Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $79,970
94%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 94%!! Less than $5.1k to go!! We can do this!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by edge919

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]

    10/29/2013 7:24:28 PM PDT · 228 of 272
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Minor said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. Nothing has been “merged” as you are claiming.

  • Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]

    10/29/2013 7:23:15 PM PDT · 227 of 272
    edge919 to Jim Robinson
    Ted Cruz was born to a fully qualified US citizen working temporarily in Canada.

    Nobody says he wasn't, but the Supreme Court was clear that this is NOT natural-born citizenship. Minor v. Happersett said this type of citizenship falls under the naturalization authority of Congress. Second, any time another country's jurisdiction is involved, U.S. courts including the Supreme Court defer to international law or natural law, which is true with the Supreme Court in multiple cases involving citizenship questions. The precedent on natural-born citizenship was established in Minor with an exclusive definition. Cruz's politics have nothing to do with his citizenship. My posts are not trolling. Check my history. I've been very consistent on citing direct Supreme Court authority to back up what I'm saying. I can't make Cruz eligible based on a wishful invention of how I want to define natural-born citizen. Certainly Cruz has a better argument to citizenship than Obama because his father eventually became a U.S. citizen, but this is still not the same thing as natural-born citizenship.

  • Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]

    10/29/2013 7:17:11 PM PDT · 226 of 272
    edge919 to CodeToad
    Have you ever read ‘Minor v. Happersett’?

    Yes, several times. If you had, you would know I'm absolutely correct.

    It doesn’t conclude anything of the sort.

    Yes, actually it does and this was affirmed by the quotes from Minor made in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.

    The affirmation of judgment in Minor v. Happersett merely states they agree that a one form of natural born citizen is by two parents of a child born in the US, but in no way do they exclude any other natural born citizenship, as stated, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” They did not go into the other means of natural citizenship, so they did not exclude them.

    The doubts were not about other ways to become natural-born citizens. The doubts were about other ways to become citizens. In context, they used one exclusive definition of natural-born citizen. And if you read the decision, the next paragraph goes into the only other known ways of becoming a citizen. Again, only one, birth in the country to citizen parents was characterized as natural-born.

  • Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]

    10/28/2013 9:53:35 PM PDT · 188 of 272
    edge919 to abigkahuna

    The Supreme Court did already decide how to define Natural-born Citizen in Minor v. Happersett. That definition was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and the Minor precedent on presidential eligibility was affirmed in Luria v. United States. IOW, 27 Supreme Court justices agreed with Minor that NBC is defined as all children born in the country to citizen parents. Those born outside the country and born to an alien father can only become citizens through the naturalization authority of Congress.

  • Are you ready for President Schwarzenegger?

    10/19/2013 8:34:29 AM PDT · 57 of 63
    edge919 to Plummz

    In Obama’s case, he proved the Constitution can simply be ignored as long as you have enough popular support.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/06/2013 11:36:47 PM PDT · 179 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    IOW, you have nothing.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/04/2013 11:52:43 PM PDT · 174 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Show the ruling and what it said specifically about Lewis’ dicta on how NBC is defined. A procedural denial doesn’t make bad dicta good.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/04/2013 8:44:27 PM PDT · 171 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    I explained what I meant. What part did you truly not understand?? I was very specific about the cited legal principle and I’m pretty sure it was your link I used to cite it.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/04/2013 8:43:25 PM PDT · 170 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Sorry, but I already showed where it means the same thing.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/04/2013 8:42:48 PM PDT · 169 of 181
    edge919 to Exmil_UK

    This is probably why they’re waiting so long. They can certainly point out the actual Constitutional precedent, but it doesn’t mean that they can enforce any kind of meaningful resolution other than to de-legitimize the 2012 election results in Alabama.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/02/2013 9:43:43 PM PDT · 162 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    That’s a trainwreck of a decision. The judge cites Minor to say that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens and then he goes straight to the 14th amendment of the Constitution to define eligibility. IOW, it’s a direct contradiction of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. I don’t know what argument Voeltz made, but it’s easy to show this judge contradicted his own rationale.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/02/2013 9:40:26 PM PDT · 161 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    According to whom?? The principle is in effect whether it’s stated or not. I showed the definition and how that fit the exact verbiage used in the denial.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    10/01/2013 8:30:29 PM PDT · 156 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    I think you may have forgotten or did not know that the Voeltz v. Obama lawsuits are ballot challenges.

