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.
Until then, the definitions above suit you to a tee.
Evidence from the founding era written or spoken by one of the founding fathers or framers.
I did. You can find a whole bunch of it in Wong. Most of the Wong case is cites to that law for the purpose of determining original intent. I have already laid much of it on you. The Indiana case is a shorter case and it brings over the most relevant parts of Wong into it, all the way back to at least 1608.
It may go back further but I have not tried to date the old English stuff.
In 1898, the Wong court was reaching back at least 300 years to determine original intent. That is another reason why I have thumped on WKA so much.
The original intent stuff was circa 1789—the old cases at least back to 1608 or about 200 years prior. If a modern court uses original intent to determine the meaning of NBC-—none of those old cases are going to change. They done been decided. All a modern court has to do is read Wong and cut and paste.
That’s not just my arbitrary opinion. A court in November 2009 did exactly that. As probably most likely any other court would do.
And sadly, most of the people clamoring for Vattel over Blackstone have no idea that they are dissing on of the most conservative lawyers to walk the earth. The Eagle Forum knows.
parsy
Read it yourself. You bragged you were so “well read” so go for it.
(Here is one freebie: you are not as clever or important as you think you are. You have a big problem. Get help!)
Well heck I take my meds. What else do you want. I got psycho-analyzed about 20-30 times per day for over 20 years.
parsy, who did win a trophy, once, and a blue ribbon for participating in Field Day
Well heck I take my meds. What else do you want. I got psycho-analyzed about 20-30 times per day for over 20 years.
parsy, who did win a trophy, once, and a blue ribbon for participating in Field Day
I’m done with you. Don’t post to me again.
I went back and grabbed this from WKA. This is about 3/4 of the way down the opinion or more, and after like 9 million cites and cases. The word “affirm” means that the NBC stuff is not CREATED by the 14th——but that it has been there all along, since the founding:
The words by themselves: “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory”
Then the whole excerpt:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. 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.
Wong is like the “Rodney King Beatdown” of legal cases. They hit the cites and cases and background like cops working over Rodney King. On and on and on, page after page, they lay it out. I have never seen a case that had so much of a foundation laid on the prior law.
parsy
A perfect description of the whole eligibility issue, in totitem verbis.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing “to [the point of] nausea”.[1] For example, the sentence “This topic has been discussed ad nauseam” signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam
“Ad nauseam” arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
But I do have the words of the framers of the 14th:
When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.
Here we see the original intent. WKA does not provide that but I guess you are still having trouble understanding the concept of how to derive original intent.
1st you go to the framers of the document/bill/law and if the meaning is still ambiguous, then you go further back.
capiche
Hmmm, about that Thrasher case
It would seem that Thrasher was born to US citizens living in Cuba who got himself into a wee bit of trouble as Justice Fields points out in CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES CASE(1872):
And upon this point we entertain no doubt. The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their sojourn in it, and they were equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws. “The rights of sovereignty,” says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
“extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.”
By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries
Page 83 U. S. 155
suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:
“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”
And again:
“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 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 stipulation.
Nice try, no dice. Thrasher was a US citizen by his birth to US citizens abroad aka jus sanguinis.
This one case proves our point that jus soli citizenship is not automatically established at birth per International law.
Gee, I wonder who has been saying this all along? Oh, I know, the originalists and I guess Grey too. He conferred citizenship on WKA by his mere swearing an allegiance to the US and promising to return in a certain amount of time to his residence in the US in which he did, thus he became naturalized under the 14th. You do understand from the case that he had to swear his allegiance & promise to return before he was given the paperwork to return didn’t you? At his coming of age, he elected his allegiance. WKA was past the age of tacit consent and could now speak for himself and that is just a mere fact of natural law.
You see what happens when you parse & edit to fit your cause. More often than not, it blows up in your face.
KABOOM!
I do genealogy and some census will give the names of children and persons in the household. The problem is that census records are only released up to 1930. I think 1940 will be released this year. That is to meant protect people and their privacy.
“Look at me—I’m a leftist and I don’t believe in absolute truth. Arguing is easier that way—I just make things up and think I’m winning the argument.”
But your problem is the little thing about absolute truth. It’s not gonna change. You’re denying yourself access to logic.
Thanks for the idea. I believe that’s been checked into but I will see what I can see.
Are unproven theories and personal opinions “absolute truth”?
I agree. It’s been talked about enough. Now it’s time for action. The FBI needs to open an investigation and subpoena all the records and begin the interrogations.
We’ve gotten as far as talk can get us and it’s shown that there has been a forgery covered up by the Hawaii folks and that Obama’s Hawaii records are not prima facie evidence of anything. Since we have 2 different birth accounts and the Hawaii one is questionable at best according to the official sources it’s time to break this thing open.
I wholeheartedly agree, browardchad.
“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.”
The trouble that I see with your arguments is that you use “citizen” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably. If they were meant to be interchangeable in the Constitutional requirements for president, then why didn’t they just say “citizen”? Why the “natural born”?
For instance, in the quote you cited, the question was about whether a non-citizen residing in the country has allegiance to the country and is subject to its jurisdiction. As long as that person is here the answer is yes, so their child born here is a citizen. There is no question that someone natural-born to a citizen is a citizen. This is saying that a child born in this country is also a citizen - just as much a citizen as if he/she was a natural-born child of a citizen (which the writer references as a different situation).
So this passage seems to me to be about citizenship, period. Not about the “natural born United States citizen” status required for the presidency.
No, but the DOH has twice confirmed facts that logically mean Factcheck is a forgery.
I think we can say that it is a fact that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery - unless the DOH has been lying to us, in which case we STILL need an investigation.
I think we need to separate fact from opinion. In all these many posts, nobody has successfully refuted the claim that Okubo’s statement, together with what we observe in the birth certificates themselves, prove that Factcheck is a forgery. I invite you to try to do so, but unless you can, the conclusion is well-supported and should be accepted as fact at least unless and until some information refutes it.
1960 census records aren’t open to the public yet. I think 1940 will be released this year, IIRC.
Unless, of course, you're an advocate of a police state, where folks can generate investigations against anyone they wish, simply based on "suspicions."
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.