Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii responds to Bennett's Obama birth records request
AZfamily.com ^ | May 20, 2012 | Andrew Michalscheck

Posted on 05/21/2012 9:02:02 AM PDT by Cheerio

PHOENIX -- The state of Hawaii has responded to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s request for proof that President Barack Obama was in fact born in the Aloha State.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last
To: FreeAtlanta

The Hawaii attorney general’s office has reportedly told Bennett that there are steps he needs to take in order to confirm President Obama’s birth records. Those steps include Bennett proving that he legitimately needs confirmation in order to update the records at his office.


Hula out - tapdancing in???


51 posted on 05/21/2012 12:36:51 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Awesome! Any other states have SOS’s with b*lls?


52 posted on 05/21/2012 12:41:05 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
Hawaii should just have said:

“Yes! We have no bananas, We have no bananas today!”

That's genius. I'm still laughing. LOL

53 posted on 05/21/2012 12:44:08 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

You are very kind.

I am happy to have given you a laugh. We all need it these days.

My best to you.


54 posted on 05/21/2012 12:53:01 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
The Hawaii attorney general’s office has reportedly told Bennett that there are steps he needs to take in order to confirm President Obama’s birth records. Those steps include Bennett proving that he legitimately needs confirmation in order to update the records at his office.

*********

Obama long birth certificate controversy: When Obama requested a copy of his long form birth certificate in April 2011 from Hawaii, did Hawaii officials play hardball with Obama with the following statement like they are playing hardball with duly elected Arizona Secretary of State Bennett:

"Before we can send you a copy of your long form birth certificate, you must first prove to us that you legitimately need a copy of your long form birth certificate in order to update your records at your office of President of the United States."

I don't think so.

In my opinion, Hawaii officials are insulting Secretary of State Bennett with the way that they are stonewalling and playing hardball with Bennett's request in his position as a properly elected Arizona state official, who, as I understand it, decides whose name can or cannot be placed on Arizona election ballots.

55 posted on 05/21/2012 1:49:15 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

That is a hilarious article! How difficult it must have been to write in order to carefully dodge the facts left out of the article.

FALSE SPIN — “proof that President Barack Obama was in fact born in the Aloha State”

TRUTH — A more correct assessment would be that he has asked for a statement of support for what has already been put forth.

FALSE SPIN — “President Obama released his birth certificate”

TRUTH — Obama released a digital image claiming to state his birth information, and it has been labeled his birth certificate.

SELECTIVE SPIN — “Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been investigating the President’s birth certificate since last August. Arpaio has said that his investigation is still ongoing.”

INFO. LEFT OUT — “Sheriff Joe...last August.” He determined it to be at worst a fraud and at best a composite image which leaves room for vital information related to eligibility to be left out. “Arpaio has said...ongoing.” A person of interest is being discussed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the news was “just the facts” and how to feel about it was left to the reader? What a novel idea...


56 posted on 05/21/2012 2:25:48 PM PDT by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
Sorry to say, but I have no doubt that Obama will be on the Nov. 2012 presidential ballot.

Hawaii officials and Arizona Secretary of State Bennett will work something out in order to avoid embarrassing each other over this Obama mess.

However, what will be interesting is learning how the two states finally settled their differences, that is, I wonder which state will blink first and give in to the other state's demands.

57 posted on 05/21/2012 2:29:21 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peter the great

I already know that. A long time ago I researched how a candidate was required to prove he/she was eligible to run as president and was shocked to find out there was no requirement!


58 posted on 05/21/2012 3:01:06 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: peter the great
"What you need to know is that by law there is no requirement that anybody check for a birth certificate and your President does not have to show his birth certificate to anybody"

What you need to know is that you are wrong. The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 clearly provides that it is the burden of the "President Elect" to "qualify" or Congress is instructed to name an interim President. Congress didn't do it's job and we have a usurpation as the result.

