Posted on 08/08/2010 2:39:21 PM PDT by FTJM
The persistent quest for President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate has died down since the state passed a law allowing it to ignore repetitive requests for the document.
Far fewer "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president, have asked state officials to provide the document since the law was enacted in May, according to the state.
The law has never even been put to use, said Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The number of people seeking proof that Obama was born outside of Hawaii and the United States diminished without the law being invoked.
Only about two or three e-mails now seek verification of Obama's birth each week, compared to between 10 and 20 weekly requests earlier this year.
"We have a handful of repeat requesters, but they know about the law," Okubo said. "They do everything they can to get around it."
Such tactics include having a relative or friend make the document request, she said, or asking for the vital records of Obama's relatives in search of clues that would show he was born outside the U.S.
Hawaii law has long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Stanley Ann sent Barry to her parents in Hawaii when he was 10 so I'd say Bam's mother didn't particularly want him.
I don’t see how those passages have any impact on my post.
If anyone wants to read it in whole, here is where I pulled it from
In the second section of the fourth article it is provided that the citizens of each state, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and the same rule had been ambiguously laid down in the articles of confederation. If this clause is retained, and its utility and propriety cannot be questioned, the consequence would be, that if each state retained the power of naturalization, it might impose on all the other states, such citizens as it might think proper. In one state, residence for a short time, with a slight declaration of allegiance, as was the case under the former constitution of Pennsylvania, might confer the rights of citizenship; in another, qualifications of greater importance might be required: an alien, desirous of eluding the latter, might by complying with the requisites of the former, become a citizen of a state in opposition to its own regulations, and thus in fact, the laws of one state become paramount to that of another. The evil could not be better remedied than by vesting the exclusive power in congress.
It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualities and relations supposed to be already known. Thus it declares, that no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president—that no person shall be a senator who shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United States, nor a representative who has not been such a citizen seven years, and it will therefore be not inconsistent with the scope and tendency of the present essay, to enter shortly into the nature of citizenship.
In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community; they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. • It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere. The nature, extent, and duration of the allegiance due to the United States, the right to the general protection and to commercial benefits at home and abroad, derived either from treaties or from the acts of congress, are beyond the control of the states, nor can they increase or diminish the disadvantages to which aliens may, by such measures on the part of the general government, be subjected.
Thus if war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.
What is my supposed shame? The ability to read? Being honest about the law?
The full passage states that one becomes a citizen at birth. He deals in that chapter with two classes of citizens - those by birth, and those naturalized. So what is your point?
Continuing...
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Well let's just look at what Chief Justice Waite had to say...
Minor v. Happersett
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
I'm no worm and I don't wiggle.
Especially with Democrats in certain states wanting to give their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
Learned it from Obama. The truth is whatever you want it to be.
Thank you, exactly my point. But, Brown Deer is just trying to poke a stick in my eye.
btrl
I did NOT leave out the important parts. They cite dozens of cases, most of which YOU are leaving out, as you should - the full quote would run a half dozen pages of text.
Minor does NOT say one must be born of two citizen parents to be a NBC. It says that of such a person there can be no doubt - which says, correctly, that in the 1870s some still doubted those born of one or two alien parents.
In WKA, they use the analogous ‘natural born subject’ to delve into the meaning of NBC, and conclude that common law says a NBS includes those born of alien parents legally present, and thus they assume NBC includes the same, and thus WKA would be considered a NBC - which was NOT in their specific ruling, but was the inescapable conclusion of their argument - as the dissent noted.
It is dishonest to Pretend M v H says there must be two citizen parents for someone to be a NBC, and even more dishonest to pretend that WKA (in the 1890s) did not go beyond M v H.
You cannot cherry-pick a single phrase from entire paragraphs and use that as your basis, when the rest of the paragraph contradicts your point.
The full WKA decision can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Didn’t she keep Maya?
There is alot of banter about this, mostly from people who have never lived in Hawaii or filled out government documents in the age before computers. Molokai is an island, but its also part of the County of Maui, which is another Island. She was married on Molokai (the island) and also on Maui (the county). Makes perfect sense to Hawaiians except that no on can figure out why anyone in their right mind would choose to get married on Molokai back then.
And the Supreme Court has been consistent for the last 120+ years in holding that a natural born citizen = native citizen = citizenship from birth in the USA, and multiple courts held the same since the founding of the Republic.
Now you’re just out and out lying!
No, I am not. They have in repeated cases used NBC and native citizen as interchangeable. For example, in Perkins v Elg, they cite approvingly this statement:
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”
Notice the AG used ‘native citizen’ in place of NBC.
They later say: “ But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”
Again, they use native citizen and NBC interchangeably. It is interesting to note they do not even contemplate anyone holding a contrary view.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
I cannot think of much that my mother held in common with Stanley Ann Dunham excepting that they were both female and they both lived in Hawaii. I haven't found much evidence that she cared much for him or he for her.
I don't really know, but I presume that she did.
Thanks for the clarification..but what about using different years for the marriage?
So what is your point?
That you don't know what Rawle was writing about.
Who knows? I have long ago concluded that Stanley Ann Dunham was a ditz, trying to figure her out is an exercise in frustration.
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.