Posted on 09/21/2009 5:37:18 PM PDT by 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.
|
If there was any question as to what that entailed right after the founding, that question was put to rest with the 14th Amendment. When it was debated in Congress in 1866 and adopted in 1868, the 14th Amendment was aimed at African American and their rights as citizens. For example, if a black man was born in Africa, then brought to the US to be enslaved, he could become a US citizen under the 14th Amendment, equal (eventually) to a white man and a NATIVE-born American black man. Note ALL THREE MEN would have more rights than a woman of ANY race in the US - women not gaining the right to vote until 1920 with the 19th Amendment. So much for the Liberal argument that there were only 2 classes of US citizens (and the rights they wielded). Nowhere in the language of the 14th Amendment is "natural-born Citizen" addressed, or "re-interpreted" from subsequent SCOTUS rulings - especially in regards to Presidential qualifications! It's about citizenship, not "natural-born Citizen"-ship (see Section 1 of the 14th Amendment) If you look back into the Congressional Records of 1866, you'll see that the 14th Amendment is about AFRICAN AMERICANS and Citizenship! It did not address, in any way, who possessed "Constitutional eligibility" to be the ONE leader of the Executive Branch - a very sensitive issue to Colonists under the rule of King George III in 1776. Furthermore, IF the 14th Amendment put even simple naturalization Citizenship "to rest," there would have been no need for the SCOTUS to "interpret" in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, Wong Kim Ark in 1898 and numerous other cases since - it would have been clear cut and not had to go to the SCOTUS at all! There also would have been no need to extend the equal protection clause in Plessy v. Ferguson, Milliken v. Bradley, and others. On a side note, most people do not know that for Hernandez v. Texas - when the SCOTUS held the 14th Amendment extended protections beyond whites and "negros," to Mexican Americans - the oral arguments were lost. L-O-S-T. I dare say that if a Constitutional scholar got his/her hands on those LOST notes from the 1954 case, and compared them to the original intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, some of today's subsequent SCOTUS interpretations may likely be overturned. Not because other races should be excluded, rather subsequent arguments from the 1954 case may not fully correspond with the original intent of the 14th Amendment - there's no way of knowing what they discussed! Going strictly by judicial action - Mexican Americans did NOT "officially" fall under the 14th Amendment until adjudicated as such in this 1954 SCOTUS case. So much for the 14th Amendment putting the question "to rest," taking nearly a century to secure those rights for other groups in America.
Visualize the issues facing the Colonists of 1776: The 14th Amendment of 1868 is about none of these, nor is it about "natural-born Citizen" and presidential eligibility! |
Your knowledge, expertise, references
and ability to communicate them are
absolutely SUPERB!
Thank you ... as always ...... :)
Born in the US, citizen by 14th amendment, presumed natural born, but subject to disproof.
Born overseas, no different than just unmarried. Citizen, assuming residency requirement met, but not natural born, since citizenship is by statute.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The English Common Law, as the Supreme Court explained here, was that someone born in the country is a “natural born subject”, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
***
Au contraire – mon frere …
You have fallen into the Wong Kim Ark v. United States trap – like many others before you (including me, awhile back, until I really read the SCOTUS decision carefully).
Why, you may ask ???
Because if the NBC issue HAD been settled by Ark, NONE of the citizenship cases (Berg, Donofrio, etc.) would have been dismissed for “lack of standing”. They would have been dismissed under the principle of “stare decisis” (that which has been decided) – what we commonly refer to as SCOTUS precedent, and Ark WOULD HAVE BEEN CITED as the precedent.
If you read Ark CAREFULLY, you will find that the case was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment – and the 14th Amendment ONLY. The 14th Amendment ONLY stipulates who is AUTOMATICALLY a citizen – NOT who is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. No where in the decision will you see that Ark was declared to be a Natural Born Citizen. His attorney claimed that he was – but SCOTUS only declared him to be a CITIZEN.
You NOT ONLY need to read the decision - BUT ALL of the citiations contained in it.
I will send you a private reply - I go through each pertinent citation and will show you WHAT each REALLY says. I am about 3/4 done with it ...
I WOULD post it here - BUT, it is SO MASSIVE that I think the FR MODS would get P.O’d if I posted it.
I’m waiting next for some hapless response invoking the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark or another moronic attempt to re-define a phrase (natural-born Citizen) used in the 17th century. We’ve smacked those down so many times I’ve lost count.
***
Got that right - I got something just about ready for MLO that shows the ENTIRE fallacy of the assertion that the Wong Kim Ark decision declares him to be a NBC ...
The misrepresentations of the citations listed by Justice Gray in Ark are, to say the least, astonishing - at most, flat out lies ...
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.
***
Nope - Blackstone DOES NOT say that ...
Blackstone (the English Common Law authority) in the 1700’s states that children born in England to aliens are GENERALLY SPEAKING natural born subjects.
The exceptions being children born to aliens who had an allegiance to a foreign sovreign AND that foreign sovreign conferred it on the child also.
In other words - dual citizenship ...
Calvin’s Case agrees as does Dicey, as cited in the Ark decision.
“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)
***
BOGUS - Justice Gray TOTALLY misrepresented his citations in the Ark decision ...
“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.”
Umm ... This is a New York decision ...
