Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaiian elections clerk has eligibility 'solution'g
WorldNutDaily | 06/17/10 | Polarik

Posted on 06/17/2010 5:25:53 AM PDT by Polarik

The former Honolulu elections clerk who maintains President Obama was not born in Hawaii and has no birth certificate from any hospital in the Aloha State is promoting a simple way to resolve the uproar over eligibility, at least for the future.

Tim Adams, 45, senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, says all candidates for all offices should be required to prove their identity and eligibility before they can even run.

"The easiest way would be to pass legislation saying everyone has to verify their identity when they're running for office," Adams told WND in an exclusive interview last week. "I do think requiring everyone to certify their identity would probably solve the entire controversy."

Adams stresses the requirement should be for all political contests, from the presidency down to local races, to make sure officeholder-wannabes are who they to make sure officeholder-wannabes are who they say they are, and live in the proper district, for instance."


About the most ridiculous and redundant statement ever made about Obama's eligibility issue. The last time there was a federal law dictating who could run for office at a local level, it excluded Blacks, Irish, and Asians.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; oboma; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: mnehring
Actually, the issue Birhters have isn't requiring someone to prove their identity. It is this: how are Constitutionally mandated qualification requirements validated? You can prove your identity without addressing that question.

The way to address this isn't all these obviously doomed lawsuits. The way to address it is to pass legislation at the state level defining how qualifications are validated. There are, however, three cautions: (1) you can't embellish the Constitutional requirements for a Federal office at the state level; (2) the full-faith-and-creidt clause precludes asking for birth documentation in excess of what a given state provides; and (3) if you stick in your own definition of “natural born citizen,” recognize that that can be challenged in a court and potentially overturned.

41 posted on 06/17/2010 11:20:55 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edge919

What she releases as index data for one person should be what she releases as index data for everybody. According to that, she can tell us that Obama is male and was born.

I guess there is a scenario wherein she could say that there is a claim of a Hawaii birth if that claim was on affidavits but not on the birth certificate itself. But the only reason I can think of for it to be on an affidavit but not on the amended BC is if the affidavit making the claim was not considered sufficient evidence for the amendment to actually be approved. But then her statement would have to mean that a legally-insufficient claim of a Hawaii birth was made.

AND her claims that they can’t reveal anything on the associated documents for a vital record would have to be sheer muck. Which, actually, it is. Their responses to me showed that already.

When MT asked for clarification of what was meant by “vital records” in that statement, Okubo responded with a Wiki definition for “vital records” which listed the various kind of certificates (birth, marriage, death).

I stand corrected, Edge919. Fukino may not have broken HRS 338-18a. She may have, instead, told us the legally-insufficient CLAIM that is not even on Obama’s amended birth certificate. In order for her to be in compliance with the law her statement HAS to mean that a Hawaii birthplace is NOT on his birth certificate, even after the amendment.

Either way, what she’s said - without clarifying to Congress that there is no prima facie evidence of a Hawaii birth - violates the Federal False Statement Act. She deliberately deceived Congress, who with accurate information could (and should) order an investigation by a special investigator/prosecutor (if I understand correctly).


42 posted on 06/17/2010 11:42:53 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The next day after that announcement Okubo told World Net Daily that they could not release any information because they didn’t have permission from Obama.


43 posted on 06/17/2010 11:46:39 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

We already have a law which says that 3 forms of identification are required for a person to receive a federal paycheck. It defines what kind of documents are OK.

We have the laws, although we could probably stand to have better laws at every level and every step of the process. But the fact of the matter is that unless and until we have a way to make these laws be enforced, laws are a waste of time.

That’s why this matters. That’s why anybody who cares about the rule of law needs to care about this and make sure it doesn’t get poo-poohed.

The rule of law is central to everything a free country is all about. We can’t have anything even vaguely resembling freedom or self-determination if lawless thugs break laws at will and nobody can stop them. This is the basic requirement of civilization. Surely a large majority of decent people of every stripe can get on board with the goal of establishing the rule of law. That’s what this is about. Regardless of what happens with Obama himself, the lawlessness that has accompanied everything about him is an assault on everything the free world stands for. People need to see that.


