Hawaiian elections clerk has eligibility 'solution'g

From Ankeny v. Indiana
Note 14:

14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial.

Indiana admits that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not declare or found him to be a natural born citizen.

Furthermore from Ankeny’s note 14.

For all but forty-four people in our nation& history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.

The Indiana court further admits that the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen, and those naturalized under the 14th Amendment are not the same as natural born US citizens.

Moreover from note 14:

The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

Indiana’s note 14 in Ankeny negates their statement(s) of Obama being an NBC. In colloquial words, ‘it is having your cake and eating it too’ or ‘talking out both sides of your ass’ is a fitting description of Indiana’s Ankeny’s opinion. It is a worthless.

The Ankeny decision may be worthless to you but it wasn’t worthless to the plaintiffs in that lawsuit who were trying to invalidate Obama’s Indiana electoral votes. They lost.
The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Court of Appeals’ decision,

In other birther news today, Orly Taitz was shot down again:

Doc 33 – Motion for reconsideration denied

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Royce C. Lamberth, Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia

Pending before the Court is plaintiff Orly Taitz’s amended combined motion [25] to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and movant Christopher-Earl Strunk’s motion [26] for reconsideration. Upon consideration of both motions, the defendant’s combined opposition to the motions, the applicable law, and the entire record, it is hereby ORDERED that both motions [25 & 26] are DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
[Edit]

Come on now, do you really think that all the conservative media that cover the Obama eligibility issue EVERY SINGLE DAY would not have reported on someone, anyone receiving a brand spanking new LONG FORM copy of their ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii since 2001?

You come on now. This is not like pulling Hawaiian teeth here. It is only a request for the long form birth certificate. You're still a clown. Hawaii is not going to deny someone born in Hawaii for his or hers LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE if they specifically request it.

You see it is easy to do. Like this requested form below:

And the persons who SPECIFICALLY requested for his or hers long form birth certificate, which they will get one of these:

Obama could be truthful by writing Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5; US Constitution in the box that asks for the reason...if he has a real long form BC.

And what’s your explanation for why there is NO publicity anywhere on this so-called “fact” of being able to get a long form and that the state of Hawaii’s Health Department in general and Janice Okubo specifically has never been called on it?

Okubo has been called on her deceptiveness many times in the Internet community. She's been called on it alright. I showed you where and how to order a long form birth certificate from Hawaii from their official .gov website...that's about as close as it gets without having neon Las Vegas lights appear over your house saying 'Get the Hawaiian long form birth certificate here!!!'

“No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.anymore.

Sorry Okubo, you are not being totally truthful. From 2001 to 2009, you silly clown Jammieeeee, the Hawaiian DOH issued the long form birth certificate that you cannot deny [They still do of course upon request]. Here is the archived information that Hawaii required the long form Birth Certificate to process native by blood Hawaiians to apply for homesteads. Notice that the instructions informs the Homestead applicants how to get a long form Hawaiian birth certificate from the Hawaiian DoH.

That was a fairly decent attempt at spin! I’d give you a solid “B.”
But it doesn’t alter the fact that no reputable media outlet has confirmed that anyone can get a long form Hawaii birth certificate since 2001.
If Okubo is lying, Fox News, or other conservative leaning media outlets should expose the lie. They haven’t.
Some birther websites have disagreed, ranted and raved but none have proven her wrong and lying by simply getting someone born in Hawaii to order and receive a copy of a long form, original birth certificate.
For the 9000th time, ONLY the program for INDIGENOUS NATIVE HAWAIIANS under the Hawaiian Homelands Program used to require a copy of a long form birth certificate.
Let me make this so simple that even you might be able to understand it: every state issues a handicapped parking permit and there is a form to fill out to receive a handcapped parking placcard. Does that mean that anyone can fill out the application and receive a placcard to park in handicapped spots?

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD RECEIVE A COPY OF A LONG FORM BIRTH DOCUMENT WERE INDIGENOUS NATIVE HAWAIIANS IN ORDER TO PROVE THEIR ANCESTRY AND QUALIFY FOR THE HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS PROGRAM.

Obama would NOT be truthful if he attempted to apply for the Hawaii Homelands Program any more than an able bodied person would be truthful if they applied for a handicapped parking permit.