    I didn't forget anything. I responded to what the denial said verbatim and I gave an explicit definition that backed up my point. Now you're trying to baffle you're way out of an obviously losing argument with a bunch of irrelevant commentary and quotations. This is a typical fogger tactic, but no one is falling for it.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/30/2013 8:22:51 PM PDT · 153 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Sorry, all you're doing is denying the obvious. Here's a definition that directly links standing and the right to legal relief.
    "Standing to sue" is defined as the one who has the right to relief in court. What this means is that the person who is suing the other person in court has a claim against that other person. A simple example would be where one person might be injured as a result of an automobile accident, but another person attempts to sue for those injuries. This other person clearly lacks standing to sue because he or she has no right to that relief in court.

    link to definition

    This court said the plaintiffs didn't clearly prove a legal right to relief, which is the same as not proving they have standing. Why is it so hard for you to admit this??

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/28/2013 10:08:04 PM PDT · 146 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    It was the basis of the denial. You even posted a link to it.
    Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/28/2013 12:05:47 AM PDT · 141 of 181
    edge919 to 4Zoltan

    How about that. The Florida Supreme Court resorts to legal standing to deny the appeal.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/28/2013 12:02:50 AM PDT · 140 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark has been “stare decisis” for the last 115 years.

    The holding in Wonk Kim Ark did NOT declare him to be a natural-born citizen. The Indiana Appeals Court admitted this which I've already quoted. Your other comments here don't address the problems I brought up with the inconsistent bases for each ruling you quoted. You're resorting to an appeal of circular logic about whether the cases were appealed or not. That won't make the rulings any less consistent.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/28/2013 12:00:06 AM PDT · 139 of 181
    edge919 to 4Zoltan

    The same law that was used to create a standard Federal birth certificate in 1955. The “en route” terminology is used in the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for coding and geographic particulars.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/26/2013 10:07:53 PM PDT · 132 of 181
    edge919 to CpnHook
    Right. Because that's what a custodian of records does: he verifies factual claims according to what is disclosed on the vital records. And Bennett was satisfied that Onaka had done what Bennett had requested. Or am I missing the part where Bennett says "Gee, I never asked Onaka to tell me if he has a valid birth record on file, but I guess I should just assume that when Onaka goes through the formality of verifying these 10 items I asked that he's doing so from an invalid record."

    Bennett didn't bother to read the letter before making a decision. He didn't care one whit about whether Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. went through the formality of verifying 10 items and not verifying the items that were on the DOH's own standard request form. And you're missing an important part of the law on self-authentication in the rules of evidence. The custodian of certified records is supposed to verify that copies of such records are CORRECT copies. It's not just a matter of verifying a few "factual claims" contained in a record. That's not the custodian's only responsibility.

    Since vital records offices don't purport to keep invalid records around that they use to verify claims, it IS the same.

    This is more nonsense because such offices would keep all records on file whether they are valid or not. They only CERTIFY the ones that are valid. The other records remain invalid until required documentation or evidence is presented.

    Again, the statute speaks about the custodian verifying "the existence of a certificate" but does not say anything about the custodian having to "declare the record is valid."

    That part is covered under the Federal Rules of evidence and in the part of the Hawaii statute that says the letter of verification would verify any facts relating to the vital event AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT. That would include verifying whether the copy of the record is a TRUE copy.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/26/2013 10:00:14 PM PDT · 131 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    An excerpt from the Appellants’ brief in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

    This excerpt is a reaction to the lower court citing the Look Tin Sing case, which erroneously stated a person born in the country to noncitizen parents would be a natural-born citizen. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision supported that conclusion.

    Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

    They also note that there was NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark to support this conclusion:

    We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...

    IOW, what you cited was actually just dicta. The actually ruling only said:

    To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

    The Ankeny court avoided declaring ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen on the basis of their "guidance" from Wong Kim Ark. All they said was that there was a conflict in the plaintiffs definition of NBC that they didn't have to accepts as true. The meat of the ruling was that the governor couldn't be required to vet presidential candidates.

    Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

    It's MORE well-settled by 27 Supreme Court justices that natural-born citizens are defined as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Note how Judge Gibney cites NOTHING to support his dicta.

    “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012

    Wow, this is a whopper. Ankeny didn't say anything about Obama becoming a citizen at birth nor did it says that Obama was a natural-born citizen. In fact, the Ankeny decision barely discussed Obama at all. And it's intereesting how this administrative judge says he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States, even though Obama never provided any evidence of this. At least this judge was smart enough not to cite Wong Kim Ark directly. It just gives us four decisions with vastly different bases for their rulings.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/26/2013 9:42:34 PM PDT · 130 of 181
    edge919 to CpnHook
    My understanding of "natural born citizen" sees the law in light of what James Madison said early on. I trust this quote has been posted to F.R. so many times already a link isn't necessary:

    Unfortunately, you're not looking at ALL of what Madison said. In the very next sentence he talks about the parental birthright of the person in question. He didn't say place of birth was the ONLY criterion, only that it applied in the U.S. and that it is the most CERTAIN criterion. He obviously respected the rule of blood. Do you??

    Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/26/2013 9:37:35 PM PDT · 129 of 181
    edge919 to 4Zoltan
    That may be Kansas law but that’s not what Hawaii Public Health regulations state.

    I'm talking about Federal law. Your citation from Hawaii doesn't mention the listing of the place of birth. Why are you trying mislead here??

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/23/2013 11:05:50 PM PDT · 78 of 181
    edge919 to 4Zoltan
    That’s why Dr. Onaka said,

    “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”

    Yes, a completely ambiguous statement talking about an unspecified vital record to verify unstated facts of an unstated vital event.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/23/2013 11:03:36 PM PDT · 77 of 181
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    After receiving Onaka’s letters both Bennett and Kobach said that they were now satisfied that the questions they had about Obama’s birthplace had been answered and they cleared Obama for the ballot in states that Romney won by landslides.

    Bennett made a decision without reading the letter of verifcation. Kobach's statement was made in front of a hostile crowd.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/23/2013 11:01:24 PM PDT · 76 of 181
    edge919 to 4Zoltan
    Dr. Onaka specifically verified that “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” is listed on the original birth record as the hospital or institution. There is no logical scenario that would allow a parent, grandparent, or other person to register a birth as having occurred at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

    Actually, this isn't entirely true. If a birth occurred in transit or en route for example, the hospital could be listed as the location where the child was first examined. The certificate is supposed to contain a statement that the child was born en route, such as on a ship or on a plane, and nothing in the "letters of verification" precludes this from being possible.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/23/2013 10:52:15 PM PDT · 75 of 181
    edge919 to CpnHook
    The statute requires verification of facts. The statute does not bind the DOH Director to particular adjective modifiers the requester may use to describe those facts. You're reading into the statute something that isn't there.

    The statute is explicit. It requires verification of facts "AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT." It IS there. Read the statute.

    a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

    Now, it doesn't say that it has to be a fact contained in the document but information that the applicant PROVIDES to be verified. The AZ SOS, for example, provided the DOH's own standard record-request form and ASKED for that information to be verified. Hawaii did NOT verify that information. Second, it would be logical that an applicant would ask if a record is a true copy, because that statement is part of the signature block that the registrar puts on legitimate certified copies of records. And here's the next part of the statute that says "as stated by the applicant."

    A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.

    There's a very simple reason to verify the information as stated by the applicant. It eliminates any possible confusion.

    As I noted above, given the WH LFBC was produced from a copy printed onto security paper, it would not be correct to say it is a "true copy" (or "identical" to) an original that is on plain or other form of paper. There would be differences in appearance.

    Nonsense. The signature block that the registrar puts on a certified document states under signature that such a copy is a TRUE copy. You're making a ridiculous excuse, especially when there's a paper trail claiming that Hawaii provided the document that is alleged to be the source of the WH LFBC.

    What? The custodian doesn't have to say the magic words "true and accurate representation" or "is identical to?" Words of like import (i.e., synonyms) are still legally sufficient under the F.R.E.? Go figure. Here I thought you were trying to claim otherwise.

    Stop acting like a drama queen. Hawaii's own statute says "as stated by the applicant." It has nothing to do with being magic words. And second, the FRE requires the custodian of the record to verify a copy of record is a correct copy.

    The actual wording used was "the information in the copy . . . matches the original record in our files." Onaka doesn't just say "some" information matches. He says "the information" -- which signifies that all information on the copy matches the original.

    Sorry, but you're making an assumption that isn't supported. And in Kansas, the DOH's failure to say the LFBC was a correct copy was a big part of the reason the SOS requested another copy and asked if it was identical.

    "The information is identical" would carry the same import.

    No, the question isn't whether the information is identical, but whether the entire COPY is identical. There's a big difference.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/23/2013 10:36:17 PM PDT · 351 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    This is my final post on this thread.

    It's about time. You haven't presented anything compelling. That's a good reason to find a topic you're better suited to debate.

    If a person seeking access to a confidential Hawaii birth record does not qualify in one of the categories detailed in HRS 338-18, DOH will not grant access and no court has ever ruled that HDOH must grant access under UIPA or any other statute or administrative rule.

    I've already addressed these points. You've ignored what I've written. Plus, there's evidence that Hawaii has refused to grant access to birth records where the applicant directly qualified under 338-18 (Virginia Sunahara's family), and I already explained that the UIPA does NOT mandate the release of records BUT it DOES ALLOW THE RELEASE of records. Hawaii has no compelling reason not to disclose any and all of Obama's birth records. Until they do, claims about Obama's birth are just hearsay.

