Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

naturalborncitizen ^ | 9/21/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)

Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.

I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).
[snip]

STANDING

TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:

“Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.

Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.

More here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/pending-litigation-hawaii-confirms-that-obamas-vital-records-have-been-amended/

[mlo]

"Law of Nations" is not the law. It's just a book.

English common law, an hence the US common law, is different. And according to it one is a "natural born subject/citizen" when born in the country, regardless of citizenship of the parents. Appealing to someone's book doesn't change that.

[rxsid]

Precisely! Even in the original French version, it's clear:

Translating the french text: "les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens"

To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens" "parents" & "born in the country"

SCOTUS is on record, multiple times, citing Vattel and/or the Natural Law definition for the term NBC:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

Now, SCOTUS needs to be on record citing Vattel and/or that definition for the specific purpose of POTUS Constitutional eligibility.

Barry never was an NBC.

[mlo]

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

"III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[mlo]

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

"Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."

"The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the ' the colonies and in the states, under the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

[mlo]

"SCOTUS is on record, multiple times, citing Vattel and/or the Natural Law definition for the term NBC:"

You mean in losing dissents?

SCOTUS is on record saying Vattel's definition is not what applies in the US. And that's in winning, majority opinions.

[American Constitutionalist]

Kind of like when the public got wind of the back to school indoctrination with the President that they had to change the wording if it.

[curiosity]

And what "paranoid conspiracy theories" might those be?

How about the theory that all birther skeptics on FR are being paid by Bambi?

[rxsid]

Natural law, which as you know predates British Common law by many centuries, is the basis for Law of Nations. It's far more than "someone's book." Any idea where Jefferson got the "foundational" ideas from when he drafted the Declaration of Independence? This "book" has played a far more significant role in our country's history that you allude to. Oh, b.t.w. Madison confirms (in his notes) that the Law of Nations was openly read during the Constitutional Convention itself. http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=57

[pissant]

BUMP

[pissant]

Ever hear of original intent? Thought not

[American Constitutionalist]

” Unless, of course, they married in Kenya, but that would put a very pregnant Stanley Ann in Kenya “ .... Danno ( Steve McGarret ) that would have given them the MO to go to Kenya.

[mlo]

I should also clarify, in those cases where these cites go to majority opinions, they don't actually say what the birthers purport they say.

The passge in MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, for example, does not cite or establish any definition of "natural born citizen" at all. It specifically declines to do so.

Ex Parte Reynolds has to do with an Indian, which raised other questions about jurisdiction.

As usual, these birther cites are distortions.

[mlo]

Original intent is not on your side.

[American Constitutionalist]

Imagine if it can be proven that Obama was born in Kenya, and the liberal fight this tooth and nail, and say , well, he WAS conceived in Hawaii, so that makes him a Natural Born Citizen, ... IMHO ? I would not put that past the Liberals to try and say.

[rxsid]

“Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law
…
“I. Judicial Power in the Early Republic First, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an “initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations.”6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been “settled in public opinion.”8

A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, “the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic.”10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule…”

This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law “immutable” and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, “the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text.”16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be “destructive to republican principles.”17

…More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers’ decision explicitly to authorize Congress to “define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.”18″

Much more here: http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law

[pissant]

You are the kind of moron that thinks children of illegal aliens are natural born citizens, no doubt.

[stockpirate]

“How about the theory that all birther skeptics on FR are being paid by Bambi?”

All birther skeptics on FR are paid Obamanoids

[RummyChick]

I am arguing that you have absolutely no idea how a court would rule on this. If he is a US citizen, he is in the game to have it determined.

[rxsid]

"As usual, these birther cites are distortions."

How so?

Oh, and for the record...I'm a dualer (check my tagline).

[rxsid]

Neither do you have any idea. Precisely my point.