Posted on 08/02/2010 5:29:53 AM PDT by captjanaway
I sent email to Hawaii Tourism authority, and told them I am coming to see the Presidents birth place and asked for the address.
info@hawaiitourismauthority.org
No reply :(
Apparently, Hawaii tourism authority cant direct anyone to the presidents birth place. You would think a State would be able to direct people to such an historic place, but no, they can’t. How strange is that? Im sure they could direct me to a toilet, but not Obamas place of birth. Unreal.
“Obama’s first childhood home is at 6085 Kalaniana’ole Highway. It’s painted yellow and is protected by a sliding grill gate. There’s no parking on the road so if you wish to take a closer look you’ll have to pull off on a side street and walk.”
Look at the actual Constitution. It assigns numbers to the Sections, not the individual clauses, and the original third clause of Article II is superseded by the 12th amendment. The more discerning text reproductions note that fact. The majority of birthers I've seen cite the NBC requirement as originating in the 4th clause as well.
That's why Arkeny has the following footnote: “The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.”
“Saebarkah Soetoro living in the USA went to the Indonesian Embassy in Hawaii to obtain or renew the Indonesian passport
as part of his college funding program”
Bookmarked
I sent email to Hawaii Tourism authority, and told them I am coming to see the Presidents birth place and asked for the address.
info@hawaiitourismauthority.org
No reply :(
Apparently, Hawaii tourism authority cant direct anyone to the presidents birth place. You would think a State would be able to direct people to such an historic place, but no, they can’t. How strange is that? Im sure they could direct me to a toilet, but not Obamas place of birth. Unreal.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/09/ln/hawaii811090361.html
Where in Wong Kim Ark does it say his US birth to 2 Chinese-citizen parents makes him a “natural born citizen?”
You might want to consult Footnote 14 before answering.’
The sheer presumption of you amateurs never ceases to amaze. You actually think people are unaware of the footnotes? You actually think the judges who authored the opinion are unaware of the footnotes?
Again, what planet do you people live on? What color is the sky there?
I realize you start with a conclusion you want and ignore everything that doesn't support that conclusion. But courts don't do that. They present all the information available and explain the associations and reasoning that guide them to their opinion. Of course that leaves them vulnerable to the bellowing of unschooled bar louts who couldn't write a credible court opinion if their life depended on it, but no one of substance cares.
Everyone knows Wong Kim Ark was not asked to make a determination about whether the individual in question was a natural born citizen. It's not clever or insightful to brandish that point like a three-year-old with a shiny toy. You only know it because the Courts spelled it out for you. But as the cherry picker you are, you simply ignore the fact that there is clear historical and legal basis presented in the reasoning for Wong Kim Ark by which a court can conclude that being born here is sufficient to be a NBC. The Indiana court did so in a legal opinion that has not been successfully challenged. In the real world, that means something.
Further information:
Polarik wrote:
You still do not get it.
The Certification of Live Birth is a government document that provides access to an SS number, passport, drivers license, law license, and so on.
The Certification of Live Birth that 0bama proffered as a true and legal document attesting to his birth in Hawaii and on US soil is a fraudulent counterfeit, government document that contains false information used expressly to commit felonious acts at the State and Federal levels. This act cannot be undone by any subsequent action.
And that is why I don’t need to see any more birth certificates.
Releasing an actual original birth certificate will not reverse the criminal acts intentionally and willfully committed through the use of this fraudulent, counterfeit, government document.
There is more than enough evidence to prove that a fraudulent, counterfeit, government document was intentionally created for use in the commission of a crime.
In other words, it is NOT about eligibility - but criminal fraud and acts of subversion and treason against the United States.
0bama ran a fraudulent campaign for President. 0bama could not legally claim to be a Presidential candidate by virtue of illegal actions, could not legally obtain the Office of POTUS by virtue of illegal actions, and cannot be POTUS.
0bama will be taken into custody by law enforcement and charged with the crimes so noted. Congress has no say in this matter because 0bama is not POTUS.
0bama is a common person with no special powers or authorities. Likewise, 0bama is a common crook.
It is no longer an issue of eligibility.
He will be removed by law enforcement, charged with felony fraud, and placed into custody.
BUMP!
In Polarik's (and my) dreams! I'm afraid that no one will do anything about it, and that is why I'm Afraid for the Republic.
Polarik is right —
He wasn't charged with Article 86. He was charged with one specification of Article 87, Missing Movement, and another specification (perhaps 2) of Article 92 Failure to Obey.
Your arguments are always solid and well founded in the law, however I would like to raise a point that I believe needs consideration.
I would ask you to consider the possibility that this officer fully understands that he is about to be convicted and will have no chance to argue his main thesis.
Perhaps the game is more complex than it seems.
It is odd, is it not, that an highly educated and intelligent officer would make such an idiotic move.
No reasonable person with full understanding would assume that he would be able to force the President to produce the papers he has requested.
So why.....
Mental breakdown with delusions of grandeur?
Bad legal advise?
I think not, and I am reasonably certain you agree.
