Posted on 06/17/2008 6:00:53 PM PDT by freespirited
I don’t really understand why you would ping someone else? Do you need support in your shouting down the discussion here? I really don’t have a clue why you responded to me in the first place. You had nothing to add to this discussion other than an unsourced claim this had previously all been sorted out. I frankly don’t care if you think it is sorted out as I have tried to make clear.
Hawaiian birth certificates in 1961 were black with white print. This style was through at least November 1968 at Kapiolani Medical Center (and at all Hawaiian hospitals). See http://www.homegrownhawaii.com/boards/thread.aspx?tid=184&group=HH, which is a website where Hawaiians indicated which hospital they were born and described what their birth certificates looked like.
There is a report in 1968 that another style of Birth Certificate was being used, such as was described in this article. Green, but with black type and a statehood seal. But given the timeframe of Obama’s birth, 1961, his birth certificate would have been black with white print, the style used by all Hawaiian hospitals at that time. The copy shown in this article was definitely not a copy of the original.
I was named II at birth.
The “race” of the baby or parents was not asked or documented on the Birth Certificate. My Father tells me he was not asked either, while giving the info for the BC.
My sister was born in Hawaii 4 years earlier, and she tells me it is not on her BC either.
So again I ask, why would this info be on his replacement? My answer is this is not a real document and the info was added to this to show that he always was considered African American. There probably is a document somewhere, which lists him as some other race.
I know it doesn’t matter, but it obviously matters to someone responsible for producing this document.
Thanks for the feedback.
We needed to hear from people who have seen or had actual Hawaiian birth certificates before figuring these things out, so your input takes us a lot farther down the road than we were at first.
The next step is whether you know somebody born about that time who's gotten one of these new computer copies. If "race" isn't listed on that, then Obama has some explaining to do.
I would change my mind on the forgery issue if a 1961 Hawaii-born person requested a copy from the State and received something substantially different.
I doubt it, but it's possible.
It’s possible that this was printed, border, background and all, on blank paper even if it did come from the State of Hawaii.
Damn! I thought we really had ‘summit’ here. A June suprise, while we await the October revelation. Keep working folks, it’s important.
Why wouldn’t proof of eligibility be a requirement to get on a ballot? So that means, technically, the GOP could knowingly run Arnold S. and then force the democrats to wait until after the election to sue?
Obviously that is a bad example because everyone knows Arnold wasn’t born in the US. But take Bobby Jindal. Let’s assume a couple of people knew he wasn’t born in the USA, but moved here when he was one...and for some reason the public didn’t know etc etc. There is no mechanism to “apply” to run for President? So unless someone bothers to ask, after the fact, there is no mechanism to deal with such a scenario?
Interesting.
No, there isn't. Nor should there be. You don't VOTE for a candidate for President on Election Day, you vote for a slate of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.
Once THEY are elected, they assemble in your State capital or other designated place, and then THEY vote for a Presidential candidate.
I cannot even imagine a Constitutional mechanism to act against someone who was trying to get his electors elected.
In fact, I think the only way a Court in its right mind would even THINK about a writ would be to stop, or to forbid, the inauguration of a Constitutionally ineligible person, and this would almost certainly not happen until the night of January 19, 2009.
This is FR courtesy. BTW, every authorized user is allowed to comment on every post in a thread whether the poster likes it or not.
http://genealogy.about.com/od/vital_records/p/hawaii.htm
Hawaii state law limits access to birth records of 75 years or less to the person named on the certificate, the parents, descendants, spouse, legal guardians and individuals who share a common ancestor (i.e. cousins, grandparent, aunts/uncles) with the person named on the certificate. Birth records more than 75 years old are open to the public.
But if the question of race was not asked at the time of birth. My father tells me in 1964 and 1968, when giving the info for the Birth Certificate of myself and my sister, he was not asked the race of himself or wife or the baby. And, like I have stated before, it is not on our Birth Certificates.
(And yes, I understand I am talking about 64 and 68. Not 1961. But things probably couldn’t have changed that much)
So, unless when he requested the replacement document, they asked him some new questions, then again I ask, why is it on the new document????
I don't know when the birth certificates stopped listing race, but a lot happened in the sixties so far as race and color were concerned. At some point in the 1960s states may have stopped requiring this information -- or they may have continued to keep track of the data for statistical reasons but kept it off of birth certificates and other legal papers issued to the public.
No. My wife used a City of New York ‘Certification of Birth’ to get a passport and its only ‘raised seal’ was intaglio printing used in the border, and the signature was printed as part of the background, and it was most assuredly not a certified photocopy of the document issued at the time of her birth. My daughter used a ‘Copy of Record of Birth’ from Massachusetts, a rather ratty document typed on a form that was printed (in the 1980’s) on an ordinary printing press, with a raised seal generated by clamping the paper, to get a passport.
Unless you are aware of a distinction *under Hawaiian law* between a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and a ‘Certification of Live Birth’, the difference in terminology is irrelevant, as for that matter how it was printed. Massachusetts used an ordinary printer, New York City a big fancy intaglio printer. If Hawaii wants to print the background with a fancy color printer, then print the text on with a laser printer, rather than type it on, or even print the whole lot together on a color laser printer, the different custom is within the rights of the several states. If Hawaii wants to call them ‘Certifications’ rather than ‘Certificates’ (after all Massachusetts calls them ‘Records’) that also is irrelevant.
Okay, Hawaiian FReepers, does Hawaii really have two different classes of documents, one of which is called a ‘Certification’ and is somehow less valid for purposes of proof of citizenship than the other, as NathanR avers, or does Hawaii simply call what Masschusetts calls a ‘Record of Birth’, or even a ‘Copy of Record of Birth’ a ‘Certification of Live Birth’?
Not really a relevant point. New York City won’t give you a copy of your original birth certificate either. You get a new nicely typed document on a pink and blue intaglio printed background with the registrar’s signature printed as part of the background.
Actually, if his mother lost the original, it may not be a simple thing to get a copy of the original. Indeed doing so may be a violation of Hawaiian law.
As I have pointed out, some juridisctions, New York City being one, do not release copies of the documents generated at the time of a birth, but only respond to requests for birth certificates by issuing a new document reflecting the facts of the birth as maintained in the relevant county’s or municipality’s records. (In the case of New York, the document is called a ‘Certification of Birth’, and contrary to some posters erroneous ideas is considered adequate proof of U.S. citizenship by the State Department for the issuance of passports.)
Are you questioning the integrity of Lucy Ramirez?
Here is a previous post of mine on this subject: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2032572/posts?page=263#263
The link in the post points to a Hawaii Government website which talks about the two at length.:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
The website goes into what documentation would be needed to be able to “homestead” in Hawaii.
I didn’t know she was involved. I haven’t paid that close attention to this story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.