“You and I obviously have a difference of opinion regarding the word “Honest.”
Assuming (for the sake of argument) Barry is born in Canada to an Underage Girl, yet gets a Hawaiian birth certificate created by an Affidavit from his Grandmother, and is subsequently adopted by same Grandmother, you think it’s perfectly reasonable for a Hawaiian privacy law to cover up the fact that he would NOT meet article II requirements?
And then you have the GALL to cite the 4th amendment, thereby asserting that it would be an ILLEGAL search for a document to prove the President is legal? SERIOUSLY?
Let us get you on the record so that no one need waste any further time with you. Please tell us that you honestly believe that a state law of Privacy has more legal weight than Article II compliance.
Your answer will be reposted to you every time you try to engage in this discussion just to show people that you have faulty judgement and/or are dishonest.
It is now nutcracking time. Make your words sweet and tender because I assure you that you will be eating them later if they are not.”
I would advise anyone pursuing the hypothetical theory presented above to go to a judge and present their evidence and see if a judge will issue a court order for all records pertaining to the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama II that the state of Hawaii may possess. That way Hawaii’s privacy statutes, Article II, Section 1 and Article IV, Section 1 all can be honored.
I would have no problem at all with any state or federal Court ruling that Article II, Section 1 takes primacy over Hawaii’s privacy statutes but I see no need for such a ruling since Hawaii law provides a method for satisfying both state and federal law.
I had the gall to reference the 4th ARTICLE of the US Constitution not the 4th AMENDMENT to the US Constitution.
I’ll assume that you do know the difference between articles and amendments and that you just misread.
I would have no problem at all with any state or federal Court ruling that Article II, Section 1 takes primacy over Hawaii’s privacy statutes but I see no need for such a ruling since Hawaii law provides a method for satisfying both state and federal law.
Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury,the Witness presumably did not understand the question. We are not INTERESTED in what you think a Judge will do. We are interested in knowing if *YOU* believe that a State Law should triumph in covering up a lack of ARTICLE II eligibility? This is a question of *YOUR* intellectual honesty, not whether courts can go through motions.
This is a yes or no question. Do you believe state privacy laws should be allowed to permit an individual to skirt Article II compliance?
I had the gall to reference the 4th ARTICLE of the US Constitution not the 4th AMENDMENT to the US Constitution. I’ll assume that you do know the difference between articles and amendments and that you just misread.
You got me on that one. I was in error. You are correct, I am incorrect. That actually makes me feel better, because I regarded invoking the 4th amendment as unbelievable chutzpah.