Supreme Court of the United States, sworn to uphold
and defend...........themselves.
Posted on 12/08/2008 7:12:24 AM PST by cycle of discernment
too bad
And don’t we all. But there is no way, at least for us on this lively forum, to determine natural born. There is simply no clear cut guideline to that.
We have had others in similar, not identical, circumstances run for president. None were nominated, none elected. (I’m leaving beside CA Arthur—though that may well be precedent.) Point being, there is no law nor precedent for standard of proof of natural born status. Ooops. Guess we will rectify that now, or at least one can hope.
I am truly interested in what transpires Friday. I don’t hope for one outcome or another, I hope that the truth comes out (a real maybe in my cynical moments). I am interested to see what precedent will be set, even if it’s a rejection of Cort’s case. Hmm, Kemosabe, interesting times.
Sorry, but the Constitution requires that he be a natural born citizen, not just “a” citizen.
That’s the fundamental law of the land, and it’s too late to pretend it’s not in the Constitution.
The question the Supreme Court should be addressing is whether the dual citizenship Obama inherited at birth precludes him from being a natural born citizen. On its face, I would think it does, but I’m hoping the Supreme Court will rule on this.
We cannot just ignore the Constitution. Those of you who think we can are just acting like children who want to pretend that they have no parents enforcing rules.
***
Exactly ...
The question is whether a dual national can be a natural born citizen.
The history of United States jurisprudence STRONGLY suggests that the Founding Fathers were NOT limited SOLELY to the tenets of English Common Law, but rather, borrowed librally from many legal scholars.
In the libraries of Federalists and anti-Federalists were well-thumbed copies of Blackstone, Grotius, Huber, and Vattel. These authors and the established practices of European states influenced not only the drafting of Article I and its reference to the law of nations but other constitutional provisions: the Due Process Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article III’s grant of jurisdiction to federal courts.
Most of these writings purport that dual nationality and natural born citizenship are wholly incompatible ...
Read the threads. That’s the case.
They vouched that he had an authentic birth certificate. That is all. Not an Hawaiian birth certificate. This is what was said from Hawaii:
Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
She did not say original Hawaii birth certificate. Under Hawaiian law, he could have applied for a Hawaii birth certificate provided he could show his mother was a resident of Hawaii one year prior to his birth. Part of that process is submitting your original birth certificate. So therefore, in accordance with state policies and procedures , they would have his original birth certificate on record. It does not mean it is a Hawaii birth certificate.
As to the birth announcement:
A short form COLB shows a birth was registered. But not by whom and exactly how, whereas on the vault copy in section 18a it specifies who registered the birth ( Parent or Other ).
On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. One hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar. On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar. Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED until later. It wouldn’t be accepted until there was proof of birth. If he was born out of the country it may have taken time to get the certificate.
The grandmother could have registered the birth being a blood relative ( as evidenced by field 18a on the long form ). Once registered it would go to the Dept of Health. That is where the papers get the birth announcements from ( as can been seen from the top of the Sunday Advertiser - Health Bureau Statistics ) and thus the announcement of the birth would be in the papers.
Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.
Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.
Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration, the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.
How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth
Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:
1. notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth, and
2. instructions on procedures for and submission of required documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.
*
Certainly your statement clarifys that Your Knowledge of the Law and the Constitution have a common thread with Zero Hussein; ZERO!
Supreme Court of the United States, sworn to uphold
and defend...........themselves.
The central argument—that Obama has not demonstrated he is a natural born citizen—is entirely logical.
Logical is not insane.
Someone will have to explain a plausible explanation as to why a Repubican administration in Hawaii would hide the fact of an out of state birth being registered in Hawaii or a delayed filing of a Certification of Live Birth.
Nobody is hiding anything. They are following the law. It is against the law in Hawaii to reveal what is in a persons BC. If they said he had a Kenyan BC, that would be breaking the law, because it would reveal what was in his record.
Second:
A short form COLB would not say BORN in Honolulu if the child was not born in Honolulu. Its really that simple.
Yes , it is really that simple. His short form says the it was FILED on that date, not ACCEPTED. The reason it can't be accepted is becasue there is no proof of birth, i.e. a birth certificate.So the field would say Honolulu because that is where it was registered. Once it had been ACCEPTED, it would show the actual birth place. Why was the filing never accepted ?
Third:
Here’s the relevant section of Hawaii Revised Statutes to the delayed or late registration of a birth provisions: Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?
That is NOT the relevant statute. That is an entirely different program that was set up before Hawaii became a state. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is NOT the same as a a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certification of Live Birth. Read your history on Hawaii before you start quoting laws that not relevant to the issue at hand.
Finally:
From Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13(b): “Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL...”
