Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've updated my blog to include the e-mail from Janice Okubo confirming that they assign birth certificate numbers in the state registrar's office and the day they do that is the "Date filed by state registrar".
The pertinent portion from Okubo's e-mail:
In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.
MY SUMMARY: As you can see, Okubo said that the “Date filed by the State Registrar” is the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office).
There are no pre-numbered certificates. A certificate given a certificate number on Aug 8th (Obama’s Factcheck COLB) would not be given a later number than a certificate given a number on Aug 11th (the Nordyke certificates).
There is no way that both the date filed and the certificate number can be correct on the Factcheck COLB. The COLB is thus proven to be a forgery.
You’re selectively ignoring several key factors:
“they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, ...”
Above they are stating very clearly the importance that the parents were permanent immigrants and that the child grew up with a permanent home in the United States (we know neither of these are true for Obama, his papa or his mama). They also acknowledge the child could lose his U.S. citizenship by having it renounced by his parents (which would have been assured if Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro). The conclusion directly specifies that the permanent domicil was key to establishing jurisdictional citizenship for the child:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a PERMANENT domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
Barak Sr. did not have a permanent domicil or residence in the United States. There’s no need to say anything about the domicil or residence unless it has bearing. Clearly, under this decision, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen, and may not be a citizen period.
The quote is in the HOLDING of Minor V Happerset, which is quoted in the Dictum of Wong.
I like you! You are 75%ish wrong, but I like you! You don’t just post pictures and fling poop like some of the Birther Chimps on this thread. You put your thoughts into English, and lay them out for a good bout of intelligent discourse. So, I like you! You will be a worthy adversary.
Now, lets take your points. There is nothing wrong with your “original intent” argument. In fact, if you will read Wong a few times, you will realize that “original intent” was exactly what the Wong Court was trying to figure out. That is why they went into all that analysis.
And, remember, a goodly number of the Founding fathers were LAWYERS. You are not wrong to think that they feared “foreign influence”. They did. But the legal point is, what is a natural born citizen. And to those LAWYERS, well groomed in ENGLISH LAW, those words had a meaning. The Wong Court investigated the law, extant at the time of the framing, to determine what that meaning was.
LO AND BEHOLD! There was a real long history of “natural born” sitting right out there and just waiting to be mined. So, the Wong Court did. If you need a link, I will give you one, but the Wong Court wrote a LENGTHY analysis of this and cited numerous sources. The Wong Court even considered the law of nations.
And, as a result, they come up with “natural born” meaning “born inside the country”. They even provided the exceptions, none of which apply to us in the Obama case. The Wong Court did not just pluck the concept out of thin air. Nor were they the first court to determine this, nor are they the last. I provided you, I think, a recent case which arrived at the same determination. Wong is not radical, activist law by any stretch of the imagination.
I think where you are going astray, logically speaking, is that you want “original intent” but you don’t like the way that “original intent” gets determined. You seem to want to impute YOUR idea of original intent, and walk away satisfied, while ignoring the fact that there is a group of people we have paid handsomely over the years to decide this exact thing. We call them “judges.” The really good ones, we call “Supreme Court Judges.” The system has worked pretty well over the years.
You make cogent arguments, with sources, about what YOU think “natural born” means, but with no offense intended, it don’t work that way. Here, in the United States, we have a system of building these concepts through the legal system. The Founders wanted a stable legal system based upon stare decisis, or precedental law. Courts are the way we accomplish this, and the Supreme Court is the biggest one in the whole dang country.
Your desire to just sorta skip over them, and go straight to what YOU think “natural born” means is neither workable nor Constitutional. You are free to make your arguments as to what you think “natural Born” means, but if you love the Constitution, then you should respect the system the Founders established.
Wong is the staring point. Now you wish to delve into allegiance, and Wong does, FWIW, but do you think it possible for a court to READ A CANDIDATE’S MIND? Should Obama be treated differently than another person born with say, a Canadian father? Should a court inquire into one’s political leanings in deciding these things?
Well dang if the Founders didn’t think of that too! They gave us ELECTIONS, and a FREE PRESS. You see, what you want the Court to do, isn’t their responsibility beyond defining a “natural born citizen.” It is OUR responsibility to decide if a candidate is is “pro America” enough. We can vote for him or not.
YOUR system could result in a panel of 9 Sara Sotomeyers deciding that Sarah Palin is too CHRISTIAN to be free of that influence. See where this is headed? You are advocating for a system where the Supreme Court does our job for us. That ain’t American. That ain’t Constitutional.
parsy, who says once again, thanks for not being a chimpanzee like some of the others on this thread
I believe this can be considered documentary evidence and not just circumstantial evidence, especially since the cert numbers are contained on documents that categorized are self-authenticating pieces of evidence.
