Posted on 03/28/2015 4:05:00 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/3273307/posts?page=14#14
Also see the above answer to the question “is cruz eligible?”
It's almost odd as to how often that it seems to boil down to that 'living document' thing.
You’re making up your own version of what Governor Lingle said.
The essence of her statement was that the Director of Health:
“...personally view[ed] the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, “
“...the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. “
“It’s been established. He was born here.”
Here’s an interview with the Director of Health:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
I respect the soundness of your point of view, however there is a legitimate argument on the other side.
The Founders and Framers who were in Congress in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution, saw fit to EXEMPT from needing to be naturalized “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
And secondly, the Framers actually discussed in the Constitutional Convention whether foreign born American citizens could ever become president and they settled on the 14 year residence requirement as the way that could happen.
From George Bancroft’s “A History of the Formation of the Constitution of The United States of America” (1882): “One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged with all unfinished business, limited the years of residence to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.” (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol. 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” page 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages 1398 , 1437 and 1516)
Bkmk
No, they didn't EXEMPT the children from being naturalized. If that was all that was involved, Congress would have done nothing since children are automatically naturalized when their parents are through the concept of Derivative Citizenship.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/derivative-citizenship
Citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, to foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents, provided certain conditions are met.
Existing children of Naturalized citizens are naturalized with their parents, but children born AFTER naturalization are natural-born citizens. The Founders simply allowed this concept to operate overseas for a short time period and ended it by repeal in 1795.
-----
it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President..
So? The naturalization act at the time of the formation of the Constitution was for the Founding generation, and it was well understood it wasn't JUST Englishmen that could become citizens. If I remember my history correctly Lafayette (?) was offered citizenship by the Founders themselves, but politly turned it down.
It still provides no evidence that the Founders repealed the natural born clause of the 1790 Act, but intended for it to keep operating anyway.
BTW, that's not evidence, it's hearsay.
Testifying to what you’ve seen with your own eyes is not hearsay. The person who was Hawaii Director of Health in 2008 can provide that testimony.
July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/09-063.pdf
And on top of that, a public record such as a birth certifcate that is signed by a government offcial and bears a certifying stamp is an exception to the hearsay rule of evidence.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is a self-authenticating document. and needs no further verification to be admitted into evidence.
“Evidence that is self-authenticating:” https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
No problem.
So whatever the administrative entity of any of the various governments (or one of it's officers) says is automatically prima facie evidence with no way to confirm, challenge, or rebut it.
How conveeeenient.
Well there is that pesky section 1 of Article IV of the 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.”
Any public record can be challenged. Self-authentification means that the issuing authority does not have to prove that an official record is authentic. The burden of proof is on the challenger to an official document’s authenticity.
Did you bother to read the article? This one actually proves, using evidence all the way from the founding, that he IS eligible.
And so is Obama.
Just more lies from a public “servant” who is either corrupt or in fear for her life.
Nothing she says alters the fact that the pdf image published by the White House is a crude forgery. There is no possibility that the image represents an actual piece of paper, let alone a piece of paper generated by the State of Hawaii as a “birth certificate.”
The document bears the typefaces of six different typewriters. Explain to me why a nurse or a clerk would dash from typewriter to typewriter in order to fill out a form.
The document contains letters and images of different bit depths. This could not happen if the image originated by scanning a piece of paper.
The document contains letters and images some of which are color and some of which are monochrome. Again, impossible, unless the document is a digital fabrication/forgery.
The form has fields with information in them, but also marked in pencil with a “9.” A penciled-in “9” was code for: “This field is blank.” (All birth certificates were reviewed in this manner for the purpose of compiling statistics for the federal government.)
The race of the purported “father” is given as “African.” This is not a race. And the federally REQUIRED term in 1961 was either “Negro” or “Colored.” This is just more evidence that the forgery was produced by a leftist P.C. amateur punk in the bowels of the White House, with no knowledge of history.
The serial number on the “birth certificate” is irreconcilable with the serial numbers on the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins. It’s a stolen number, almost certainly stolen from a dead baby.
There’s much more.
Bottom line: Obama has never produced a scintilla of evidence that he was born on U.S. soil—Hawaii or any other state.
Since birth on U.S. soil is the ONLY way Obama could be a U.S. citizen, Obama is an illegal alien.
Obama is NOT eligible, since he is an illegal alien.
The precise meaning of “NBC” is irrelevant in the case of Obama, since Obama is an illegal alien.
Have you lost sight of the fact that Obama has NEVER released to the public ANY such document?
Obama has released a pdf image that is a crudely-fabricated digital approximation of a “Hawaiian birth certificate.”
There is also a video of a reporter waving a piece of paper in front of the camera.
NO PAPER DOCUMENT originating with the State of Hawaii has ever been produced for public inspection.
The public acts part is the legislative. The records and judicial proceedings are for the courts.
From the first legal treatise after Ratification:
2. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which the same shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The act of 1 Cong. 2 Sess. c. 11, accordingly declares, that the acts of the legislature of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto; that the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that such attestation is in due form. And records and judicial proceedings so authenticated, shall have such faith in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state, from whence they may be taken.
George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States / Note D, Miscellaneous Provisions
This 'record' was never signed off by a judge from another State, nor was it entered as evidence in a court of law.
It was a news release, and therefore wouldn't come under the full faith and credit provision.
Federal Judge Henry T. Wingate of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has had a copy of the long form birth certificate and a Certifed Letter of Verification for it from the Hawaii Registrar submitted by attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee in Orly Taitz’s Mississippi ballot challenge lawsuit.
Those exhibits were submitted to Judge Wingate on June 6, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285
The birth certificate is on page 11 and the Verification Letter is in Page 12
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285
Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili also received a copy of the long form from Obama’s attorney in the Georgia Ballot Challenges: Fararr, Powell Swensson and Weldon v. Obama.
Under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) [point 9]: if anyone wants to inspect Obama’s birth certificate, they can do so with “an order from the judge of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
A congressional subpoena has the legal force of a judge’s court order, so that would also work.
“Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be “legally sufficient.” First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides “an absolute bar to judicial interference” once it is determined that Members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere” with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are “political questions” unsuitable for judicial remedy.”
Obama’s attorneys submitted a copy of his birth certificate to Judge Henry T. Wingate in the Mississippi ballot challenge Taitz v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et. al.
Obama’s attorney also submitted a copy of the birth certificate in the Georgia Ballot Challenge Farrar, Powell, Swensson and Welden v Obama for administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili and the Alabama Democratic Party submitted a copy of Obama’s birth certificate in their Amicus Brief for the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama ballot challenge McInnish & Goode v Chapman.
Right. And what has become of any of these “birth certificates” submitted to all these judges?
How do you explain the fact that Obama has put out a rank, crude, amateurish forgery, representing it as an image of a “birth certificate” from the State of Hawaii.”
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.