44 posted on 06/17/2010 11:53:41 AM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
When MT asked for clarification of what was meant by “vital records” in that statement, Okubo responded with a Wiki definition for “vital records” which listed the various kind of certificates (birth, marriage, death).

This is a silly non-answer. She shouldn't have to point to anything other than their vital records statutes or their own website to say what vital records were being referenced. It's like she was purposely pointing away from their official records.

45 posted on 06/17/2010 11:58:32 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Sadly, it’s about par for the course.

I have officially named my sewing machine “Janice Okubo”. I’m sewing a dress for my daughter out of very delicate material today and the machine is driving me nuts. What should take 5 minutes took half an hour just because the dumb machine is acting up. It’s probably the tension is ramped up, but that’s all the more reason to call it Janice Okubo. lol


46 posted on 06/17/2010 12:02:28 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
The way to address it is to pass legislation at the state level defining how qualifications are validated. There are, however, three cautions: (1) you can't embellish the Constitutional requirements for a Federal office at the state level;

Not sure what you mean by 'embellish the Constitutional requirements.' States have their own requirements for listing presidential candidates on their state elections ballots (primaries and general elections), so it's not like there's any uniformity just because it's an election for federal office.

(2) the full-faith-and-creidt clause precludes asking for birth documentation in excess of what a given state provides;

Not seeing the point in this point either. Are you suggesting it's unfair to ask for an original birth certificate when it's not clear that an alleged birth abstract is genuine??

(3) if you stick in your own definition of “natural born citizen,” recognize that that can be challenged in a court and potentially overturned.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has given us a clear, basic definition, so this shouldn't be a problem either: born in a country to parents who are citizens.

47 posted on 06/17/2010 12:07:52 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; LucyT

Well, that was worth the trip over here. You make me think of one of those scenes in a western where the indomitable frontier wife shoos the kids in the log cabin, grabs the long gun and is waiting to meet the crooked sheriff and sleazy deputies who are there to try to help steal the homestead for the local robber baron. Of course you take aim with a keyboard but the spirit is the same - and lady, you make it smoke!

Thanks for the ping Lucy T.


48 posted on 06/17/2010 12:09:58 PM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: edge919
“Not sure what you mean by ‘embellish the Constitutional requirements.’ States have their own requirements for listing presidential candidates on their state elections ballots (primaries and general elections), so it's not like there's any uniformity just because it's an election for federal office.”

An individual state can't add to the requirements for President stated in the Constitution. To provide a facetious example, you can't have a state law that adds a requirement for Presidents to be six feet tall or greater, or to have had a certain number of years of experience.

“Not seeing the point in this point either. Are you suggesting it's unfair to ask for an original birth certificate when it's not clear that an alleged birth abstract is genuine??”

It's not that you have to accept something when it is questioned whether the relevant state issued it or not. It's that you can't question what another state is proven to have issued. If a given state issues a certain type of birth certificate that is legally valid, whether it has all the information you want or not, you're stuck with it. To be facetious again, suppose a state law insisted the birth certificate must have the religion of the parents on it to be acceptable proof of birth. If State X doesn't put that on what it issues as a legally valid birth certificate, your law will be overtuned in that regard. States are legally bound to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states. That's the full-faith-and-credit clause.

Which does mean, yes, that if the state of Hawaii mails a state-issued birth certificate for Barack Obama to a supervising elections official, they are obligated to accept it as proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. They don't get to question the quality assurance practices for birth registration in place in Hawaii in 1961.

“Fortunately, the Supreme Court has given us a clear, basic definition, so this shouldn't be a problem either: born in a country to parents who are citizens.”

Well there's the problem isn't it? You folks insist that is settled law, but it isn't. You can stick that in your state law if you want, but it will be challenged. I think it will lose, too, but at least then you would get the court determination you want.

