Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!

Earth Frisk ^ | Dec 2, 2008 | admin

[celtic gal]

Thunder and lightening...you might just be on to something!

[celtic gal]

Well now that you mention that triumvirate,, I suppose you are correct. Sigh.

[eyedigress]

2. Has the case been shown to be a valid case where they have been harmed by the illegality committed against them by the other parties illegal action.

As a jurist on SCOTUS would you say that a direct violaton of the Constitution would apply here?

[so_real]

Ann Coulter, hmmm ... if you a lurking out there, Ann, I would love to hear your take on this "natural born" situation -- not only because you know law, but also because you might have some insight as to why the media is so loath to touch on the issue.

[fightinJAG]

Awake-n-angry,

I’m afraid you are making the freshman mistake of equating *citizenship* with *eligiblity to serve as President.*

Yes, there is substantial precedent on when one is a citizen. There is much less specifically addressing the issue of what constitutes “natural born citizenship,” i.e., the circumstances in which one obtains the type of citizenship status that makes one eligible to serve as President.

Since “natural born” uses the word “born,” it would be easy to think it simply refers to *where* one was born. But it’s not clear that the law is that easy. It may be that a citizen can be “natural born” by descent (that is, receiving citizenship from his parents, regardless of birthplace), as *arguably* McCain did.

This is not necessarily an open-and-shut question. It depends on the facts, first, and those do not seem to be nailed down yet. There is still controversy, for example, over how Hawaii’s laws on recording births operated in 1961.

Bottom line: a passport, your example, may prove citizenship, but it doesn’t prove “natural born citizenship” status.

[pepperhead]

And that is your opinion.

[Sharrukin]

Conservative of repute? Interesting phrase. How do they establish that reputation? Might it have something to do with avoiding issues that are too controversial and the outcome too uncertain?

[El Gato]

CAN I TAKE OFF MY TINFOIL HAT NOW???????????????

Sure, but you might want to switch it out for steel or Kevlar. OTOH, wouldn't hurt to line the Kevlar with foil. While not as good a conductor as aluminum, steel serves the same shielding function.

[Freedom56v2]

“Has anyone heard of HIPPA-Health Insurers Privacy and Propogation Act. By law, hospitals are not allowed to give out personal info. They don’t care if you’re asking about a homeless man or the president elect.

I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn’t it be a violation of patient privacy laws to disclose this information?”

<<<<Maybe someone with first-hand knowledge can weigh in, but IMO, seems that they did provide a sufficient answer by saying he wasn’t a patient rather than a “cannot confirm” statement. Also, since you can call a hospital and ask for a patient and then be connected to their room, I am thinking that hospital can (if want to) say they have no record, just not comment on what patient is doing there...

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

LOL,Hope you’re well.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Very well could be,,,

You would think that anybody that was “born” in Hawaii

would know that it’s 50th!!!...;0)

[BIGLOOK]

Everyone is cued in to the date 8/4/61. That's the date of the alleged birth given to a doctor at a clinic for women and children by the mother and the grandmother during what would be a post natal and a 'well baby' examination.

At the time Kapiolani Hospital didn't exist but there was the Kapiolani Clinic for Women and Children. While possible but not probable, Obama or whatever name he was given could have been delivered there. I doubt it.

Now, think what a doctor would do when a teenaged mother with a kid in tow and her mother show up at the clinic for the exam and request a Certificate of Birth. Their story is the only thing the doctor has to go on. But in his remarks on the certificate, he may have indicated his best estimate of the age of the child......like a week old (or more) infant.

Like everything else in Obama's description of his life and education, the date of birth may have been fabricated.

[eyedigress]

Annie ping

[fightinJAG]

Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity

Many agencies and organizations request that individuals provide their birth certificates to receive a benefit or service, or to support the issuance of other documents often used for identity purposes (e.g., driver’s license). However, agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship, or identity. For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.

Thanks for the link!

Have you sent this gem to Donofrio? You should.

Also, IIHO, it's worthy of its own thread.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Doin’ great here,,,

Hope you and yours are too,,,

We’ll all be better when O’Bammy gets the Boot!...;0)

[fightinJAG]

The SCOTUS can only take cases when there is a case or controversy. I don’t think at anytime in history has a candidate about whom there was even the slightest controversy about his “natural born citizenship” status actually WON the election-—thereby, making it matter.

This is one of the reasons why the Supremes should jump on this issue now-—it needs to be more settled and the fact pattern might not come around again for a while. In the Donofrio case, he challenges the eligibility of Obama, McCain and that that dude who was actually born in Nicarauga. That’s all good.

[fightinJAG]

Heck, if you want affidavits from older relatives, shall we rely on his step-grandmother who says he was born in Kenya?

Zippidy-doo-dah . . .

[Lmo56]

The Court has to force this just to end it.”
Based on what legal requirement or action? The court only addresses actions brought before it by capable parties.

Capable meaning those who present they are capable as parties able to bring action as those in the proper standing to the case.

Maybe this is the loop hole that no one who has the right standing as another party to the case has not asked the right question.

Meaning I think having three points.
1. Acknowledged their standing as a valid party to the particular law regarding their case.

2. Has the case been shown to be a valid case where they have been harmed by the illegality committed against them by the other parties illegal action.

3. What is the action/remedy that is proscribed by law to address the harm to the other party.

***

True - SCOTUS has NO POWER defined in the Constitution to force this, but ever since Marbury v. Madison, where they ASSERTED the right to judicial review, THEY HAVE ASSUMED THE DE FACTO POWER TO DO SO IN THE PUBLIC’S EYE. Just look to United States v. Nixon, when SCOTUS ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes - he could have ignored them, but HE DID NOT ...

Now as far as standing:

Donofrio took his case through the NJ State Court system and was denied twice - which he fully expected.

His next recourse was to SCOTUS - and HE does have standing, based on SCOTUS rules. Appeals of cases from State Supreme Courts are AUTOMATICALLY appealable to SCOTUS.

Now as far as harm:

Donofrio cited in his brief Bush v. Gore, where SCOTUS affirmed that ANY infringement on the right to vote is a grievous thing. He also cited other harms ...

As for remedy:

If it is determined that a fraud was perpetrated upon the United States (an ineligible candidate or candidates), remove the prepetrator ...

[JSteff]

“Has anyone heard of HIPPA-Health Insurers Privacy and Propogation Act.”

Anyone who is a valid person or entity of interest can view anyone else health care records.
Government agencies with an inquiry of interest on about any person,
insurance companies and their employees or contractors,
hospitals- doctors -healthcare providers and their employees,
pharmacutical companies- providers- suppliers- and retailers (think Bush Prescription Drug Plan)
etc,
etc,
etc.

Like someone who works for on of the Blues told me it is more a right for any person or company presenting any properly formatted inquiry. Meaning about anyone with the right form, signed by the right person. NOT necessarily the person whose record is of question or interest.

Remember this started under by the Hillary health care plan but never got eliminated by the ending of her universal health care plan.

Of all the things Hillary care wanted, one report I saw said that 85+++% of it was enacted or approved.

[Jess Kitting]

I used to think that my son was natural born because he got the USA BC right away and the passport. Now I am realizing that he is not, and could never become President.

I think your son would qualify, provided that both you and your spouse were U.S. citizens at the time. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory at the time. However, his "natural born citizenship" came from the fact that both his parents were U.S. citizens.

In Obama's case, only his Mommie was a U.S. citizen, so she could not automatically confer natural born citizenship on her son.