Posted on 03/23/2015 1:17:25 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
I do mean Article IV. I'm focusing on the phrase "shall be proved." This implies a right of the others states to determine for themselves the authenticity of another state's public records before they grant "full faith and credit" to it.
To date, Hawaii has not let any agent of another state see the public record. All they have done is provide a statement declaring that the facsimile produced on the internet contains information that matches information in their records. That is not the same as saying that it is an identical record.
One has to wonder, if it is an identical record then why the hesitancy to show the record to a Constitutionally authorized agent? The answer has to be that they are hiding something.
-PJ
In a sane world, this would be true, but we happen to live in this one.
They didn't confirm he was born there. They confirm he has a "record in their files." Once again, Hawaii is probably the only state in the Union that will give you a birth certificate even when you aren't born there.
They have submitted no record to other states. Only letters, and those letters are not a substitute for actual proof.
Your response went completely over my head. I don't understand at all what you are trying to say.
Or that it is an original record. Birth records can be changed after the fact. I know because i'm adopted. I have my original birth certificate sitting across the room from me, as well as my current replacement birth certificate.
When they say "In our records" they are not excluding the possibility of what was *PUT* into their records. To say something is "in our records" only means that the information is under their control, and they can show you what they wish, and obscure from you what they don't want you to see.
The only document of any evidentiary value is the *ORIGINAL* document, and not any subsequent tamperings.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Not too tough. Since “citizenship” is a legal term there of course had to be a definition.
Yeah, it means not naturalized. Natural born citizens were citizens the moment of their birth, naturalized (”turned natural”) weren’t at the moment of their birth but became it and for almost all things (except being president) are treated as if they were naturally born. It’s really not tough.
Sure, because the word "Murder" has to be defined by law, or else none of us would know what a murder was.
We would be standing around a dead body going "Well, I think some sort of crime might have been committed, but darned if I know what it is. Are you sure there's no legal definition written down somewhere for what happened? "
The legal system too often makes nonsense out of common sense.
And here you go deep into that nonsense I was talking about. If we’re not going to use the legal definition of citizen then we might as well not even use the word. The question is he a citizen, the law says yes, get over it already.
I thought the question was "Is he a natural citizen?"
Which is citizen at birth. And yes he is.
So when congress decides everyone named "Charlie" is a citizen at birth, you are still going to be arguing that this is "natural"?
The problem with you is that you don't know enough about the topic to argue intelligently. You have no grasp of what was happening in 1776, what initiated it, what principles were being espoused or why.
You simply don't know, and that is why you default to that simplistic understanding. Firstly, it suits what you wish to believe, and secondly it requires no effort at learning anything.
You are the sort that empowers a Hitler. You don't question authorities (except about weed.) and you just accept what they tell you.
“Certified Letters of Verification in Lieu of Certified Copy” are issued as “a public act” of the state and they too are accorded the Full Faith and Credit of every other state under Article Four, Section 1 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.”
Hawaii Revised Statute §338-14.3
Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
The Chief Election Officers (Secretaries of State) in two states, Arizona and Kansas requested Letters of Verification and the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics fulfilled those requests.
A third Letter of Verification was submitted to a federal judge in Mississippi by Attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party’s Executive Committee in a ballot challenge lawsuit in that state from 2012 which is still pending.
And here we have that lack of internal consistency I mentioned. On the one hand you’re insisting Congress follow the law, on the other hand you say laws are written to be obfuscate. Pick one.
Meanwhile if there’s somebody here that doesn’t know enough about the topic to argue it it would be the one that desperately needs to throw insults.
So we’ve once again shown you’re wrong. So once again. Bye.
It takes all three branches of government, just as the Framers designed it, to make Citizens of the United States At Birth under the 14th Amendment and Natural Born Citizens under Article Two synonymous.
Congress had to pass legislation spelling out the parameters of Citizens of the United States at Birth. A President had to sign that legislation into law and when the law was challenged, the Supreme Court had to rule on its Constitutionality.
At any point in time, the exact same process could have been used, and still can be used to differentiate the requirements for natural born citizen from the requirements for United States Citizen At Birth. Additionally the courts can rule on an individual, case by case basis on the eligibility of any particular person’s potential eligibility. That will be coming for Senator Cruz just as it came several hundred times for Barack Obama.
Post #23 seems pretty clear to me.
Yup. That's why no college records. Ever.
And DiogenesLamp retreats to the logical fallacy of “reductio ad absurdum.”
In other words, one potential crime committed to cover up another potential crime. You don't see anything wrong with a process that only produces letters attesting to the veracity of other letters, with nobody independent ever actually seeing that the true document actually exists?
I thought Arizona sent agents to Hawaii and were given letters instead. They requested to see the documents.
The manner of proof is no proof at all. It is all circular.
-PJ
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.