    Eligibility challengers have sought Writs of Mandamus to force DOH and Hawaii judges to release Obama’s birth records. They have failed, as has every other legal strategy that has been employed since 2008.

    I'm sorry, but all this does is prove that Hawaii will go out its way to avoid documenting its own claims about Obama. Until they do, any claim about Obama's place of birth is legally considered to be hearsay.

    It’s been nice debating these issues with you but now, I’m done. I’ll leave the last words on the subject to you.

    Somehow, I doubt this is honest. And if you post false claims based on these same arguments in other threads, there's a good chance I'll be there again explain exactly why you're wrong.

  • Alabama Supreme Court to rule on Obama’s failure to register with Selective Service

    09/22/2013 10:38:20 PM PDT · 46 of 181
    edge919 to CpnHook

    The problem is that the disclosure law in Hawaii says that registrar has to verify the facts “as stated by the applicant.” This means he can’t substitute other terms on an assumption some words are synonymous with others. In the Arizona Letter of Verification, the secretary of state asked if the copy was a true copy, not an identical copy. Hawaii refused to verify this fact. And this is a fact that the state registrar has the authority to verify. It’s why he puts a seal and signature stamp that certifies whether a record is a true copy of a birth record. There’s a reason this is important. The Federal Rules of Evidence considers such documents to be self-authenticating if the custodian of the record can attest the record is a CORRECT copy. Hawaii did NOT do this. They also failed to verify several specific facts contained on their own standard request form. The Kansas Secretary of State requested his own letter because the language in the Arizona and Mississippi letters were not compelling. He asked specifically if the copy was identical. Under the law in Hawaii, the registrar is supposed to verify that fact as stated by the applicant, not by using synonymous language or with a partial verification of facts. Saying that they contain a record with matching information does not verify that the record is identical. It may suggest that it might be identical, but it is NOT a verification that complies with the law “as stated by the applicant.”

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/22/2013 10:17:47 PM PDT · 349 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Nonsense. You made a claim and have shown nothing to back it up. The court cases you brought up proved my point that the DOH can use the law to refuse honoring a court order on the basis of failing to satisfy the “competent jurisdiction” requirement. What you fail to acknowledge is that the DOH does have the legal capacity to comply with the subpoenas and not compelling reason to fight them.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/22/2013 10:15:27 PM PDT · 348 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Eleven rulings, including the appeals, is probably enough to consider the issue as settled state case law in Hawaii.

    Not at all. The cases you cited from individually were based on different legal rationale. Now you're using circular logic to reinforce something you've never proved.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/20/2013 9:54:31 PM PDT · 345 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Hawaii courts have consistently ruled that your interpretation of their disclosure laws is incorrect.

    Sorry, but you haven't shown this at all. I already told you the Justice lawsuit involved a strange appeal. It would has nothing to do with my interpretation of the disclosure laws. The Orly case was denied on a procedural objection to the service of the subpoena, which again, is not related to my interpretation of the law. You've provided NOTHING to support your claim based on YOUR interpretation of the law that the DOH would cooperate if a court order was signed by a judge. Under federal law, the subpoena only needs to be signed by a clerk, and consequently, the DOH did NOT object to who signed Orly's subpoena, so YOUR interpretation is not supported in your examples. Your new example is still not based on my interpretation of the disclosure laws. I have never said that Obama's posting of his PDF waived a right to privacy that would compel the DOH to release his original vital records. The UIPA doesn't mandate disclosure, but it does ALLOW for voluntary disclosure. This means that the DOH doesn't have to abide by 338-18 if there is a public interest. Disclosures can be made in good faith.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/20/2013 9:35:49 PM PDT · 344 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Every Hawaii court that has looked at this issue has already ruled against your position. I am only interested in being consistent and factual about the actual events that have already taken place involving attempts to obtain the release of Obama’s original long form birth certificate under UIPA and/or HRS 338-18.

    What ... two Hawaii courts??? That's not exactly meaningful and it still does nothing to back up your earlier claim that any judge in the U.S. could issue a court order and get instant cooperation from the DOH. Your newer citation just shows another way in which both the DOH and state of Hawaii do not want to cooperate. There shouldn't be any need to limit disclosure of a record that Obama is claiming he has made public.

  • Washington Post Hits Ted Cruz With 12 'Birther' Stories In Two Days

    09/20/2013 9:17:51 PM PDT · 319 of 319
    edge919 to CpnHook
    Things certainly have gotten quiet here since my last visit.