You haven’t shot holes in squat. Like Orly, you are blaming a judge for making decisions you don’t like. Do you think this is the only case to run this way? And that Diaz case-—IT BACKS UP MY POINT! See the “natural born citizens” language in it? A 1983 case. Same thing as Wong. Same thing as the Indiana case.
parsy, who says Wake Up.
What kind of fool would fight all these court cases on grounds of standing if just showing the darn birth certificate could finish the issue?
The same person who would retract military orders rather than just show the birth certificate and finish the issue.
This guy is willing to throw money, credibility, and military effectiveness overboard in order to prolong this thing. Why?
Some say because it makes his enemies look stupid. If that’s the reason then it is backfiring big-time. When fellow democrats say, “Obama is beginning to seem to not be credible to me” you know you’ve got a credibility problem - which is what BP2 keeps coming back to.
Now Obama may think it’s funny to poke fun at people who don’t appreciate liars playing games with the integrity of our whole legal system. He may think playing “chicken” with the Constitution is child’s play. Just like he thinks it’s fun to flip the bird at Palin and Hillary, and gets his thrills out of making fun of the Special Olympics. Big man, he is.
But his little pissy political games (and that’s the BEST construction that could be put on his refusal to show his documentation) are wearing VERY THIN on the public.
Either he’s a crook or a jerk, or - most probably - both. The American public sees. They are not amused.
OMG!
“In the light of what is called “The Birther” movement, these memories are still foremost in my mind concerning this. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim is born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii . The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised overseas, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he wanted to be President.
And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table to my right front, his hands resting on the edge of the table, him leaning forward, his smile, all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii .”
C’mon! Thank you for the link, but this is beyond absurd! This is like that Larry Sinclair stuff.
parsy, who is shaking his head in disbelief!
What you posted said that allegience from aliens was considered temporary and only lasted so long as they stayed in the country ... which is why it was pointed out several times the importance of having permanent domicil and residence in order for the child to be a citizen.
YOU are selectively ignoring parts of the case. Look back up in the thread. I have already provided the relevant language. I think “red steel” picked up on it. That might help you find it. Don’t matter how long they are here.
parsy
Sounds about as reliable as the Barbara Nelson/napkin story, except the latter was recanted.
READ THE CASE! I have already provided the language from the case.
parsy
Here’s the language, again:
His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
parsy
Permanent residence of the parents was a key part of the conclusion ... where the actual decision is made. Denial won’t make it go away.
So all we lack at this point is someone in law enforcement courageous enough to stand for the rule of law.
Wow. That just about says it all. America in 2010.
“While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama”
“It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it”
Yeah, that sounds REAL CONVINCING (not)
I had not heard Nelson “recanted.” Do you have a link?
parsy, who says when you wring out the Race Bannock mop, you have . . .
The language, parsy ... read it ALL
“continuing only so long as he remains within our territory”
“born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” - as much a citizen, but does not say = a natural born citizen
“an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be” - for so long as he continues within the dominions - similar to a native-born subject ... but does NOT say = a natural born citizen.
Thanks for helping to prove me right. I hope you clean the wounds from falling on the sword so many times.
People in office and law enforcement care about saving face. The labels of racism and birther are powerful tools at intimidating honest people from taking action ... very much like a ‘chilling effect.’ Taking action against the most powerful politician in the world who has been very popular will take a lot of guts.
I think Post 1230 details Nelson’s backpedaling.
Some people are careful with what they say because they value their credibility. A softly-spoken word by somebody who only speaks what they know means ten times as much as somebody who lies 1000 times a day.
Did you read the thread? I know it’s long, but if you don’t know who Race is or the credibility he has built up over many years at FR, you assume he’s a loudmouth Barney Frank who spurts drivel (dribble? lol) as easily as well-thought-out truth.
As BP2 has been saying all along, real credibility is built up over time. Race’s credibility is well-attested here through years of posters observing him. After one year as president- the only job he’s ever done which is open to public scrutiny - Obama’s credibility is shot, even among Congressional democrats who support his agenda.
If you are a lawyer you know that in “he said/ she said” cases credibility is the core issue. Race has it; Obama doesn’t.
ALL THE LANGUAGE-——
“is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
ITS THE KID WHO IS THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND IT DON’T MATTER HOW LONG THE PARENT(S) ARE HERE.
Geesh. Slow down and read the stuff and quit wasting my time! It ain’t like you are having to read the whole case.
parsy, who wonders what part of the English language is giving you fits
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.