Non-indigenous persons born in Hawaii apply for a certified copy of their Certification of Live Birth and that is all the proof of birth place and proof of birth date that they will ever need. A Hawaii COLB can be used to receive a US Passport.
I can guarantee you that no court will ever order any other document as proof of birth.

No spin just honest posts. So who would be a "reputable media outlet?" The New York Times, AP, Newsweak, The LA Times, MSNBC, CNN, cBS?? Oh yeah, these 'reputable' liberal organs have looked into seeing if Okubo is being truthful. Sure they have! Now this is called spin clown. Asserting that because the media organs have not reported that Hawaii has not issued a long form birth certificate for almost a decade doesn't mean Hawaii has not. None of those 'reputable' news organs that I listed wouldn't even bother because of intrinsic bias by them and what they would perceive as lack of a newsworthy story. So your assertion is totally preposterous and absurd to the 100th power.

For the 9000th time, ONLY the program for INDIGENOUS NATIVE HAWAIIANS under the Hawaiian Homelands Program used to require a copy of a long form birth certificate.

9000th time? Heehee. You haven't mentioned anything about the homesteading program for native blood Hawaiians until now and after I brought it up. Nonetheless, you've changed your position from no one in the last 10 years or so has received a Hawaiian long form birth certificate to some have been issued to Hawaiian BC requesters. You are making progress for an Obot After-Birther...better than nothing :^)

Let me make this so simple that even you might be able to understand it: every state issues a handicapped parking permit and there is a form to fill out to receive a handcapped parking placcard. Does that mean that anyone can fill out the application and receive a placcard to park in handicapped spots?

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COULD RECEIVE A COPY OF A LONG FORM BIRTH DOCUMENT WERE INDIGENOUS NATIVE HAWAIIANS IN ORDER TO PROVE THEIR ANCESTRY AND QUALIFY FOR THE HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS PROGRAM.

Now this is all spin -- since I brought up the issue above not you. Again, your former argument, until now, was that Okubo spoke the total truth THAT NO ONE was issued the long form birth certificates in Hawaii ever since they went to computer printouts and are information limited abstracts of their original birth certificates on file.

Again, Hawaii is not going to deny someone a certified copy of their long form birth certificate if they insist. I've seen security sensitive jobs that do require job seekers to provide a long form birth certificate to be submitted with their job applications where no Hawaiian short form abstract COLB would NOT do. The Hawaiian DoH is not going to deny someone their long form birth certificate. The Hawaiian DoH are suppose to work for the public, it is not the other way around.

Certification of Live Birth and that is all the proof of birth place and proof of birth date that they will ever need. A Hawaii COLB can be used to receive a US Passport.

Not necessarily correct for a US passport. The US State Department would not confirm if the Hawaiian COLB abstract would always be enough to get a US passport issued to the passport applicant.

As the State Department concluded "is that the law is "complicated." "

So in another case, requesters would issue a long form Hawaiian birth certificate if their short form for some reason failed to be enough for them to get a US passport... besides the employment issues that I mentioned above. So the Hawaiian long form birth certificate requester would write in the box that says "Reason For Requesting Copy" of Birth Record would be 'For a US Passport.'

I can guarantee you that no court will ever order any other document as proof of birth.

This is one of the most absurd statements I've seen in a while. If Obama's Hawaiian vital records are ever subpoenaed, the Hawaiian short form COLB abstract will not be the document that a court will demand, it will be the original birth records that included the long form birth certificate that show which hospital and doctor that delivered Obama the usurper.

“AS FOR ANKENEY - IT WAS AN OPINION OF AN INFERIOR COURT [SUBJECT TO FINAL INTERPRETATION BY SCOTUS - IF IT EVER TAKES SUCH A CASE] AND IT WAS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR IT TO CITE ARK'S DICTA AS THE DETERMINING FACTOR. THE DICTA CANNOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT.”

Honestly, what planet do you folks come from? What color is the sky there?

Sorry - was away for a while ...

1. Akeney is a decision of an inferior court. If or when SCOTUS were to take up the issue, their decision would be binding. As it is, Akeney is merely one case from Indiana which [incorrectly] determined that dicta in Wonk Kim Ark v. United States was enough to establish NBC.