    Your arguments were defeated. What else would need to be said?

    To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.

    If it's so obvious, give a DIRECT quote using these exact terms were they are put side-by-side. The only thing that was "precisely analogous" were the terms "citizen" and "subject." The rest of this is your desperate imagination playing a dishonest game of connect-the-dots.

    So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?

    Absolutely serious. You're not being honest because Gray does NOT analyzed NBS and NBC as precisely analogous. You're creating an argument based on a false premise.

    So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.

    No, I didn't say this at all. Focus. I said if the part of Sandford's opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.

    Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times.

    He cites "to the case" but he avoids citing any verbiage from the case. Calling it "elaborate" doesn't mean anything. He also cites to Minor and cites FROM Minor verbatim on an exact definition of NBC. One of these has legal precedent. The other does not. Do you understand which one??

    One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning.

    You're making my argument for me. This explains why Gray does nothing more than paraphrase the Lynch ruling instead of giving any full citations.

    Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.

    This doesn't help your argument. The Lynch case is NOT persuasive or compelling. When Gray says that the rule wasn't challenged, all he is saying is that he doesn't have much to go on in order to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen. It's why he continues for pages and pages and pages trying to build a justification. Second, he cites a New Jersey case that completely contradicts the conclusion in Lynch.

    There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.

    No, you're trying to connect unconnected dots while ignoring that Gray deferred to the Minor definition of NBC and that Gray tied it specifically to Article II in the Constitution. He could not use that to make Ark a citizen, so there's no way he could make Ark a natural-born citizen. All natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens. That's a problem for you. You're trying to conclude the latter when the Ark decision says the opposite, that when construing the 14th amendment, it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

    The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."

    Yes, this is true. Nobody disagrees. The Constitution uses these terms, but when construing the 14th amendment it the birth clause, it does NOT define nor redefine natural-born citizen. Gray admits this when he cites Minor.

    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

    Read this. It does NOT mention the term natural-born citizen. It does use THIS term from the previous paragraph "citizens of the United States." The Constitution defines "citzens of the United States" in the 14th amendment. It does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

    So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen."

    False. Gray explicitly said the opposite. Read this:

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

    Do you understand now?? Can you be HONEST now?? In one paragraph, Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these terms except in how "citizens of the United States" is defined in the 14th amendment. In a negative declaration, he says that when the 14th amendment was construed, it did NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That specifically states the opposite of what you want to believe.

    Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly.

    Only to say the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Here it is again ... a DIRECT quote:

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
    As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause.

    You didn't show that at all. I showed the opposite.

    But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.

    This is a circular conclusion. Neither nor voter nor the electoral college has done anything to determine Obama to be an NBC. The only courts to make this conclusion have done so on a basis that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous rulings on eligibility.

    Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status?

    Because ignorance is no way to conduct an election.

    What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.

    Self-delusion and willful ignorance is not a reason to ignore Supreme Court precedents, and labeling people as cranks for providing irrefutable legal precedent serves no one any good.

    It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.

    No, the Supreme Court cited a treaty that says those whose citizenship is under British allegiance are governed by their laws in terms of natural-born status. And second, Obama has never provided any evidence in a court that his birth was governed in any form by U.S. law. Most voters would understand that, even if you can't.

    So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject??

    Gray cited the ruling that supports this.

    How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.

    The Constitution doesn't say everyone born in the U.S. ware NBCs. It says that Constitution was formed by "We the people of the United States" for "ourselves and our posterity." This doesn't say the children born of aliens are somehow NBCs. "Ourselves and our posterity" means citizens and the children of citizens. It does NOT include subjects and children of subjects born in the U.S. That's why Gray has to defer to the allegiance quote: those born in the United States under the allegiance of the crown were natural-born subjects, not natural-born citizens.

    So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?

    I didn't skip past Rhodes. I explained for your benefit what Rhodes was referring to. Rhodes says, "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." First, this isn't talking about persons born in England. It's talking about people born in the U.S. who are still in the allegiance of the crown. These people are natural-born subjects and NOT natural-born citizens. It's an either-or proposition. You can't be both. Under this proposition, Obama is a natural-born subject. The "rule of common law" makes people born in the U.S. of persons born with allegiance to the crown into subjects of that crown and NOT NBCs.

    .... a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born."

    This simply is not true. Gray cites a case where children born of aliens were not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless the parents had NO allegiance to their home country. This means that not only were the children not natural-born citizens, but that the 14th amendment wouldn't come into play until they satisfied this criteria. We already know the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be NBCs.

    But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things.