49 posted on 06/17/2010 12:29:42 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
To provide a facetious example, you can't have a state law that adds a requirement for Presidents to be six feet tall or greater, or to have had a certain number of years of experience.

The Constituton doesn't require anyone to sign an affadavit that they are Constitutionally eligible, yet this happens in most states (if not all). What would be the difference in requiring someone to show legal identification??

It's that you can't question what another state is proven to have issued.

In the Obama example, there is no proof that the state of Hawaii issued his alleged COLB. The state has refused to affirm its authenticity, so there shouldn't be a problem in asking for additional documentation/verification when an alleged document is insufficient ... or if it's clearly fraudulent.

You can stick that in your state law if you want, but it will be challenged.

By whom?? If you can read Supreme Court decisions, there's not much to challenge the definition with.

50 posted on 06/17/2010 12:36:39 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

The next day after that announcement Okubo told World Net Daily that they could not release any information because they didn’t have permission from Obama.


Exactly, any ADDITIONAL information. That’s what lawyers will tell you to say.


51 posted on 06/17/2010 12:40:09 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

The state of Hawaii says that an amended birth certificate is not prima facie evidence. If Obama’s genuine COLB was presented it would have note of the amendment, which would show the entire world that the best Obama has to offer is not considered legally-sufficient for a normal birth certificate according to Hawaii law.

That’s why it’s so vital that the GENUINE document be shown and not some internet image - especially when you’ve got crooks in the HDOH.

Who is responsible to give Obama his federal paycheck, either as Senator or as (allegedly) president? Who in the federal government is supposed to check his 3 forms of documentation?

My son filled out a form so he could detassel. He’s required to have 3 forms of identification fitting very specific requirements. None of them are allowed to be a computer jpg file. Obama couldn’t slop hogs without doing the same. So who checked his legally-required documents?


52 posted on 06/17/2010 12:54:45 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

No, if they are forbidden to disclose whether or not permission has been given they would have to say simply that they cannot disclose information because HRS 338-18a forbids it.

But Fukino already HAD disclosed information. If she was authorized to disclose that information (the claim of a Hawaii birth) then there was no exemption to disclosure which still applied. The information had already been PUBLISHED in an official press release. According to OIP rulings, that means that the record containing that information is no longer confidential.


53 posted on 06/17/2010 12:58:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: edge919
“The Constituton doesn't require anyone to sign an affadavit that they are Constitutionally eligible, yet this happens in most states (if not all). What would be the difference in requiring someone to show legal identification??”

You're missing the point. There are three requirements to be President in the Constitution: NBC, 35 years old, and 14 years residence. That's it. An individual state can't decide it thinks the age should be 40, or that 20 years residence is appropriate, or that Presidents shouldn't weigh more than 210 pounds. States can set up administrative processes to verify those three requirements, but they can't change or add to them.

“In the Obama example, there is no proof that the state of Hawaii issued his alleged COLB. The state has refused to affirm its authenticity, so there shouldn't be a problem in asking for additional documentation/verification when an alleged document is insufficient ... or if it's clearly fraudulent.”

You can ask for the state or origin to issue it. But if the state of Hawaii responds by mailing you a new printout of the COLB as the only documentation the state issues anymore, you're stuck with it. That would be legal proof of birth in Hawaii, and Texas, Arizona, Illinois, or Maine doesn't get to dispute Hawaii's records.

“You can stick that in your state law if you want, but it will be challenged.

By whom?? If you can read Supreme Court decisions, there's not much to challenge the definition with.”

The very first person you attempt to exclude from the ballot using a definition of NBC that is not provided in the Constitution (and none is) will challenge it in court. And again, I would wager I've read a lot more Supreme Court decisions than you have, and you're sense of definitiveness about the definition of NBC is incorrect. Leo Donofrio and Phillip Berg quote selectively and are not definitive sources on the issue.