59 posted on 05/21/2012 4:45:20 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

see post 59


60 posted on 05/21/2012 4:49:44 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

They only need to file an affidavit.


61 posted on 05/21/2012 5:17:56 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Where do you get this from? The Twentieth Amendment requires proof of eligibility to Congress. An affidavit isn’t sufficient as proof of anything.


62 posted on 05/21/2012 5:23:53 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

“Under current law, candidates are presumed to be eligible unless proved otherwise.”

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110428_16_A13_OKLAHO703265


63 posted on 05/21/2012 5:29:35 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]




Click the Pups

Calling for Donors!

Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will bark up $10 for each new monthly sign-up
FReeper RonC will give FR $25 for each new Dollar-A-Day Club member!

64 posted on 05/21/2012 5:59:24 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
The Twentieth Amendment is current law. That article is wrong.

The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 requires that Congress ensures that the President elect shall have qualified or they, Congress are to name an interim President. Here's the text itself.:

"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

A few notes.

1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.

"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."

2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus not proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as failing to qualify.

3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.

4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.

What we have is a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result.

65 posted on 05/21/2012 7:20:02 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

That all sounds nice but the fact is no one has to prove they are eligible, other than filing an affidavit, which is why Obama is now president.


66 posted on 05/21/2012 7:22:10 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
"That all sounds nice but the fact is no one has to prove they are eligible"

I just posted the FACTS straight from the U.S. Constitution. Your statement is incorrect. Tell me what the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three means if it isn't about proving eligibility to Congress.

67 posted on 05/21/2012 7:34:10 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: null and void
"Good reason to be very careful about what one says or doesn't say."

This brings up a salient point, and one I can't recall having seen addressed as yet:

Will Nancy Peolosi issue/sign two different versions of the DNC nomination letter this time around?

68 posted on 05/21/2012 8:26:32 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Why not? It worked last time...


69 posted on 05/21/2012 8:42:05 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1217 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: null and void

A very public hanging on the National Mall would be nice.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility

Flanked by Nancy and Harry.


70 posted on 05/21/2012 8:55:04 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

Flanked by Nancy and Harry.


And McLame, McConnell and Boner.


71 posted on 05/21/2012 9:04:41 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

If Obama is not hung for his crimes and is sent to prison for life instead will his SS detail get the cells to each side of his? He is due SS protection for ten years after leaving office.


72 posted on 05/21/2012 9:15:59 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Will Nancy Peolosi issue/sign two different versions of the DNC nomination letter this time around?

I just looked at the 2008 form again. Pelosi signed as the Chair of the DNC Convention. I guess it depends on whether she's the Chairwoman of the DNC Convention again.

-PJ

73 posted on 05/21/2012 9:31:08 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson; W. W. SMITH

I think there are more than 500 lampposts in the area.


74 posted on 05/21/2012 9:36:27 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1217 of our ObamaVacation from reality [and what dark chill/is gathering still/before the storm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: null and void

We could use them all, most likely. It would be a point where the citizens of the world come back to earth and land in a constitutional Republic that doesn’t take kindly to treason. :)


75 posted on 05/21/2012 9:45:35 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Did Obama have to prove his eligibility to get on state ballots? How did he prove it?


76 posted on 05/22/2012 5:40:51 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
"Did Obama have to prove his eligibility to get on state ballots? How did he prove it?"

States vary. It's the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 that is supposed to catch a usurper BEFORE being allowed to legally occupy the office of President. You had posted that a President doesn't have to show his/her proof of eligibility to anyone, just an affidavit. I just wanted you to know that it isn't true and that there is a provision in the Constitution requiring him/her to do so.

77 posted on 05/22/2012 4:16:29 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I am telling you a candidate is not required in any state to provide proof they are constitutionally eligible to be on a ballot and Obama did not provide any proof to any state. If you have proof otherwise, let me know. Otherwise, I’m done arguing with you.


78 posted on 05/22/2012 8:06:00 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson