Posted on 03/06/2009 4:27:07 PM PST by AJ in NYC
It is an article of faith in the loopier precincts of the Internet, impervious to evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president of the United States because he is not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires.
All this would be quite harmless, like believing in the Illuminati or alien abduction, except that the extra-chromosome true believers have taken to filing suit in the federal courts basically seeking to overturn the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at scrippsnews.com ...
State police, highway patrol, public safety officers, sheriffs, etc. usually have various and separate duties much as a traffic cop is different from a detective or from internal affairs. Their authority extends to specific actions and responsibilities.
The language seems intended to clarify that any LEO employed by the State of Hawaii, irrespective of his official area of responsibility, may request these records.
It is logical (IMHO) to assume that this language was intended to prevent a LEOs request from being denied by anyone in the department of health because they don’t feel his request for vital statistics records is pertinent to his investigation because he’s a warrants officer or a highway patrol officer. Remember that currently the Hawaii DOH operates under the standard of “specific interest” when granting access to records, so it’s currently left up to DOH employees to determine who has an interest and who doesn’t.
Basically the new law says “If a Hawaii state LEO needs a DOH record, give it to him regardless of what his official job duties are because we trust our LEOs to abide by our laws - and we’ll punish them if they use these records for other than an investigation.”
Each and everyday!
True, but BOTH countries must extend dual nationality rights for that person to be recognized as a Dual Citizen by both countries.
For example, Indonesia did not recognized Dual Citizenship until 2006. The US did, off and on, this century -- most recently, not until 1990. Now, really it is only "tolerated"; PLEASE SHOW ME TREATIES IN PLACE TO THE CONTRARY.
It is CURRENT State Department policy, based on a series of court cases and (somewhat) Congressional immigration acts, initiated by Bush Sr, that remains unchanged today. Again, CURRENTLY the US DOES recognize Dual Nationality -- that was not the case when Obama was born in summer 1961, when we were VERY much in the Cold War and the "Red Scare" with Cuba, Russia, etc.
HERE'S THE CURRENT US STANCE ON DUAL CITIZENSHIP:
DUAL NATIONALITYDual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are abroad.
Again -- DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
BP2, surely you are a saint, to continue to spank this fool Begalaesque poster when needed.
Cap locks off, please.
One more point. The FBI cannot (and usually doesn’t) come in and take over a state investigation. FBI has jurisdiction when the crime crosses state lines. However, a state can request FBI assistance in an investigation.
One could certainly argue that this fraud was perpetrated in multiple states and should therefore be an FBI investigation.
But a state investigating candidate qualifications for its own ballots would not be under FBI jurisdiction until the crime was discovered to be federal in nature, such as federal elections fraud.
It is likely that a state investigation uncovering intentional fraud by Obama would be taken over by FBI. The state could still pursue its own action to revoke electors’ votes or some such similar action.
I don’t believe this Hawaii law is specifically intended to grant authority to outside law enforcement, federal or otherwise.
What bothers me about it is that a criminal investigation is required to obtain the records. Who, other than a state AG, can initiate a criminal investigation to look into ballot issues? Joe Traffic officer can’t even if he wanted to.
Say bye-bye, Obama buttboy
The original wording of the Bill passed by the Senate, up until the 3rd reading, (and is still the language of the Hawaii House version) is:
add:
(14) A law enforcement officer, as defined by section
710-1000(13), who needs vital statistics records as
evidence in a criminal investigation, provided that
the law enforcement officer requests the vital
statistics records by providing identification and
submitting to the department a signed statement
verifying, under penalty of criminal prosecution for
false swearing in official matters, (A) that the
officer is a law enforcement officer as defined by
section 710-1000 (13), (B) that the officer is acting
in the officer's official capacity, and (C) that the
vital statistics records are needed as evidence in a
criminal investigation."
An important working definition:
"Peace officer" is defined in section 710-1000, Hawaii [Hawaii] Revised Statutes, as "any public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses, whether that duty extends to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses."
SEE, that is VERY general in nature. I'm not sure how much of the change in the Senate version was intended to give a shield to BHO and protect Hawaii's sovereignty. We'll have to see what the Hawaii state House has to say about it...
BUT I still think that if a request comes from a state or the US Attorney General, it might fall under this part, syntaxically, standing out there on its own:
or to make arrests for offenses
Many a court case has been won on such parsing of words...
Yes, and he’s gone. Along with all his bull
BUMP!!!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/~michaelmichael/
This account has been banned or suspended.
Thank you, Admin Moderator!
“I sure hope you flagged the IP address, too”
Yeah, FR keeps logs.
Michelle Michelle, I rank as one of the most, if not the most successful FR troll based persistence and obfuscation.
What would the criminal charges be against BO that a LEO would need to obtain “vital statistics?”
Would this only apply to criminal charges or civil as well?
I think you answered this before but I can’t find the info.
Is he really, really gone?
Does that mean I can read these types of threads without any distractions?
I have a hard enough time trying to process all the info...
It's a sad day in the FR trolling world. Let the morning begin. A moment of silence.
I was thinking more along the lines of a “toast.”
I’m not getting you on that particular point. I’m not disagreeing with you. I just don’t understand what you’re saying.
As an “English” freak, I use words as tools to convey specific meaning. So I understand your point about parsing words being a means to an end.
The clause “or to make arrests for offenses” can be restated in full as “A peace officer is any public servant vested by law with a duty to make arrests for offenses.”
As I understand it, the only public servants who are vested by law to make arrests are police officers. A prosecuting attorney (who is also a state employee, but not a peace officer) is vested by law to charge an offense, but is not vested by law to maintain public order (i.e. under threat of force) or to make arrests.
A red letter day. Shows that there is a line after all.
Now, he will undoubtedly sign up under another screen name.
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.