Step back from what you personally presume to be a self-evident truth and ask yourself why no member of Congress, no elections official, no judge, not even Dick Cheney presiding over the Electoral Vote certification, challenged Obama’s qualifications even though it was a matter of public record that his father was not an American citizen? It's not because they're all sellouts or corrupt or part of some giant conspiracy. It's because there is a well understood historical and legal bases for why Obama still qualifies as a NBC. It is always a hypothetical possibility that a court would overturn that, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

54 posted on 06/17/2010 12:58:39 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Natural Born 54

That’s an image that fits me to a T. lol. Sort of fits the thread about conservative women being mothers who know what ass to kick. lol.

And yes, I love Granny on “Beverly Hillbillies”. lol.


55 posted on 06/17/2010 1:01:03 PM PDT by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

Well said, that’s why Electing a bunch of Republicans ain’t gonna change squat ... We don’t even need conservatives, we’re beyond that, we need a “contitution restoration” party or the country is lost forever.


56 posted on 06/17/2010 1:01:13 PM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

What should be the punishment for defrauding a Presidential election?

12 hours in bed with Helen Thomas?


57 posted on 06/17/2010 1:05:10 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

‘The law failed in Arizona because the left successfully tied it directly to Obama.’

“It’s only common sense to have candidates prove who they are. We have to do that for most things. Except running for office apparently. Ordinary citizens need proof of identity (to get a phone, turn on electric, pay by check) but politicians get a pass. Makes no sense.”

Exactly, and this is how we need to frame the issue. At the very least the SCOTUS needs to clarify NBC in Article II, Section 1.

As to the left - yeah, incredibly some still float on bammy worship - they are insane.


58 posted on 06/17/2010 1:11:02 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country - 11/2010, 11/2012 - Tea Party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

No, if they are forbidden to disclose whether or not permission has been given they would have to say simply that they cannot disclose information because HRS 338-18a forbids it.

But Fukino already HAD disclosed information. If she was authorized to disclose that information (the claim of a Hawaii birth) then there was no exemption to disclosure which still applied. The information had already been PUBLISHED in an official press release. According to OIP rulings, that means that the record containing that information is no longer confidential.


But neither you nor I are likely to know if there is a Consent to Release Confidential Information form on file and what information was permitted to be disclosed.

If there is not a Consent to release confidential information form on file, then either Barack Hussein Obama OR the Attorney General of Hawaii could file suit against Dr. Fukino for an unauthorized disclosure but since the Attorney General’s office has been advising Dr. Fukino on the legal issues regarding Obama’s birth, that seems highly unlikely and I don’t see Obama suing Dr. Fukino either.
In any event, there is no federal or state law anywhere that mandates that SOME disclosure automatically equals complete disclosure. That law doesn’t exist.


59 posted on 06/17/2010 1:20:11 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative
You're missing the point. There are three requirements to be President in the Constitution: NBC, 35 years old, and 14 years residence. That's it. An individual state can't decide it thinks the age should be 40, or that 20 years residence is appropriate, or that Presidents shouldn't weigh more than 210 pounds. States can set up administrative processes to verify those three requirements, but they can't change or add to them.

What makes you think any state is trying to change or add to the Constitutional requirements??

You can ask for the state or origin to issue it. But if the state of Hawaii responds by mailing you a new printout of the COLB as the only documentation the state issues anymore, you're stuck with it. That would be legal proof of birth in Hawaii, and Texas, Arizona, Illinois, or Maine doesn't get to dispute Hawaii's records.

To date, Hawaii has not mailed anyone a printout of Obama's birth records ... and they still haven't confirmed that Obama's alleged COLB is genuine.

The very first person you attempt to exclude from the ballot using a definition of NBC that is not provided in the Constitution (and none is) will challenge it in court.

The Supreme Court provided a definition. Not seeing how anyone would have much of a basis to challenge that definition without creating something even more suspect. Therefore, there really shouldn't be much of a concern on this point.

And again, I would wager I've read a lot more Supreme Court decisions than you have, ...

That's lazy and arrogant ... and pointless. The definitinon is pretty clear. Huffing and puffing about your resume for reading Supreme Court decisions does nothing to rebut that definition.

60 posted on 06/17/2010 1:24:35 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson