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."
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.
But once the information has been published the confidentiality exemption to disclosure no longer applies to a document with that information. If a consent expires in 24 hours it still wouldn’t change that fact. And an announcement by Fukio is the stupidest way to release the information because any public announcement she makes she has to be prepared to substantiate, if anybody asks to see the documents on which the statement was based.
Of course, if the crooks run the whole show you don’t have to worry about any of the laws because nobody can make you obey them anyway.
So really this is all academic. Laws, like locks, are for honest people.
And:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
In Lt Col Lakin’s trial would be a good place for her to do that.
But again, when the crooks run the place, the laws are merely academic.
Oh - here we go again - Dicta, Schmicta, you rely too heavily on Ark ...
Dicta: Statements, comments, or opinions. An abbreviated version of obiter dictum, "remarks by the way," which are collateral opinions stated by a judge in the decision of a case concerning legal matters that do not directly involve the facts or affect the outcome of the case, such as legal principles that are introduced by way of illustration, argument, analogy, or suggestion.
Dicta have NO binding authority and, therefore, cannot be cited as precedent in subsequent lawsuits.
Now, before I rip you a new one on Ark, let me pose a question to you. From Justice Gray's dicta in Ark, it is clear that HE considered Ark to be a natural-born citizen - so why did he NOT DECLARE SO in the declaratory paragraph of the decision? He CLEARLY states that the case was decided SOLELY on the question posed at the beginning of the decision. And that was whether a child born to Chinese Nationals legally within the United States was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. There is only one answer - he WOULD NOT have gotten the affirmative votes had he declared so. The dicta notwithstanding, the other Justices did not care what Justice Gray wrote - since they knew that it COULD NOT be used as precedent. The declaratory paragraph is what was important - and it DID NOT declare Ark to be natural-born.
Now, on to Ark's dicta:
Justice Gray relied heavily on Calvin's Case - and there are no trial records, as it was the custom NOT to record the proceedings. So, all we have to rely are the Coke Reports - which Lord Coke [the presiding Justice in Calvin's Case] wrote years later.
Now, it must be observed, that Lord Coke was beholden to James I since he was named a Justice [later Chief Justice] by the King. Essentially, the position was a political appointment and could be granted and rescinded at the King's will [which he did eventually]. And James I had a dog in the fight in Calvin's Case. An affirmative ruling would legitimize James I's uniting of the kingdoms [England and Scotland] - which it did.
In Calvin's Case [1608], Lord Coke stated that it had ALWAYS been the Law of Nature [Law from God] from the time of creation that children born within the realm to alien parents were natural-born subjects of the sovreign. Nothing could be further from the truth. If his assertion were true, then [for example] the Israelites' children born, when they were nomadic, would have been subjects of the sovreign's land through which they were travelling.
There was also no precedent in English Common Law for Lord Coke to hang his hat on. He ignored the fact that in 1571 Parliament debated the succession to the Crown:
"But let us seek if we can find out a reason to maintain this opinion, that every person born in England, of what nation soever the parents be, shall be free. For positive law written, that is contained in the book of the Exposition of the terms of the laws of England: (which of what authority it is, I know not.) But what saith that book? verily thus: “If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the king’s enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English.” But now such alien was the earl of Angus: for as the chronicle witnesseth, he came not into England with mind to tary and inhabit there. But after he had maried the Scottish queen, both without K. Henry his brother’s consent, and also of the councils of Scotland, there fel such variance between her and him, and the lords of Scotland, that she and her husband (like banished persons) fled and came into England, and wrote to the king for mercy and comfort. The king enclined to mercy, sent them apparel, vessels, and all things; willing them to live still in Northumberland, till they knew further of his pleasure."
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE "EXPOSITION OF THE TERMS OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND" [JOHN RASTELL] NEVER PROVIDED ANY CITATION OF COMMON LAW OR STATUTE TO SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION THAT ALL PERSONS BORN IN ENGLAND [REGARDLESS OF PARENTAGE] WERE ENGLISH. ADDITIONALLY, BY STATING "ENGLISH", HE MAY HAVE MEANT "DENIZEN" [WHICH WAS AN ENGLISH SUBJECT WITH MOST, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE RIGHTS OF A NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT - BUT WAS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED FROM HOLDING HIGH OFFICE]. DENIZEN LITERALLY MEANS "INHABITANT".
Continuing with the debate in Parliament:
"... Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be. Then of necessity it must be by custom, if it be law: which having no reason to maintain it, or if it be contrary to reason is no law, have it never so long continuance; but is, as evil, to be abolished, as the laws of the realm do plainly teach us. For they say, customs not grounded on reason, or contrary to reason, cannot prescribe."
"... And mark, I pray you, now into what absurdities ye shall fall, if this should be admitted for law, that every one born in England should be free in England, of whatsoever nation his parents were. I ask this question, If the child of an alien born in England should be free in England; and by reason his father is a Scot before also in Scotland, (as doubtless by the law he is, wheresoever he be born,) if wars should happen, (as it hath done many times between these two realms,) whose part shall he take? No man can serve two masters at one time, saith the right Lawmaker, and also common reason. If he follow the Scotch part, then he is a traitor to England. If he should with England, then he is a traitor to Scotland. If he will take part with neither, then is he a traitor to both. For every man by the laws of nature, (which is God’s law,) and by the law of every realm, is bound to declare himself a member of one commonwealth: that is, to bestow his life and goods in the defence thereof, when need requires. Therefore I ask, which part it is like that he will take, that is a mongrel of both nations?"
Additionally, John Cowell, in his 1607 English Law Dictionary [The Interpreter], provided declared:
"... if one born out of the King’s allegiance, come and dwell in England, his Children begotten here, are not Alien, but Denizens.”
In later law dictionaries [such as the Cyclopaedia by Ephraim Chambers in 1728] the Cowell definition is repeated word for word.
Coke did state in Calvin's Case that:
"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."
Dual allegiances were not unknown in England [although Blackstone said that they were impossible]. They dated from 1066 when William I [the Conqueror] became King. He was also the Duke of Normandy and owed allegiance to the King of France. Nobles who were of Norman descent owed allegiance to him also owned land in Normandy - they also owed an allegiance to the King of France. In subsequent generations, those of Norman descent [although they were born in England] also owed an allegiance to France. This continued until King John lost the lands in Normandy in 1205. After that, the nobles had to give up their lands in Normandy and could hold only one allegiance. But, the concept was not unknown.
That is why William I required ALL freemen to swear the Oath of Allegiance:
"We decree also that every freeman shall affirm by oath and compact that he will be loyal to king William both within and without England, that he will preserve with him his lands and honor with all fidelity and defend him against his enemies.
This was appropriate for those living Anglo-Saxon freemen in 1066, but if jus soli alone guaranteed allegiance, the oath WOULD NOT have been required for generations of freemen born thereafter. However, it was - all the way into the 19th century.
Now, further on in the Ark case, Justice Gray quotes Dicey - but he conveniently OMITS a crucial passage:
CHAPTER III. BRITISH NATIONALITY.
Rule 20.
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
"Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown.
Dicey further writes:
"The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown."
The reason that Dicey DID NOT specifically expound on dual citiznship was that it was a relatively new [and unusual] circumstance. However, he did note:
"More than one state may claim the allegiance of the same individual, and a man whom English Courts treat as a British subject may, by French Courts, be treated as a French citizen."
He DID NOT say whether that dual citizen would be natural-born.
What Justice Gray failed to grasp from Dicey was that a natural-born British subject had to be a British subject at his birth AND that he had to have a permanent allegiance to the Crown at the moment of his birth. Therefore, there was one situation that DID NOT fit this definition. And that was a child born in England to alien parents whose native country ALSO claimed the child as a citizen. Once the child returned to his parents' native country, he no longer had the permanent allegiance required of a British subject. So, if no permanent allegiance to the Crown, then NOT a British subject - and CANNOT be a natural-born British subject.
For if ALL children born in England [regardless of parentage] are natural-born British subjects, then should England and the parents' country go to war - the child would be expected to fight for England, while his father might have to fight for the other country. This is absurd.
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.
“At the request of his university, Adams is now declining any further comment on the matter.”
Guess Adams didn’t count on being labeled a white-supremacist criminal.
***
What a novel idea!
“all candidates for all offices should be required to prove their identity and eligibility before they can even run”
Texas GOP platform
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/12/2260481/texas-gop-platform-is-hard-line.html
The platform also caters to “birthers” by requiring a birth certificate for presidential candidates.
Certainly it did, but none of it leads to the conclusion made by Ankeny, which admitted that the WKA case declared no person to be a natural born citizen. They cherry-picked several passages (as you've needlessly quoted) that apply in specific circumstances, but not U.S. citizenship law. These passage were used by the court in WKA to justify that the plaintiff is a 'citizen of the United States', but not a natural born citizen. That citizenship was predicated upon establishing that the parents were subject to the jurisdicitno of the United States. To do this, they had to show that the parents had a permanent domicile and permanent residence in the U.S. and were not here as ambassadors.
If the United States had embraced English common law on natural born subjects, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment created at birth citizenship for those born on U.S. soil who weren't qualified to be natural born citizens. At best, Obama is a 14th amendment citizen (if he can prove he was born in Hawaii), but he is NOT a natural born citizen.
If there’s a Consent to Release Information or Confidential Information, such should be posted in the DOH administrative rules. butter, you would have already seen this. Examples of such consent forms on the DHHL site do not contain any field for specifying what types of information can be released nor an expiration date. The administrative rules for the Department of Human Services has a one-year expiration term. Again, it makes no sense for Obama to sign a such a release form with limited information and short expiration time when he’s already released what an allegedly REAL birth document. Why not simply authorize full disclosure?? As such, Fukino could have shown the public a real, certified birth record (if one actually exists). Anything short of this is an attempt to conceal information.