The key word there is copies. The COLB is not a copy, it is a compute generated summary. There is a difference. Plus according to his COLB, the filing was never ACCEPTED.
By the way, I have been dealing with administrative law, federal and state statutes for over 20 years. What is your experience ?
It’s simple. Obama cannot produce his long form because;
a). He doesn’t have one.
b). It would show that he is not eligible to assume POTUS.
That is it. End of story. The man is either a citizen with a long form that shall be produced or he’s a fraud and the truth will eventually come to light one way or the other.
He could have shut this down long ago by producing the long form.
And I have an idea to make it happen, and will spring it when the time comes. But lets just see if BlogoSphere doesn’t take him out first.
a). He doesn’t have one.
Which going by the only available evidence that we have, his COLB, seems to support that since his application was never accepted.
There is another way to get the info. I sent Berg an email yesterday regarding it. Here it is:
Mr Berg,
Have you considered requesting the index data from the Hawaii Dept. of Health concerning Obamas COLB ? Since you are in an active lawsuit at the moment, according to Hawaii statutes, you have the right to such data:
§338-18 Disclosure of records.
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings;
You could ask them to verify every field that was posted on his online COLB image. If one of the fields don't match what is actually in the record ( Race of Father : African comes to mind ), it would show that he put a fraudulent document online and thus has committed wire fraud.
Educate the voters as to why the GOP is better if this is still possible.
I have one observation...if Obama was born outside of the US than I think there would be problems with his inauguration, but this nonsense about dual citizenship is pure balderdash. By this standard millions of Americans would lose their citizenship. If a child is born in the US today, he or she is considered to be an American citizen hence anchor babies. The parents can be citizens of anyplace in the world. You can not change the rules ie constitution because you disagree with the results of an election. If you can’t win enough voters, you lose period.
The GOP lost. I watched the hearings on the the auto loan today...the beginning of the GOP presidential loss in 2012. Ohio and other Mid Western states will never vote for another Republican-probably in my lifetime. I will never understand the GOP. However, I don’t really care because after today, listening to the GOP Senators bash manufacturing, I’m voting conservative third party anyway. most likely.
This is incorrect. The parents do not have to be American citizens. Being born in the country is sufficient. You need to study the issue more.
That's a tough pill to swallow. How is Obama getting away with all of this...?? It's simply unreal. There needs to be an investigation into all of this.
Actually what would convince me would be the 'birth certificate' being released for validation. No one has answered the question as to why that hasn't been released to the press, or if it might prove embarrassing, to a federal judge.
What you posted is an excellent example of hysteria in place of an actual argument.
1. Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged.
The Certification of Live Birth was altered by blacking out the serial number. According to the document itself that renders it invalid. IT WAS ALTERED! How can any rational human being claim that COLB's come with blacked out serial numbers? Why black out the serial number if you are attempting to present proof of birth? That act renders it invalid, so what was the purpose of doing so?
The Certification of Live Birth IS NOT a 'birth certificate' and is not fully accepted by the State of Hawaii as such. Why should we accept a document image that has clearly been altered from a secondary source friendly to the Obama campaign such as the DailyKos or FactCheck as representing anything? Why wasn't the document made physically available for validation directly from the Obama campaign to the press?
See post #1020 (TheCipher) for other problems.
2. They claim that the contemporaneous birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?).
This is simple ignorance. The newspaper announcements are placed in the papers from Health Bureau statistics when a child is registered with the state of Hawaii, regardless of origin. That is not proof of Hawaiian birth, only proof of registration. There are no time machines or fortune-tellers required so Michelle can lose the hysterical ranting.
3. And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.
No one has done any such thing. The only one painting with a broad brush regarding accusations are those like Malkin who descend into name calling in place of rational argument. As to usurping the rule of law, David Horowitz made his disdain for the constitution pretty clear in his editorial. I would suggest you read it. He wants to pick and choose what parts of the constitution to follow.
Your attacking the messengers (Berg = truther and asking questions = conspiracy nuts) rather than addressing the substance of the argument is a rather clear indication you in fact have no argument.
True. But if there is one senator without jelly for a spine that stands up and objects to the votes from his state being admitted until his eligibility is verified, then it could possibly be put on hold.
I am not discussing this with you again.
You are intentionally being argumentative as far as I can tell because I have at least 10 times explained to you that no one is saying he is NOT A CITIZEN. You know good and well the issue is Natural Born and no, millions of Americans with dual citizenship probably should NOT be President since they would have allegiance to a foriegn power. And as thorough a job as you are in attempting to explain an antogonizing point of view, I don’t think you are stupid. Therefore I think you are inflaming.
So this will be my last reply to you on this subject.
Your position is unconstitutional and just plain wrong. We can agree to disagree however. There is no point in discussing this. The Supreme Court will shut this down in time.
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.