Replies

Are you referring to this part 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."

I have covered the "full faith and credit" argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.

It clearly says that Congress can write laws to prescribe the way the "records" can be proved. Clearly that is a Constitutional provision, and clearly it states Congress can pass laws about this question.

A provision of an Article cannot be amended by Congress. If proof is an implied requirement of the Article, Legal obfuscation cannot trump the document that created the Legal system.

So, what is your complaint? Is it that you don't agree that this provision should be in the Constitution? Or do you have something else in mind.

My complaint is that we have no manner of verifying what is the ACTUAL truth, rather we are told to rely on Hawaiian Bureaucrats opinions of a document they won't let anyone see, and they won't declare to be a true copy of the original.

For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was born in Canada. (White Rock B.C.) Let's further say that upon his grandmother finding out he was born in Canada, she decided to go to the Department of Health and tell them he was born at home in Hawaii, but the mother is too sick to bring him in, and by the way she is the Vice President of the Bank of Honolulu. (Her intent being to secure US citizenship for her grandson.)

Let's say that the DOH official had her write a statement to the effect that he was born at home, and that the DOH official then typed it out on the same page. They both sign it and it gets filed.

Suppose now some years later when Soetoro Marries Stanley Ann, that he adopts Barry. The Judge orders the creation of a new birth certificate under the name Barry Soetoro, and seals the original.

Suppose now that later, Barry Soetoro, who has been going as Barack Obama because he thinks it makes him sound more African, and more exotic, decides to get his birth certificate amended for political reasons, and gets a Judge to agree to do it.

At what point will anyone in Hawaii let us know that his official legal documents are covering up the fact of his ineligibility, but due to the privacy requirements of Hawaii law (and their lack of understanding regarding "natural born citizen" meaning) they refuse to "OUT" him as a fraud?

They won't even sign a piece of paper saying that we are seeing the ORIGINAL document. They won't even acknowledge that it hasn't been tampered with by a judge.

How can anyone accept something as proof that cannot actually be verified?

I have covered the “full faith and credit” argument with others. I point out that Hawaii HAS the document needed to establish legitimacy, but THEY refuse to produce it because of subjective Bureaucratic rules that they imposed on themselves. Other states are not refusing to accept the document, Hawaii is refusing to produce it.

The law of the state is not a “subjective bureaucratic rule.” It’s the law (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b)(9).
The laws of the state of Hawaii say that a certified copy of a birth record can be produced for inspection or for the possession of: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
No judge has issued a court order for the state of Hawaii to produce a certified copy of the Obama birth record.
If such a court order were to be issued, Hawaii would produce a certified copy of the record.

Then your problem is "original document". It probably doesn't exist anymore. Now I demonstrated that the file cabinet area in the records section of the building could actually hold original documents to the number suggested by the number of folks born in Hawaii since it became a US possession.

However, the conversion to a data base probably took place recently so they still have the space, the cabinets, the drawers, the folders............ but federal law passed in 1996, in conformance with the full faith and credit section does not care. They could have taken all the paper documents and put them in the landfill.

More recently they've taken action out there to delay a new landfill! Obviously no one in Hawaii's Democrat dominated government wants anybody to just walk off and abandon that landfill ~ and allow "looters" to despoil it. (My shovel is ready, btw).