2. As for ALL CAPS - I do that sometimes to drive home the point. American jurisprudance DOES NOT ALLOW dicta to be used to set precedent under the stare decisis doctrine. And, as I pointed out, the dicta was faulty in the first place.

3. In Calvin's Case there was no citation of the meaning of allegiance [as per Lord Coke's made-up "theory" of the Law of Nature], there was no Common Law cited, nor was there a statute law cited.

4. In Calvin's Case, Lord Coke conveniently ignored the fact that dual allegiances were not completely unknown in the realm. And, Lord Coke's own definition of natural-born subject stated that the subject could not have more than one allegiance. Ergo, one with such dual allegiance could not be a natural-born subject.

5. Finally, if jus soli alone was enough to guarantee a man's allegiance [and, thus, make him a natural-born subject] - why then was William I's 2nd Law that all English freemen swear the Oath of Allegiance to him? That is because birth jus soli DID NOT guarantee allegiance.

NOW, in my previous lengthy post, I have given clear and cogent reasoning behind my analysis. It is backed up by historical evidence, records of English Parliamentary debate, English Common Law, and United States law.

What have you as evidence to back up your analysis - other than Ark [which is actually the subject of the analysis] ???

“1. Akeney is a decision of an inferior court. If or when SCOTUS were to take up the issue, their decision would be binding. As it is, Akeney is merely one case from Indiana which [incorrectly] determined that dicta in Wonk Kim Ark v. United States was enough to establish NBC.”

Obviously the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of overturning the decision of any other court in the land. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. In that regard, it is somewhat telling that it has shown no interest in taking up any of these cases when it has had the opportunity.

The Indiana Supreme Court had a chance to overturn Akeney and did not do so. It thus remains the only current legal decision addressing the issue in question. Your personal opinion of its appropriateness is immaterial to that fact.

“2. As for ALL CAPS - I do that sometimes to drive home the point. American jurisprudance DOES NOT ALLOW dicta to be used to set precedent under the stare decisis doctrine. And, as I pointed out, the dicta was faulty in the first place.”

Again, you personal opinion of the dicta is immaterial. You also misrepresent stare decisis as rendering dicta meaningless: “As the United States Supreme Court has put it: “dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding.”

“3. In Calvin's Case there was no citation of the meaning of allegiance [as per Lord Coke's made-up “theory” of the Law of Nature], there was no Common Law cited, nor was there a statute law cited.

4. In Calvin's Case, Lord Coke conveniently ignored the fact that dual allegiances were not completely unknown in the realm. And, Lord Coke's own definition of natural-born subject stated that the subject could not have more than one allegiance. Ergo, one with such dual allegiance could not be a natural-born subject.”

Good luck attempting to re argue Calvin's Case. And it's rather the question of what “dual allegiance is,” is it not? By U.S. law and common sense, Obama’s “dual allegiance” has been cartoonishly exaggerated by the people tilting at windmills on this issue.

“5. Finally, if jus soli alone was enough to guarantee a man's allegiance [and, thus, make him a natural-born subject] - why then was William I’s 2nd Law that all English freemen swear the Oath of Allegiance to him? That is because birth jus soli DID NOT guarantee allegiance.”

Seriously? You really want to know why William the First would have prescribed an Oath of Allegiance? Honestly?

I mean, you really are serious?

William wasn't just any old king. He was a foreign conqueror trying to enforce his rule on a conquered nation. Oaths of allegiance are not uncommon in such circumstance, for obvious reasons having nothing to do with who anyone’s father was. Other than, perhaps, William's grasp of the obvious fact that no Englishman or their fathers would have felt they owed the slightest natural loyalty to a foreign conqueror.

I am braking up my response to you for brevity ...

And my point is that you cannot bootstrap a state decision into a legally binding precedent concerning natural-born citizenship. It is not binding on any other state or the federal government. The fact that the Indiana Court found that he was [in its opinion] a natural-born citizen has no effect of law, except as it pertains to Ankeney and Ankeney alone.

The fact that SCOTUS [as yet] has not taken a case such as this is immaterial - it has procedural rules that it goes by and [as yet] has not taken up the matter.