If there’s a Consent to Release Information or Confidential Information, such should be posted in the DOH administrative rules. butter, you would have already seen this. Examples of such consent forms on the DHHL site do not contain any field for specifying what types of information can be released nor an expiration date. The administrative rules for the Department of Human Services has a one-year expiration term. Again, it makes no sense for Obama to sign a such a release form with limited information and short expiration time when he’s already released what an allegedly REAL birth document. Why not simply authorize full disclosure?? As such, Fukino could have shown the public a real, certified birth record (if one actually exists). Anything short of this is an attempt to conceal information.
Answer: 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.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
Right. No one said it wasn't. What we don't know is if Obama's alleged COLB is real. Why don't you faithers understand this?? It's not that hard. The state of Hawaii REFUSES to say Obama's COLB is real.
Posted: June 07, 2009
4:10 pm Eastern
The investigation follows a Honolulu Star Bulletin column Saturday, which quotes a state Department of Health spokeswoman as saying the state's current certification of live birth is recognized "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements."
The website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, however, states clearly the certification of live birth touted by the Obama campaign, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and a host of other Obama defenders is not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program.
The Star Bulletin column goes on to report: "The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year's presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama's American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign website a fake."
However, Obama's "citizenship" was never the question raised during the campaign or after the election. The issue raised by WND has consistently been that Obama failed to prove he was actually born in Hawaii and thus constitutionally qualified to become president as a "natural born citizen" – which requires that the birth took place in the United States.
The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the "long-form certificate" filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green," the qualifications state. "This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
According to Hawaii's Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, the state only issues "certifications" of live births since 2001 when the health department went paperless. It is only available in electronic form, she said.
"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she is quoted as telling the Star Bulletin. "The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.
She did not explain how those needing a standard long-form birth certificate to qualify for programs such as those offered by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or to establish proof of eligibility to be president could be fulfilled. She said the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state's current certification of live birth "as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements." She did not, however, cite any specific rulings, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the issue of whether the certification of live birth would qualify a presidential candidate as eligible under the "natural born citizen" clause."
Obama has never applied to be considered an indigenous, native Hawaiian under the Hawaiian Homelands Department and under FEDERAL law, any birth document from a state that meets the official standards for issuing a US Passport is an official, certified birth record of that state.
The only proof of birth that Barack Hussein Obama II will ever need to use is a certified copy of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth.
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
Honestly, what planet do you folks come from? What color is the sky there?
How many court decisions have you ever looked at? They cite dicta from previous cases all the time. Why do you think the dicta even exists—for questions in Trivial Pursuit? It is there to provide background on the thought processes that informed the decision. It is expected to be read and noted when deemed relevant.
Outside of you weird, ALL CAPS, hyperventilating hysterics here, no one finds the structure or content of the Ankeney decision anything but typical. I understand that you don't like what it said and that you disagree with what it said. Fine. You are certainly free to construct a fantasy world inside your head where it is discredited and means nothing compared to the latest Internet opus by Leo Donofrio. But just don't expect anyone to take that seriously.
"Answer: 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.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said."
- - - - - - -
Okubo was not being truthful as Hawaii still issues the long form birth certificate. You can still get one if your specifically ask to receive one.
your = you
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.
Okubo was not being truthful as Hawaii still issues the long form birth certificate. You can still get one if your specifically ask to receive one.
There has been plenty of evidence that contradicts Okubo. As "our pal" ODH testified to here:
- - - - - - - - -
To: Mr. K
That's not true. If you were born in HI and want to get a copy of your birth certificate, the form known as a "Certification of Live Birth" is what you get by default. To save money, HI (and several other states) went to the computerized record-keeping system. And, the implementation of that system is what results in the computer generated form that we are all now too familiar.
A person can get a certified photo-copy of their original birth certificate, but it is more expensive and takes a longer period of time to obtain.
[the bold words are my emphasis]
One of our daughters was born in HI and she had misplaced her BC. She got a copy and it looks like the one that purports to be Obama's.
- - - - - - - - -
There has been plenty of evidence that contradicts Okubo. As “our pal” ODH testified to here:
I mean proof backed up by investigative journalism on WorldNetDaily, Post and Email, The American Spectator, The Washington Times, Newsmax, The Drudge Report, The Wall Street Journal, the Canada Free Press, or redstate.com, just to name a few.
I mean proof backed up by investigative journalism on WorldNetDaily, Post and Email, The American Spectator, The Washington Times, Newsmax, The Drudge Report, The Wall Street Journal, the Canada Free Press, or redstate.com, just to name a few.
Here you go clown. It is right from the source - the horse's mouth. It's more proof than you spout or get from Okubo when she is dealing with the media. You fill this form out and send it in to Hawaii, they'll send you a "certified copy of birth record".
don’t mean “proof” from an anonymous poster to an internet forum.
I mean proof backed up by investigative journalism on WorldNetDaily, Post and Email, The American Spectator, The Washington Times, Newsmax, The Drudge Report, The Wall Street Journal, the Canada Free Press, or redstate.com, just to name a few.
Here you go clown. It is right from the source - the horse’s mouth. It’s more proof than you spout or get from Okubo when she is dealing with the media. You fill this form out and send it in to Hawaii, they’ll send you a “certified copy of birth record”.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf
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?
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.