Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

World Net Daily ^ | October 26, 2008 | Jerome Corsi

[grumpa]

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal, and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

[AmericanDave]

And silly me, I thought huffpost was liberal

Extremely....

[Polarik]

a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

Well, does anyone know some Hawaiian or federal judges?

[Brown Deer]

does anyone know some Hawaiian or federal judges?

I think that I read somewhere that the father of one the guys that Barry smoked dope with in high school was a judge in Hawaii.

[Aliska]

Your #501 "extremely"

Tnx for the confirmation, wasn't sure. I don't believe everything that comes out of that talk host's mouth, have to factcheck him even lol. I heard it today.

[Candor7]

Now we see the fruits of Obama's trip to Hawaii.

This should be good for a few more million lost votes for Obama.

[eyedigress]

The more he hides it, the more he loses. There is no reason to hide a legitimate birth certificate. He is living a lie.

[Nephi]

Interesting read on events surrounding the birth certificate:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd407.htm

[RebelTex]

“Who would certify her as the replacement? Does the Constitution say Congress does this, or does it just go to Biden?”

I may be wrong, but I think legislation was passed by Congress and signed into law that has the Electorial College make the determination, and if that fails, then it falls to either the House alone or both the House and the Senate. (I think, LOL.)

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thank you for all your work on these pings.

[Citizen Blade]

A thin reed, but even as a traveler the Dad was not fully subject to US jurisdiction.

Nonsense. Other than people who qualify for diplomatic status, anyone within the United States is subject to US jurisdiction.

Besides that word “jurisdiction” must be read so that the original meaning of “natural born” is not weakened, for there was no intent in that amendment to change any of the requirements for Presidency, beyond making sure that ex-slaves and those born in the US yet of african ancestry were full citizens.

With regards to the issue of natural born citizenship, the 14th Amendment simply made it clear that citizenship rights are applied equally to everyone within the US. The citizenship and/or residency status of Barrack Obama's father is not relevant to determining whether or not The One is a natural born citizen- he is a natural born citizen due to the fact that he was born in Hawaii and was not born to diplomats.

[bvw]

The citizenship and/or residency status of Barrack Obama's father is not relevant to determining whether or not The One is a natural born citizen- he is a natural born citizen due to the fact that he was born in Hawaii and was not born to diplomats.

The citizenship of Obama's Dad is relevant. To deny that shows that a lack of understanding of what the phrase "natural born" means in the Constitution, as the Founders -- specifically Washington and Jay meant it. The purpose of it was to prevent a confusion -- based on birth circumstance -- in national loyalties, to insure undivided loyalty -- at least on the basis of birth. Anyone born to parents from two different nations, has naturally divided loyalties just by circumstance of birth.

The meaning of the term in US Law, as applied to the qualification for Presidency hasn't yet been tested to any extent. Still, and study of the term's meaning in what historic material is available indicates that the citizenship of both parents comes into play, and in those historical understandings where one parent only is considered as the source of birth loyalty -- that parent is the father. So yes, the Dad's citizenship is important to determining whether a citizen is "natural born".

[Citizen Blade]

To deny that shows that a lack of understanding of what the phrase "natural born" means in the Constitution, as the Founders -- specifically Washington and Jay meant it. The purpose of it was to prevent a confusion -- based on birth circumstance -- in national loyalties, to insure undivided loyalty -- at least on the basis of birth. Anyone born to parents from two different nations, has naturally divided loyalties just by circumstance of birth.

You are looking at penumbras here. The Constitution does not talk about the status of the parents of a person running for President- it simply requires the person in question to be a natural born citizen. If the FF had wanted to prevent anyone who had a non-citizen parent from qualifying as natural-born, they could have quite simply have said so in the Constitution. But they didn't, because they did not believe in punishing someone for the actions or status of that person's parents (hence, for example, the ban on corruption of the blood).

The one time the Constitution talks about the status of a person's parent (Article III, Section 3), it makes it clear that the actions of one's parent cannot be used against a child. So, if anything, there is a strong implication that the FF were opposed to allowing a person's legal status to be impacted by their parents misdeeds or legal status.

[bvw]

Blackstone has an extensive discussion of the concept, I suggest you read up on it and on commentaries about it. And yes there is some balancing to be made between the Originalist meanings or the terms of art “corruption of the blood” and “natural born”, imo. Still, to read the term “natural born” as you do is not correct; to a sad oversimplification of the term’s meaning when the Constitution was written and ratified.

[Citizen Blade]

Interesting discussion. You’ve got me curious- I’ll take a look at Blackstone’s commentaries.

[bvw]

Blackstone's language is difficult for a reader today. You can also read the poster "Judah Benjamin" on Texas Darlin blog, who has written on the subject. Why did John Jay suggest that the Presidency required an extra special form of citizenship -- to be "natural born"? Clearly that was some background on the matter between he and George Washington, was it unrecorded conversations or just the common understanding of the term in those days?

Blackstone's concepts on the matter also are referenced to "The King", and kingship which is a concept the founders threw off completely in the charter -- foremost was Washington in that regard, for otherwise he would have been king. So some intellectual remapping of terms and concepts in Blackstone must occur in order to apply his ideas to America. It's not perfectly straightforward remapping either. Judgment calls all the way forward.

[freebird5850]

Thanks for the link, didn’t know there were EIGHT states who have filed lawsuits regarding this.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thanks for pings and links.