    Your problem is that I DO know what analogy means and that you're argument is based on trying to make these terms completely equivalent and not just analogous. I have no problem with saying that NBS is "analogous" to NBC, but they are not defined the same way, and I've shown this in multiple ways using explicit language and direct quotes to support this fact.

    Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way.

    The dissent defines NBC the same way as Minor:

    Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

    Ironically, Ankeny tries to downplay Vattel as an 18th century treaty that "conflicts" with the court's interpretation of NBC, but the ONLY direct interpretation Ankeny gave is from the Minor decision, and they say exactly what Gray said:

    In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

    Second, Ankeny admits that Wong Kim Ark did NOT declare Ark or anyone else to be an NBC on the basis of birth to noncitizens:

    We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...

    Now, YOU'VE tried to make the argument that Wong Kim Ark ties the 14th amendment to defining NBC in Article II language, and the Ankeny court clearly said it did not. They weren't so stupid to insist that there was ANY legal precedent to support such an idea, and it explains why Ankeny did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC. Any court that did so on the basis of Ankeny or Wong Kim Ark has no legal precedent behind it. NONE. Instead we have a clear definition of NBC from Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. s opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.i

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/18/2013 9:17:21 PM PDT · 341 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Nothing you’ve posted here is relevant to anything I’ve stated. The plaintiffs in this case used a strange appeal to the UIPA based on this claim: “The inspection of the purported birth certificate for [President Obama] will ensure the health and safety of all 300 million of us by making sure that our military and our nuclear and chemical arsenals are still under our control and not in the control of any one of our enemies.” The plaintiff missed the easiest appeal which is that the public interest outweighs privacy laws under the UIPA. The HI DOH has admitted there is a public interest. It’s the whole reason they have an Obama page on their website.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/18/2013 9:13:41 PM PDT · 340 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    The Hawaii Department of Health is a health care provider agency.

    No it's not. A hospital would be, but not the department of health.

    The Department of Health is also the vital records repository in that state (as Departments of Health are in many states). Birth, is usually a medical procedure.

    The DOH doesn't have anything to do with administering the procedure. Their disclosure laws aren't related to HIPAA.

    What has failed is any attempt to release a Hawaii vital record to an individual who is not covered under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b). Every attempt to force release to individuals not covered by 338-18(b) in 12 tries through the Hawii courts has failed.

    All you're doing is proving my point. Hawaii is refusing to comply with its own disclosure laws. Orly's subpoena fits the direct and tangible interest rule, but the DOH is simply refusing to acknowledge this. They have no compelling reason to deny the disclosure. You certainly haven't shown one. p

  • HELP EXPOSE AKA "0BAMA'S" ID FRAUD!!!

    09/18/2013 9:07:58 PM PDT · 23 of 25
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    The certification statement that appears on Hawaii Letters of Verification says: “I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”

    This doesn't say anything. It doesn't address what facts it is referring to. It doesn't address the facts that it did NOT verify, such as whether Obama's PDF is a true copy or identical copy. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refused to verify those facts as stated by the applicants.

    Two state’s Secretaries of State decided that the Hawaii Registrar has indeed verified the authenticity of the Obama birth vital record and a Mississippi federal judge and the nine members of the Alabama Supreme Court will decide whether they accept a Hawaii certified Letter of Verification as probative evidence or not.

    This isn't exactly true. One state's secretary of state didn't bother to read the letter of verification before claiming he was satisfied. The other secretary of state requested a third, separate letter of verification because neither the Arizona letter nor Mississippi letters were legally compelling. All he did was state a personal opinion to a reporter, which had no legally binding effect because the objection in Kansas had been withdrawn already. The letter was NOT used for any actual legal purpose. And now we're left waiting to see if anyone else will address the other letters specifically. Why do you suppose it's taking so long, especially if these letters confirm anything??

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/17/2013 8:36:15 PM PDT · 337 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Don’t like Wikipedia? O.K., here’s a different source that DIRECTLY relates to releases of confidential information from public health agencies like the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Sorry, but this only applies to health care and health plans. It doesn't say anything about state records agencies. Second, even if it did apply it fails because it only requires the application of notification requirements. There's no notification requirement in regards to HRS 338-18.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/17/2013 8:30:03 PM PDT · 336 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    I’m sure that you are aware of the fact that a court order signed by a judge carries more weight than an attorney’s subpoena.

    Not according to the the Federal Rules of Procedure for Civil Trials that I just quoted. You've shown nothing to back up your claim that the HI DOH would be any more willing to honor a court order signed by a judge.

    As I already told you, HDOH’s reason for refusing to honor subpoenas is that none of them were issued by persons who qualified as being eligible to gain access to a confidential vital record under the provisions of HRS 338-18.

