Posted on 10/31/2008 4:44:35 PM PDT by justlurking
Discussing it in the Senate does not make it legal. Under the law he was not born a naturalized citizen, since he was not born on US property, or military base.
The Senate does not have the authority to change the Constitution, it can make new legislation that would address the issue, but they did not.
A sense of the Senate resolution does not negate the law.
Wrong. There is a provision in the Hawaii statutes which enables a Hawaii resident to register the out-of-state birth of a newborn with the Hawaii authorities. Obama's mother or maternal grandparents could have availed themselves of such an opportunity, in which case a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate could have been filed with the paperwork presented to the Hawaii state government. In this scenario, the Hawaii DOH would indeed have possession of the birth certificate, but he would not have been born in the US.
Thank you. I had not heard of that provision before. Is this so the record is easily available to the resident in question? I have never heard of that before and maybe it is unique to Hawaii. I know I could not get any kind of copy of my B/C from anywhere except NJ. Now if an out of State or Country B/C is on file with Hawaii I do believe it would not be a privacy violation if that FACT was disclosed. If they can say yes we have a B/C confirming Hawain birth they sure as heck can say we have a B/C confirming Tasmanian birth.
Just like Joe the Plumber.
However, most of these privacy statutes have an exception where a court may subpoena the document. In view of the several cases going on around the country concerning Obama's citizenship status, I take it that the Hawaii agency has received subpoena(s) from the plaintiff(s) in these cases and has refused to comply with them, under Lingle's orders.
The Senate has no authority to declare he is eligible. And I am voting for him. But I guarantee there will be a court challenge, after the fact, unless they would be afraid of Palin being the President.
There is already a court challenge and links to that filing are on this thread.
Well Obama was in Kenya campaigning for a Muslim that promised to introduce Sharia law, then hung around for the riots, after he lost. So I don't know how amenable they would be to providing any information.
Thanks, Justiceseeker93.
Ping to a comment that will help you explain to the neighbors about 0bamao’s birth certificate, and how it was registered in Hawaii even though he was born in Kenya, as stated by his Kenyan grandmother and other relatives living there at the time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2121270/posts?page=202#202
[New tagline.]
Please — there will be no lawsuits for McCain as he meets the requirement for citizenship.
When the COLB was first posted by KOS/B.O’s campaign site, the document number was darkened. I remember some saying that if we had that number, we could verify the information on the COLB to what was on file in Hawaii.
Factcheck has the COLB posted with the number.
>>>There is already a court challenge and links to that filing are on this thread.
I thought McCain’s challenge was dismissed?
I don’t know. I never tried to check the number. I assumed the bloggers that made that statement would have.
Here is the provision of Hawaii Law under which a person can obtain a birth certificate for their infant even if that infant was born outside of Hawaii (e.g., Kenya).
Hawaii Revised Statutes [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Thus, the existence of a birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is irrelevant to whether a child was BORN in Hawaii.
Great post, liberty2all. That’s exactly the statute to which I was referring. Now there’s one point that needs clarification: Was that statute (or a similar one) in effect in 1961? If so, the scenario I described - and the one that Philip Berg believes to be true - can very well have occurred. In that event, your concluding statement - “The existence of a birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is irrelevant to whether a child is BORN in Hawaii” - speaks volumes. And that renders the current Hawaii bureaucrat who made the statement quoted in the posted article irrelevant to this controversy as well, despite what the MSM thinks.
Please see posts #s 215 and 216!!!
TO ALL: Yes, citizens of the U.S. “believe” they have a vested interest in Hawaii releasing Obama’s birth Certificate. However, every state has very strict laws prohibiting the Departments of Health from releasing birth certificates to anyone other than the individual and other circumstances of immediate family or under court order. That is to protect every individual - your private information is given the same protection.
Obama’s birth certificate is on the web at factcheck.org - see http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008//born_in_the_usa.html. Fact check went to Obama’s hq, physically handled and photographed the birth certificate, and there are 9 separate photographs at the above link. If you want the truth, take the time to view these photographs, instead of spending so much time and energy to try to spread untruths.
If any of you call yourselves followers of Christ, then you are breaking the commandment that says “thou shalt not bear false witness.” I do not know how to embed any of these pictures here, but obviously someone does because there was a purported copy of McCain’s in this thread.
Here is a brief amount of text from the FactCheck.org link above:
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.”
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
That’s a good point. It looks like the statute was either adopted or amended in 1982. That could mean a slight word change or it could mean that Berg’s recitation of the law in effect is correct. Either situation is troubling for Obama.
The vital point is that a “certificaton” of live birth is NOT the same as a “certificate” of live birth. A certification is based on the information included in the underlying “certificate” but does not include ALL of the information included in the “certificate.”
If Obama’s mother registered his birth after coming home from Africa, all she would have had to provide to obtain a “certificate” under HRS § 338-17.8 is proof of her status as a resident of Hawaii. The statute does not require any evidence regarding WHERE the baby was born. Therefore, it is possible that a certificate for Obama was issued based on his mother’s attestation of “residence” - Oahu, Hawaii - and thus, a “certification” of live birth would list “Oahu, Hawaii” as the place of birth. The underlying certificate is the only document that would show if his mother requested the certificate pursuant to her status as resident of Hawaii or whether the certificate was issued pursuant to the usual process (hospital submission of birth record). That is why the certificate is vital to the determination of WHERE Obama was born.
The fact that the MSM has not properly reported on this story (as if they don’t have any lawyers on staff to properly research this issue) makes it seem like we are living in an Orwellian society.
Thank you, justiceseeker93.
Ping to posts #s 215 and 216.
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.