Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Nothing you’ve posted here is relevant to anything I’ve stated. The plaintiffs in this case used a strange appeal to the UIPA based on this claim: “The inspection of the purported birth certificate for [President Obama] will ensure the health and safety of all 300 million of us by making sure that our military and our nuclear and chemical arsenals are still under our control and not in the control of any one of our enemies.” The plaintiff missed the easiest appeal which is that the public interest outweighs privacy laws under the UIPA. The HI DOH has admitted there is a public interest. It’s the whole reason they have an Obama page on their website.
I am not interested in being relevant to what you’ve stated. Every Hawaii court that has looked at this issue has already ruled against your position. I am only interested in being consistent and factual about the actual events that have already taken place involving attempts to obtain the release of Obama’s original long form birth certificate under UIPA and/or HRS 338-18.
That is my interest.
Hawaii courts have consistently ruled that your interpretation of their disclosure laws is incorrect.
There is just no way around the fact that every single judge that has had this issue before him or her, from district court to appellate court panels to the state Supreme Court to the federal district court has ruled unanimously that you are wrong.
For example, in Wolf v. Obama, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of UIPA do not take precedence over the requirements of HRS 338-18’s categories of persons considered to have a direct and tangible interest in gaining access to a confidential birth record.
WILLIAM WOLF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORETTA FUDDY, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawai`i, Defendant-Appellee.
Plaintiff-Appellant William Wolf (Wolf) timely appeals from (1) the “Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties,” which was entered on April 25, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1 in favor of Defendant-Appellee Loretta Fuddy (Fuddy), in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health (DOH), State of Hawai`i, as to Wolf’s claims that he is entitled to access all birth records of President Barack Hussein Obama, II (President Obama); (2) the April 25, 2012 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed on December 20, 2011;” and (3) the January 27, 2012 “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Complaint to Compel Agency to Disclose Public Records Under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), Filed on September 30, 2011.”
Wolf argues that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for summary judgment because (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 338-18 does not bar access to an individual’s birth records when that individual waives his or her right to confidentiality; (2) the Hawai`i Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (Modified), HRS § 92F, provides for access by Wolf to the requested records based on the statute’s rules of construction and purpose; and (3) the federal constitution prohibits any state law or state action which denies or obstructs access to a current president’s birth records.
What ... two Hawaii courts??? That's not exactly meaningful and it still does nothing to back up your earlier claim that any judge in the U.S. could issue a court order and get instant cooperation from the DOH. Your newer citation just shows another way in which both the DOH and state of Hawaii do not want to cooperate. There shouldn't be any need to limit disclosure of a record that Obama is claiming he has made public.
Sorry, but you haven't shown this at all. I already told you the Justice lawsuit involved a strange appeal. It would has nothing to do with my interpretation of the disclosure laws. The Orly case was denied on a procedural objection to the service of the subpoena, which again, is not related to my interpretation of the law. You've provided NOTHING to support your claim based on YOUR interpretation of the law that the DOH would cooperate if a court order was signed by a judge. Under federal law, the subpoena only needs to be signed by a clerk, and consequently, the DOH did NOT object to who signed Orly's subpoena, so YOUR interpretation is not supported in your examples. Your new example is still not based on my interpretation of the disclosure laws. I have never said that Obama's posting of his PDF waived a right to privacy that would compel the DOH to release his original vital records. The UIPA doesn't mandate disclosure, but it does ALLOW for voluntary disclosure. This means that the DOH doesn't have to abide by 338-18 if there is a public interest. Disclosures can be made in good faith.
Please refer to post #334. It’s a total of 11 state district court, state appeals court, state Supreme Court and U.S. District court rulings, not two. There is no current civil suit pending in Hawaii seeking release of Obama’s birth record.
Eleven rulings, including the appeals, is probably enough to consider the issue as settled state case law in Hawaii.
You have your opinion/interpretations and the judges and justices who have ruled on this issue have their opinions/interpretations.
“Never the twain shall meet.”
Not at all. The cases you cited from individually were based on different legal rationale. Now you're using circular logic to reinforce something you've never proved.
Nonsense. You made a claim and have shown nothing to back it up. The court cases you brought up proved my point that the DOH can use the law to refuse honoring a court order on the basis of failing to satisfy the “competent jurisdiction” requirement. What you fail to acknowledge is that the DOH does have the legal capacity to comply with the subpoenas and not compelling reason to fight them.
This is my final post on this thread.
If a person seeking access to a confidential Hawaii birth record does not qualify in one of the categories detailed in HRS 338-18, DOH will not grant access and no court has ever ruled that HDOH must grant access under UIPA or any other statute or administrative rule.
Eligibility challengers have sought Writs of Mandamus to force DOH and Hawaii judges to release Obama’s birth records. They have failed, as has every other legal strategy that has been employed since 2008.
It’s been nice debating these issues with you but now, I’m done. I’ll leave the last words on the subject to you.
It's about time. You haven't presented anything compelling. That's a good reason to find a topic you're better suited to debate.
If a person seeking access to a confidential Hawaii birth record does not qualify in one of the categories detailed in HRS 338-18, DOH will not grant access and no court has ever ruled that HDOH must grant access under UIPA or any other statute or administrative rule.
I've already addressed these points. You've ignored what I've written. Plus, there's evidence that Hawaii has refused to grant access to birth records where the applicant directly qualified under 338-18 (Virginia Sunahara's family), and I already explained that the UIPA does NOT mandate the release of records BUT it DOES ALLOW THE RELEASE of records. Hawaii has no compelling reason not to disclose any and all of Obama's birth records. Until they do, claims about Obama's birth are just hearsay.
Eligibility challengers have sought Writs of Mandamus to force DOH and Hawaii judges to release Obama’s birth records. They have failed, as has every other legal strategy that has been employed since 2008.
I'm sorry, but all this does is prove that Hawaii will go out its way to avoid documenting its own claims about Obama. Until they do, any claim about Obama's place of birth is legally considered to be hearsay.
It’s been nice debating these issues with you but now, I’m done. I’ll leave the last words on the subject to you.
Somehow, I doubt this is honest. And if you post false claims based on these same arguments in other threads, there's a good chance I'll be there again explain exactly why you're wrong.
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.