Replies

It is all sideshow. This should have been dirt simple. Hawaiian privacy law restricts access to birth certificates with an exception for legitimate purpose. All it should have taken is for one Secretary of State to file a formal request for a raised seal birth certificate with the appropriate Hawaiian authority with the express purpose of certifying qualifications for the Office of President before placing his name on the ballot. Then, when denied, file the appropriate challenges in Hawaiian court.

Alas, the time to do so is past as Øbama will not appear on another ballot.

The Hawaii Health Department head has already verbally verified Obama’s status as being born in Hawaii. Never mind that she cannot produce a valid birth certificate as evidence, her word is supposed to be unimpeachable “evidence.”

Just another Leftist hack who has infiltrated high office to subvert the truth.

I agree with your assertion but I believe the consequences should have been different. Failing to provide a raised seal birth certificate should have resulted in the candidate being declared by the SOS as not eligible and the candidate removed from the election process. That would then force the candidate to sue in court and thus force them to provide the birth.

“Alas, the time to do so is past as Øbama will not appear on another ballot.”

Here’s my dream scenario: Supreme Court of Alabama rules he is ineligible to serve, thus nullifying any law he has signed in Alabama. Other states follow suit and this ends up fast-tracked in the SCOTUS where he is ruled ineligible and every law and appointment he has signed/made is vacated.

Won’t happen, but it’s nice to think about.

It is all sideshow. This should have been dirt simple. Hawaiian privacy law restricts access to birth certificates with an exception for legitimate purpose. All it should have taken is for one Secretary of State to file a formal request for a raised seal birth certificate with the appropriate Hawaiian authority with the express purpose of certifying qualifications for the Office of President before placing his name on the ballot. Then, when denied, file the appropriate challenges in Hawaiian court.

Alas, the time to do so is past as Øbama will not appear on another ballot.

I've said this from the very beginning. 50 State election officials were incompetent in the performance of their duties. There should have been 50 requests for proof from various state election officials. They dropped the ball. Twice.

Secretaries of State do not qualify under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b) for receiving a copy of a birth certificate. That is why in 2012 both the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State requested and received “Certified Letters of Verification in a Lieu of Certificate” (under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-14.3) from the Hawai’i state Registrar which those two Republican Secretaries of State used to approve Obama for their states’ ballots.
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2011/division1/title19/chapter338/338-14-3/

If any Secretary of State had wanted to receive or inspect an actual copy of the birth certificate, they would have needed to get a court order for it from “a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction” in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) (point 9).

In 2012 there were 50 different eligibility challenges to Obama’s credentials heard in 22 states by courts and state election boards. No court or state election board ruled him to be ineligible.

There is no state that has a law requiring a birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. Arizona’s legislature passed such a statute but Governor Brewer vetoed it.

Most states do not have statutes requiring Chief Elections Officials such as Secretaries of State to verify eligibility. In many states if a political party certifies a candidate as eligible, they are automatically placed on the ballot and then it is up to the opposing candidates to challenge an opponent’s credentials. Only one opposing candidate ever challenged Obama’s credentials, American Independent Party candidate Allan Keyes. He lost his challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States in Keyes v. Bowen

This should have been dirt simple. Hawaiian privacy law restricts access to birth certificates with an exception for legitimate purpose. All it should have taken is for one Secretary of State to file a formal request for a raised seal birth certificate with the appropriate Hawaiian authority with the express purpose of certifying qualifications for the Office of President before placing his name on the ballot. Then, when denied, file the appropriate challenges in Hawaiian court.

Arizona tried to test the Article IV "full faith and credit" access to prove public records, but they didn't push it far enough.

Article IV

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.

"Manner in which such... records... shall be proved" is the name of the game. Not someone's verbal say so, but inter-state proof according to the Constitution.

-PJ

The fact that Obama will not be on a future ballot is irrelevant to the case. The court can go forward and decide the case to establish future precedent, because the situation may occur in the future. This is the moot issue. A case that is usually cited to get around mootness is Roe v Wade. By the time that case was heard, the plaintiff was no longer pregnant, but the court heard it anyway, to establish future precedent. The same applies here, the court will decided the case so that there is precedent in case the situation occurs again in the future.