Posted on 06/30/2008 9:51:56 AM PDT by justlurking
The state of Hawaii has a legal basis to investigate and report on whether the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II posted on his website is valid or not. The State of Hawaii has said that only Obama or a family member can request a birth certificate. However, checking for error or fraud in a birth certificate used by Obama to obtain a benefit is something the state of Hawaii can do spontaneously.
The two primary purposes of not letting anyone get anyone’s birth certificate are privacy and to prevent fraud. Since Obama has posted the purported certificate, he has waived privacy. Since the state of Hawaii has already expressed the view that the birth certificate posted on-line lacks the seal and signature that is standard, they have a basis to suspect fraud.
The fraud purpose of the law is so that someone doesn’t get a birth certificate of another person and then use that to get a passport, driver’s license, etc. In this case, the question is whether the Obama campaign are engaged in fraud. So investigating the birth certificate, b.c., in this case is preventing fraud. Moreover, the risk of someone using an Obama b.c. to get a passport or driver’s license or job is already at issue.
Preventing fraud means when there is evidence of fraud its investigated. By not investigating evidence of fraud, the state actually emboldens potential fraudsters to engage in the type of fraud that Obama’s campaign is suspected of by some.
If the b.c. on the Obama website is fake, then there is likely fraud not just error. This is evidence tending in that direction.
The state of Hawaii does not need to prove fraud to correct error. If a b.c. is purported to be authentic in a public manner on a website and it lacks a seal that is a basis for the state of Hawaii to correct error. It has a public interest in doing so. The state of Hawaii has an interest in showing that it polices the use of its b.c.’s and prevents incorrect ones being used to get a job, security clearance, or for some other purpose.
The US government also has standing to investigate the use of a possibly fraudulent birth certificate or one that has errors. The federal elections commission presumably can investigate whether a person is eligible for office or uses documents that contain errors to establish eligibility.
Hawaii has standing to protect its own voters, ballot and those of other states. Voters in other states have standing to request an investigation.
Where there is damage, the state of Hawaii can correct error. The many calls to the office in Hawaii show that the public feels damaged by the possibly false b.c. Damage plus error gives the state standing to investigate and publish its results.
The state of Hawaii is holding a presidential election with other states. It has a duty under the U.S. Constitution and its own constitution and laws to prevent fraud in that election. It has an obligation under the 14th Amendment to prevent election fraud. As an election administrator, the state of Hawaii has an obligation to investigate where evidence of possible fraud, error, or eligibility for office is presented.
The state of Hawaii has already determined that the b.c. on the Obama web page lacks a seal and signature. It also has the word African for race which may be suspect. Note the b.c. was issues after 2001, so that the state of Hawaii may use African at the time the b.c. was printed instead of colored or Negro if those terms were used at the time of issuance in 1961, if one was issued in 1961.
At a certain level of evidence of damage or error, the state of Hawaii has discretion to investigate. At a higher level, it has an obligation to investigate and publish its findings. That level may have been reached. As an administrator of a presidential election operating under the 14th Amendment and with an obligation to other states that are co-administrators of the election including as operators and members of the Electoral College, the state of Hawaii has substantial obligations to voters in its own state, in other states, and to other states.
In the federal system, the states are given duties. Holding elections is one of the duties they are given, including federal elections, including president. They have to see that all laws are enforced in those elections, including what is specified in the U.S. Constitution. Because Hawaii has the b.c. of Barack Obama according to Obama’s web site, it falls to Hawaii to check the b.c.
This is an obligation it has under the U.S. Constitution as an election administrator, and under federal supremacy, and under the Constitution directly to see that Obama meets the requirements written in the U.S. Constitution. When state officials take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, they take on that obligation to make sure that anyone running for president of the United States meets all qualifications in the U.S. Constitution.
Because Hawaii is the alleged holder of the Obama b.c., it has the obligation to check its original. It has that obligation since its own officials have determined that Obama has posted a b.c. on his web page lacking the seal and signature. Hawaii has that duty as a direct duty under the U.S. Constitution. That preempts state law on b.c. privacy.
Others have standing to sue in federal court to get Hawaii to disclose the b.c. based on all the above if Hawaii doesn’t spontaneously investigate this itself. Hawaii should do so. It has the right to and the duty to. That comes directly from the U.S. Constitution. That preempts state law.
Obama by posting a fake b.c. may have engaged in some form of electoral fraud. This accrues as more information is posted. This accrues as his campaign knows the state of Hawaii has stated that the b.c. on the Obama web page lacks the seal and signature. The Obama campaign now has notice that the b.c. on the Obama web page lacks the seal and signature and that the state of Hawaii has said that.