    No, you cited the motion to dismiss which refused to honor the subpoena on the basis of improper service and because of jurisdiction. This does NOT back up the argument you have made.

    The reason these requests went to court was to have the court decide whether UIPA or HRS 338-18 took precedence. THAT was the source of the legal controversy.

    What are you talking about?? You're trying to change the argument from your original point. Dude, just admit you were wrong. I proved it and you helped me prove it. You're trying to deflect by creating a new irrelevant argument, and no one is going to fall for such desperation.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/16/2013 8:50:45 PM PDT · 333 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    What a hoot! Wikipedia?? Really??? Try to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on subpoenas. Notice the clerk, not the judge, is in charge of signing such court orders:
    (3) Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

    (A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

    (B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

    Again, your claim fails because Hawaii did NOT challenge Orly's subpoena on the basis of who signed the order, but how that order was served and THEN it challenged that the jurisdiction of the court from which Orly was filing her order. I've shown explicitly how the DOH did NOT honor a court order. Why should they fight it when the Uniform Information Practices Act and their own disclosure laws would allow them to comply with the subpoena?? What possible motive does it serve anyone not to comply with something that has allegedly already been made public??

  • HELP EXPOSE AKA "0BAMA'S" ID FRAUD!!!

    09/16/2013 8:31:15 PM PDT · 15 of 25
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    Hawaii’s registrar has NOT vouched for the authenticity of any of Obama’s alleged birth documents. At best, he’s only partially verified a handful of facts, but in the process, he has refused to certify that any said document is a true copy as would be required under Hawaii’s own disclosure laws.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/15/2013 8:23:10 PM PDT · 331 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    No in-state or out of state judge of a court of competent jurisdiction has ever issued to any plaintiff a court order for Obama’s original birth certiicate under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statatue 338-18(b) (point 9), so no one can know what HDOH, the state Attorney General’s Office or the Hawaii courts would do.

    This means absolutely nothing. Judges aren't only the people who can issue court orders. Nothing in 388-18 says the court order has to be signed specifically by a judge. Your own example showed that the HI AG did not challenge on the basis of who signed the order but how it was served AND THEN, it challenged over the jurisdiction of the court. Having a judge's signature on the order won't change that. It's time to admit you were wrong. I proved it and YOU PROVED it for me.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/15/2013 8:54:32 AM PDT · 329 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus

    IOW, you just proved me right verbatim. I said that the DOH did NOT challenge over whether the court order was signed by a judge. I said the DOH could REFUSE on the basis of 388-18 in interpreting whether the court’s jurisidiction was competent or not. And that’s exactly what they did in this motion. All you’re doing is proving me right. Thank you. What you didn’t back up is your claim that ANY judge in America could send a court order to Hawaii and get Obama’s records. Show all of us when and where this has happened. I’ll wait. t back up is your claim that ANY judge in America could send a court order to Hawaii and get Obama

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/13/2013 10:20:08 PM PDT · 327 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Obviously the order that Jill Nagamine responded to was NOT an order for inspection of the long form birth certificate that was issued BY A JUDGE.

    Sorry, but this is an irrelevant excuse. The AG's office did NOT object on the basis of who issued the court order or whether the court order was sufficient. They denied the order on the basis of the same law that I've already cited.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/13/2013 8:12:40 PM PDT · 325 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Orly Taitz is not a judge nor was she ever given a court order from a judge. She is not authorized to issue court orders. Hawaii is under no obligation to honor her requests since she does not fit in any of the categories that the Hawaii statute pertains to. Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine was exactly right and Hawaii courts backed up Nagamine’s position with actual court rulings.

    You don't seem to understand. Nagamine RESPONDED to the court order, just like you said they would. What you don't seem to want to admit is that the order did NOT obligate the DOH to turn over any records as you claimed. You were wrong. I proved it. You're changing your argument now to avoid admitting you were wrong.

    The whitehouse.gov PDF image is just a digitized version of the copies that Hawaii provided to Obama.

    There's no proof of this claim. Hawaii was asked point blank if the "digitized version" was a true copy and if it was an identical copy. They refused to verify this fact on two separate occasion.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/12/2013 12:04:23 AM PDT · 323 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    We won’t know what a Hawaii court will do until someone presents a Hawaii judge with an out of state court order.

    We do know. I hate to cite Orly because she purposely sabotages her own efforts, but she did file court orders in Hawaii to compel production of Obama's birth record and the DOH refused.

    In a letter to Taitz, Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine wrote the following: "You are seeking disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, and there is no exception that applies to allow disclosure to you."

    Where's that full faith and credit thing you were talking about??

