't???
Tell the Class what then is a TAX PENALTY. Title 26 is riddled with penalties.
1 post removed

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88417
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

akpilot wrote:
No because currency isn't a service.
So I was correct on both points.
Nowhere was your original post limited to "services." You said that government doesn't provide ANYTHING that costs less.
In other words, because you are so uneducated you made a ridiculous and laughable incorrect statement that is riddled with exceptions. How pathetic not to have been smart enough to be college-educated.
Cover your ears so you won't hear the sound of EVERYONE laughing at you.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88418
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

nebka wrote:
Here is away to save money in government
Today, Members of the United States Congress enjoy perquisites, including:
-Comfortable salaries that are often determined through legislative sleight-of-hand and are at its highest ever. get rid of
-Pension benefits that are two to three times more generous than those offered in the private sector for similarly-salaried executives.-
-Congressional pensions are also inflation-protected, a feature that fewer than 1 in 10 private plans offer. get rid of
-Health and life insurance, approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers. get rid of
-Wheeled perks, including limousines for senior Members, prized parking spaces on Capitol Hill, and choice spots at Washington's two major airports. get rid of
-Travel to far-flung destinations as well as to home states and districts. Despite recent attempts to toughen gift and travel rules, "junkets" are still readily available prerogatives for many Members. get rid of
-A wide range of smaller perks that have defied reform efforts, from cut-rate health clubs to fine furnishings. get rid of
Members of Congress can also wield official powers that allow them to continue to enjoy the personal benefits outlined above, such as:
-The franking privilege, which gives lawmakers millions in tax dollars to create a favorable public image. get rid of
-An office staff that performs "constituent services" and doles out pork-barrel money to interest groups, private business and a multitude of others. get rid of
- Tax exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens -- all crafted by lawmakers themselves. Get rid of
Congress works for minimum wage
Well stated.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88419
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Just Sayin wrote:
Yes, and did you know that the federal government subsidizes Romneycare? So who us going to subsidize Obamacare?
The Chinese whom Obama has suckered into taking our IOUs due in thirty years at nominal interest.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88420
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much more time do you need? Thirteen years? According to NASA-MSFC the Earth has been steadily cooling since 1998!
Why from the late 1950's until 1978 the Earth has heating up while you Lintards were claiming we were on the verge of another Little Ice Age ...... but the da Fuhrer of da Libatrds decided it was really getting warmer. It will probably take da current Fuhrer of da Libtards another decade to give new marching orders.
You can't accept it even though one of you own has accepted the fact .... in data! Oh, I know, Dr. Hanson claims that 2011 was the SEVENTH hottest year THIS CENTURY which means six years since 2000 have been hotter (or that 2011 is the coolest).
Please point to an ACTUAL statement by NASA-MSFC wherein NASA-MSFC says that we are in a period of global cooling.

Please do not point to a graph of sunspot activity (which is not global temperature), or to a quote by an illiterate boob who says that NASA-MSFC says that ....
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to you, I wrote that North America and 2012 are not indications of global warming, longer periods are. Read, please.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88421
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Thought Police wrote:
I spent 20 years in the Army and I have seen my fair share of Congressional Inquires and most are very valid. But here is one that I do not think was.
In the summer of 1970 I was flying MACV support in Vietnam in the Tay Ninh provincial area
When you were there did you run into an ignorant truck driver by the name of rouge rube who didn't have what it takes to get into college?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88422
Jul 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ellen wrote:
Re: "The question is "not" about being a U.S. citizen...it's about a "natural born" citizen as required by the Constitution. According to the 1875 Supreme Court ruling, Minor vs Happerstett...."
Minor vs Happersett never said any such thing. It said that if you had both been born in the USA and that you had two citizen parents you were for sure a Natural Born Citizen. But that is just like saying that if you wear suspenders and a belt you will for sure hold your pants up
What it definitely does not say is that both two citizen parents and birth in the country is REQUIRED.
And, the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor vs Happersett and hence would have overturned it if Minor vs Happersett actually was a ruling on the matter (which it wasn't) said very clearly that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
“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.]
Prior to declaring persons born of citizen parents (not "two citizen parents") natural born, the Court in Minor articulated the condition precedent to natural born citizenship for persons born in the country: "became themselves, upon their birth, citizens." After Ark, persons born in the US even of alien parents "became themselves, upon their birth, citizens," and are therefore natural born citizens.

The in Perkins v. Elg it was recognized, the inevitable ramification of the Ark decision:

"[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.D.C. 1938)
modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
(Internal citation omitted.)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 78,681 - 78,700 of167,594
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••