That is additional evidence for the state of Hawaii to act. Its additional evidence for state and federal courts to act. Other state courts have jurisdiction to require Obama to give them a valid Hawaii b.c. So do other state electoral officials. Any state electoral official, local or state, has standing now to challenge Obama on the ballot because the state of Hawaii has said the b.c. on the Obama web page lacks the seal and signature.
Each state of the United States has an obligation to remove Obama from its ballot. This is an obligation under the U.S. Constitution on each state.
Moreover, Obama is not entitled to his delegates at the Democratic National Convention because he is using a b.c. on his web page that the state of Hawaii says lacks the seal and signature. Delegates pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and most have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. They have an obligation to deny Obama the nomination while he is using a b.c. determined by the state of Hawaii to lack the seal and signature on his web page.
==
In fighting fraud, it obviously makes no sense to say only the person engaging in possible fraud can request an investigation of the possible fraud. If a state has any information from any source that indicates possible error, fraud, or harm to 3rd parties, that gives it standing to investigate.
A law designed to prevent fraud can not be used to perpetuate a fraud. The law against giving b.c.’s to others is to prevent their using it for fraud. But here the issue is that Obama’s web page may be harming others by error or fraud.
There need not be fraud. The same arguments apply to error. Innocent parties that may be harmed by error have standing to seek correction or confirmation. That is a right they have in state and federal court. The state of Hawaii has a direct obligation under the U.S. Constitution to avoid error or fraud in this case.
The state of Hawaii, other states, and federal courts and agencies have an obligation to weight the costs and harms. The harm of allowing a b.c. that the state of Hawaii has said lacks the signature and seal to be accepted when posted on a candidate’s web page is huge. That undermines the public trust in all b.c.’s everywhere for all purposes. It undermines the rule of law in elections. It perpetuates that candidates are not accountable to the laws before, while and after elected.
Obama has an obligation himself as an elected official and candidate to see that the laws are upheld by his campaign. Using a b.c. that the state of Hawaii has said lacks the seal and signature on his web page is a failure by him. It disqualifies him from being president on a moral level.
|
Where’s the Hawaii GOP on this. Don’t they have a female GOP governor?
My opinion is that they will not do it unless sued and forced to do so. Since it is of interest to every single US citizen that their president be constitutionally qualified, then anyone can file a lawsuit asking for a certified copy of his birth certificate. My question is why hasn’t someone with some resources done so?
Hmmm......since when does a “moral level” matter to a duplicitous Democrat?
He gets a free ride for use of non-profit organizations for political purposes. he gets away with outrageous lies day after day. Why on earth would an ultra liberal state like Hawaii cause him any problems?
Nobody on Freep gets it.
1. The Democrats do not care about anything but winning. The rules only apply to their enemies (Republicans, moderate Democrats). Hence, nothing will be done.
2. Do you really believe that a Democratic stronghold like Hawaii is going to blow it for the Democratic candidate?
3. Our only hope is Hillary. If one of her supporters (and it can’t be traced to her or her defunct campaign) pushes it and they find out that Obama was born in Kenya (or some other $hithole), then we get Hillary.
Our country is really going down the drain.
It’s such a simple question: Will the campaign make the birth certificate available for public inspection in order to clear up the lingering questions as to its authenticity?
If not, why not?
Obama got the Ryan’s Divorce record UNSEALED!
Never happen. Hawaii is the farthest left, viciously Marxist state in the union.
Ryan can return the favor. After all, Obama knows the ‘do unto others and you would have them do unto you’ principle.
Did you see the Nova last night? There was new forensic science that has been developed for such a possible forgery. It is being used by the FBI and the guy who developed it is now working with Adobe to develop marketable software. He made the determination about that Mid-East bombing photo that was ‘enhanced’ by some stringer that was in cahoots w/ the hezz-ballers or humadumass. If anyone knows more on the subject, please inform...
the Deets
A "controlling authority" who could investigate.
Yeah, but WILL they investigate? Hawaii is the state that had a dead Democrat running for governor, after all.
After an investigation, there needs to be a prosecution of all fake copies... Since there seem to be several versions of birth certificates floating again, at least one has to be faked.
obumpa
As someone who was born and raised in Hawaii around the same time as Obama supposedly was...and has...others who were born during the same year...and who has an original HI birth certificate, I can say that the only ways he (Obama) could actually have a legit HI birth cert. is that he either HAS one and can produce it for verification against anyone else born in HI at that time who most likely will have theirs or the State of HI still has the original paper and ink used and can either reproduce one or fake it. Dating processes can verify the paper and ink as to the acurate date of production.
I just looked at mine the other day and they are distinctive to say the least in a variety of ways so he must either prove it or get out of the race. Time will tell.
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.