Give us a SCOTUS decision - AND DON’T trot out Wong Kim Ark ... you cannot defend it.
Wait for my private reply ... tomorrow (I’m tired).
You are the kind of moron that thinks children of illegal aliens are natural born citizens, no doubt.
***
He or she is - I think we got a whack job ...
“Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.” http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
Can you, or anyone here, provide the proof that Barry’s mother was physically present in the US (or possession) for a continues period of one year prior to birth?
***
The applicable law at the time was the Immigration and Nationality Act of like 1951 ...
More stringent requirements like continuous residency for the 4 years preceding age 18?
Cannot remember ...
Somebody help me out here ???
placemark.
I have, and there is nothing indefensible about Wong. It is quite clear.
Yes it’s a New York decision. But it explains the principles of common law that define “natural born citizen”, and does so very explicitly. That doesn’t change because of the jurisdiction.
“Give us a SCOTUS decision - AND DON’T trot out Wong Kim Ark ... you cannot defend it.”
I have, and there is nothing indefensible about Wong. It is quite clear.
***
1. No where in Wong is he declared to be a natural born citizen.
2. Justice Gray was not clear in his reasoning in the Ark decision:
From the Ark decision:
“ … II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679 …”
REBUTTAL:
In the above section, Justice Gray, to put it mildly (cough, cough) misrepresented the Calvin decision, above, when he wrote “Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” What Calvin REALLY said was:
From the Calvin Case Decsion:
“ … There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other …
… Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the Law of Nature to one Sovereign are natural born Subjects …
Now, since Obama was born under the allegiance of two nations - SHOW ME how he is natural born ...
Remember - at the time of his birth, BOTH the 14th Amendment AND the British Nationality Act of 1948 applied to Obama ...
Brilliant work there BP2! Much appreciated.
Yes it’s a New York decision. But it explains the principles of common law that define “natural born citizen”, and does so very explicitly. That doesn’t change because of the jurisdiction.
***
So, a New York decision by some bozo AFTER the signing of the Constituion trumps the original intent of those who signed it ???
Who died and made this decision king as to what an NBC is ???
Please pass those ‘shrooms you’ve been munchin’ on ...
I think the prior generations would have more articulately and tactfully identified his birthright either as “bastard” or “S.O.B.”, which IMHO, conveys volumes more than the present debate.
And, interestingly, Justice Gray was nominated by an ineligible POTUS (Arthur) who almost certainly knew he was not Constitutionally eligible (i.e. burning his records, lying about his past, etc). The "public" at large didn't learn of this until 2008 (AFAIK). Therefore, Justice Gray could arguable be considered an illegitimate SCOTUS justice.
SORRY - I AM RE-POSTING ...
I SHOULD HAVE ADDED THIS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE ORIGINAL POST ...
“Give us a SCOTUS decision - AND DON’T trot out Wong Kim Ark ... you cannot defend it.”
I have, and there is nothing indefensible about Wong. It is quite clear.
***
1. No where in Wong is he declared to be a natural born citizen.
2. Justice Gray was not clear in his reasoning in the Ark decision:
From the Ark decision:
“ … II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679 …”
REBUTTAL:
In the above section, Justice Gray, to put it mildly (cough, cough) misrepresented the Calvin decision, above, when he wrote “Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” What Calvin REALLY said was:
From the Calvin Case Decsion:
“ … There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other …
… Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the Law of Nature to one Sovereign are natural born Subjects …
Now, since Obama was born under the allegiance of two nations - SHOW ME how he is natural born ...
Remember - at the time of his birth, BOTH the 14th Amendment AND the British Nationality Act of 1948 applied to Obama ...
THIS NEXT PASSAGE CONTINUES FROM THE CALVIN CASE:
… Natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the Sovereign at the time of the birth: for as the Antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent, cannot make him a Subject to that Crown to which he was an alien at the time of his birth … “
Basically, the above Calvin Case decision said that children born in England to aliens may be subjects, but CANNOT be natural born subjects if they owed allegiance to more than one sovereign.
Since the allegiance was derived through the parents, if the child’s parents owed allegiance to another sovereign – the child did too. Although, the child and the parents both owed allegiance to the British King while they were in England.
The exception being that the children of ambassadors of foreign countries were exempt – as they were deemed natural born to the ambassador’s country.
“The misrepresentations of the citations listed by Justice Gray in Ark are, to say the least, astonishing - at most, flat out lies ...”
And, interestingly, Justice Gray was nominated by an ineligible POTUS (Arthur) who almost certainly knew he was not Constitutionally eligible (i.e. burning his records, lying about his past, etc). The “public” at large didn’t learn of this until 2008 (AFAIK). Therefore, Justice Gray could arguable be considered an illegitimate SCOTUS justice.
***
Here is another little nugget ...
Again, from the Ark decision:
“ … Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.
2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown …”
In the above paragraphs, By his OWN citation of Dicey, Justice Gray PROVES that citizenship status depended upon BOTH LOCATION AND ALLEGIANCE.
The fact that Dicey included the qualifier “in theory” is of his OWN invention and was NOT operable at the time that the Constitution was written.
BTW: Dicey wrote this in 1896 – some 107 years AFTER the Constitution AND two years BEFORE the Ark decision.
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.