Sometimes brave men are called upon to lead - even when the issue is in serious doubt.
If I might be so bold (being that your perceptive skills are, thus far, nearly perfect) ask you the following:
Where do you think the appeal will be heard?
Who do you believe will represent him on appeal?
Huck”
Well, based on what I've seen to date, I think Lakin needs better counsel than he's got. They've not exactly distinguished themselves in their responses to date. The Article 32 submittal was especially weak as it didn't even try to craft a rationale why Lakin was entitled to production of evidence requested. It was basically bald assertion and demand, which doesn't work in any legal setting.
I think there are two possibilities. The first is that Lakin really doesn't understand how weak his case is and has been misled on the prospects by his counsel and allies, who are using him for their own ends. Unscrupulous lawyers can and will do that, and even bright people can fall for it if they're being told something they'd like to believe. Because of the technical formality of the law, lawyers are in an advantageous to bamboozle their clientele, which makes them especially reprehensible when they do.
Second, Lakin may simply believe what he is saying and be prepared to take the consequences. If so, he is entitled to do that. I think it's unfortunate and won't yield the results he wishes, but it's his life.
If I had to guess, I’d say it's 75% Number 2 and 25% Number One. I think Lakin does believe this, but I also think that belief is being reinforced by the promise of legal arguments that aren't going to fly. You get that flavor in some of Lakin’s public statements. And to date, his counsel don't seem to be setting him up well for what limited appeal options he will have.
I guess that's what bugs me about this case. Lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of their client. I can't escape the feeling that Lakin’s lawyers are representing their cause, with him as a vehicle for it. Even if he's a willing vehicle, I wouldn't do that. For example, as his lawyer, you're obligated to provide the best dang Article 32 responses you can. They didn't do that, and I suspect it's because they're more interested in pumping the cause than the ultimate fate of their client.
Look at the actual Constitution. It assigns numbers to the Sections, not the individual clauses, and the original third clause of Article II is superseded by the 12th amendment. The more discerning text reproductions note that fact. The majority of birthers I've seen cite the NBC requirement as originating in the 4th clause as well.
That's why Arkeny has the following footnote: “The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From the house.gov site:
Article. II.So again, WTF does Clause 4 have to do with the NBC requirement? Are you suggesting this activist state court in Indiana has it right, and the U.S House of Representatives has it wrong?Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Clause 5: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The U.S. Senate has the same, only they don't specifically number the clauses. The NBC clause is clearly the 5th one.
Even the Senate web site alludes to the fact that the NBC requirement (like the Naturalization Act of 1790, and like the nonbinding Senate Resolution 511) has always historically been about 2 citizen parents:
" This clause requires that in order to take the oath of office a president must be 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years, and a natural-born citizen. This last requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office. "
We talked about this already. There was no news release statement from the health director that says that Obama was born in any hospital in Hawaii. The health director wrote in an e-mail that that she had consulted the Attorney General before making her statment to make sure she didn’t say anything wrong.
The publicly released statement says that Hawaii “has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. In no where in that statement does the health director say where the birth certificate was from, so my guess is that the the governor has no real clue.
People asked the AG’s office for info related to the public release. The attorney’s office stated that this would violate client’s right to secrecy. However, when someone sued based on the fact that all information related to public statements must be made public per Hawaii law, the attorney’s office immediately denied having contact with the health director on this matter. Either the health director lied or the attorney’s office did.
In this case we have a judge who made a decision to dismiss a case because he saw this "government document" on the internet. It was presented to him as a valid document and it influenced his decision to dismiss.
People in the real world laugh at courts who cover their prefabrications with nonsensicals like Footnote 14.
........ If the British subject 0bama, Senior, is his father, or even if Senior isn’t his father, but the birth certificate states Senior is the father, then it does not matter where Junior was born. Junior was a British subject at birth.
The Supreme Court of the United States has had eight appeals challenging Obama’s eligibility: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court has chosen to reject them all.
Only one court in the nation has actually ruled on Obama’s eligibility and that court has ruled that parents’ nationality has no bearing on whether a person born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen or not. Therefore Obama was eligible to receive the state of Indiana’s Electoral College votes.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
As I said, the actual Constitution does not have specifically numbered clauses. Some reproductions of the text insert clause numbers; some do not. The more discerning reproductions place the original Article 2, Section 1 paragraph considered to be clause 3 in italics or a different color while noting that is has been superseded by amendment. The Senate version to which you link does that.
So for the purposes of inserting clause numbers into the text, the original Article 2, Section 1 paragraph that would have been called Clause 5 is now technically Clause 4. It’s somewhat silly and a point of interest to legal geeks only, but there it is.
Yes, they do sometimes. Those are the idiots who lose judgments or go to jail.
In this case we have a judge who made a decision to dismiss a case because he saw this "government document" on the internet. It was presented to him as a valid document and it influenced his decision to dismiss."
That's right. That ludicrous decision by that judge was based in part on an image found on the internet. Beyond ridiculous. The faux short form colb has never been entered into the court record with any of these eligibility challenges.
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.