The reason is obvious - the question is too politically charged. However, if Obama runs and wins in 2012 [and the GOP loser sues] - SCOTUS would have to take up the matter. It is settled law that a loser in a political election DOES have standing to sue - if there is a good faith basis.

You seem to have an affinity for Wikipedia, I see. If you would do the damn research – you would find the following:

The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case. In other words, under this law, with these facts, this result is obtained. It is based on ratio decidendi, which is a Latin phrase meaning ”the rationale for the decision.” It is what determines the judgment or the principle which the case establishes. It is the legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgement on which the outcome of the case depends. It refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction through the doctrine of stare decisis. The process of determining the ratio decidendi is a correctly thought analysis of what the court actually decided – essentially, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fought. All other statements about the law in the text of a court opinion – all pronouncements that do not form a part of the court’s rulings on the issues actually decided in that particular case (whether they are correct statements of law or not) - are obiter dicta, and are not rules for which that particular case stands.

As for your citation that “dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding.”, the correct quote is:

“Putting aside dicta, which may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but which are not controlling, the necessary reach of the decision goes far enough to include [p628] all purely executive officers. It goes no farther; much less does it include an officer who occupies no place in the executive department, and who exercises no part of the executive power vested by the Constitution in the President. [Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (295 U.S. 602)].

In other words, the Supreme Court DID NOT follow the dicta of the previous case.

And, as far as the Supreme Court’s customary opinion of dicta:

”This seems to us a prime occasion for invoking our customary refusal to be bound by dicta, e.g., McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 312, n. 11 (1967), and our customary skepticism towards per curiam dispositions that lack the reasoned consideration of a full opinion, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670-671 (1974). Today we examine vacatur once more in the light shed by adversary presentation.” [U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership (513 U.S. 18)].

In Calvin’s Case, solitary and permanent allegiance WAS the issue – but I don’t suppose you could be bothered to read the case. So, dual allegiance IS relevant to Obama. Lord Coke wrote in Calvin’s Case:

“And it is to be observed, that it is nec cælum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born …”

AND:

“3. There be regularly (unless 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. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King f' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.”

Now, it was known [although Lord Coke conveniently ignored the fact] that dual allegiances WERE possible. It had happened in past English history.

And, Lord Coke stated that a natural-born subject could only have ONE allegiance. He DID NOT address the case where two countries laid claim to the same person. England and Scotland were united under James I. This was not relevant in Calvin’s Case – it did not apply.

BTW: U.S. statute law does not directly address dual allegiance vis-à-vis natural-born citizenship [it cannot since the Constitution does not define NBC]. And common sense has no place in the law [just ask any lawyer …].

Seriously? You really want to know why William the First would have prescribed an Oath of Allegiance? Honestly?

I mean, you really are serious?

You seem to think that I do not do research ...

William I claimed the throne through the feudal Right of Conquest AND he claimed it under jus sanguinis through his Uncle Edward [The Confessor].

He was the one who merged Danelaw [which recognized jus sanguinis] with Anglo-Saxon law [which recognized jus soli]. And his Oath of Allegiance was entirely appropriate for freemen who were living at the time of his ascension to the throne.

Thereafter, however, if jus soli were the single factor in determining allegiance - THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR CHILDREN BORN AFTER HE ASSUMED THE THRONE TO SWEAR THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. According to Lord Coke [in Calvin's Case], children had a permanent allegiance to the sovreign under which they were born. But, the Oath of Allegiance was REQUIRED [when freemen came of age] for centuries.

From William I, to William II, to Henry I, to Stephen, to Matilda, to Henry II, to Henry [The Young King], to Richard I, to John, to Henry III, to Edward I, to Edward II, to Edward III, to Richard II, to Henry IV, to Henry V, to Henry VI, to Edward IV, to Henry VI [second reign], to Edward IV [second reign], to Edward V, to Richard III, to Henry VII, to Henry VIII ... NEED I GO ON ???

If jus soli were the ONLY requirement to be a natural-born subject - mere birth on English soil would have been enough. BUT IT WASN'T.

As Lord Coke pointed out in Calvin's Case, it was NOT birth of the soil - BUT was solitary allegiance that determined a natural-born subject.

However, Lord Coke erred when he stated that it had ALWAYS BEEN birth on English soli that determined that allegiance ...

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.