    Hawaii already prepared a Letter of Verification that is now an exhibit for a federal judge in Mississippi for the Obama long form birth certificate. It will be up to Judge Wingate in Jackson, Mississippi to decide whether he thinks the Obama birth certificate should receive full faith and credit or not.

    Right, and why didn't Obama just submit one of his two hard copies instead of forcing Mississippi to request a letter of verification that doesn't say anything?? Why is it taking so long for Judge Wingate to decide??

    The Alabama Supreme Court also has a copy of the long form submitted in an amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.

    An actual certified copy?? Photocopies don't qualify for full faith and credit when the actual record is supposed to be certified.

    Judge Wingate in federal court in Jackson, Mississippi is in possession of a certified Hawaii Letter of Verification and two copies of the Obama long form, one from the plaintiff alleging forgery and one from the defense alleging that it is original, valid and accurate. Judge Wingate has had those exhibits as evidence for more than a year now but he still isn’t ready to rule one wy or the other.

    So what exactly is your point?? Wingate doesn't have a certified copy of the actual birth record and the letter of verification isn't a full verification. It's no surprise a decision hasn't been rendered. Perhaps he's waiting till Obama is out of office so the issue is moot??

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/11/2013 8:02:57 PM PDT · 321 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    An out of state court order from a judge would come to a Hawaii court not directly to the Hawaii Department of Health. If HDOH wanted to contest acceding to the out of state court order, they would be represented before a Hawaii judge by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office.

    This doesn't change the point of my comment about Hawaii not complying such a court order. This only shows the procedure involved for choosing not to honor an out of state order.

    This would be in accordance with Article Four, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

    Sorry, but the full faith and credit clause requires "the manner in which such acts, record and PROCEEDINGS shall be proved," which still leaves the ball in Hawaii's court to refuse if they don't think the out of state court isa court of competent jurisdiction.

    And the RECORDS part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is why every other state has accepted what Hawaii says is an original, valid and accurate birth record of that state.

    No it's not. Obama's birth certificate has never been submitted to ANY court in order to be declared as an "original, valid and accurate" birth record. We had TWO state secretaries of state who specifically asked if Obama's PDF was a true copy and identical copy, and Hawaii REFUSED to verify this on BOTH occasions. By Hawaii's own law, they have to verify the facts as stated by the applicant. If they do NOT do this, then the record is NOT verified as original, valid or accurate.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/10/2013 8:24:45 PM PDT · 319 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Courts routinely honor out of state court orders, as often as they honor extradiction orders.

    Whether courts "routinely" honor such orders, has nothign to do with the HI DOH. They've ignored their own disclosure laws.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/10/2013 8:22:42 PM PDT · 318 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    Both the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State said that they were satisfied with the verifications that they received from Hawaii and both are now sure that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Right, the Arizona SOS said it without even reading the letter of verification and the Kansas SOS was quoted after dealing with an uninvited Orly Taitz and several protesters in his face.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/09/2013 10:46:53 PM PDT · 315 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    The Governor of the state of Hawaii said that he could not release the birth certificate. He never stated that it was not there.

    No, the gover of the state of Hawaii lied and said Obama's birth was written down in the state archives. He had the power to release the certificate under the state's Uniform Information Practices Act. He could have gotten a letter of verification, but funny how nobody seemed to be aware that they could do that much. And funnier still how a so-called close friend of the family couldn't get permission from Obama to disclose the certificate. Why are you buying a list of obvious lies??

    And, as Fox News reported two years ago, the original is no longer stored with other birth certificates, it’s now kept in a safe.

    Which begs the question as to why, when they could simply disclose it under the Uniform Information Practices Act.

    If any judge in America wants to confirm whether there is a birth certificate or not, they can issue a court order to inspect it, in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 (b) (point 9):

    Hawaii doesn't have to comply with a court order from just "any judge." The law leaves it to the discretion of the DOH by qualifying the court order as coming from "a court of competent jurisdiction." Hawaii already showed they didn't want to cooperate with the SOS in Arizona.

    The Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State requested and received Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copies because their positions are not included on the list of persons determined to have a “direct and tangible interest.”

    And yet Hawaii didn't want to include the Arizona SOS on the list of persons who could receive a letter of verification until they made him jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops. Ironically, Hawaii refused to give a full verification of the facts as stated by these applicants. Weird.

  • Why Ted Cruz Is Without Doubt a Natural Born Citizen

    09/09/2013 10:36:14 PM PDT · 314 of 351
    edge919 to Nero Germanicus
    The same process was used by the Secretaty of State for the state of Kansas: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604 (See pages 1-5)

    The "process" in Kansas was unable to deny an objection that was filed. Obama's appearance on the ballot was only accepted at face value.