Posted on 04/09/2010 4:27:11 PM PDT by EveningStar
From your mouth to God’s ears
They haven't gotten that far. Cases have been thrown out on "standing" and "justicibility".
But the "defendant" doesn't have to fight producing it either, it's optional. But he has fought it, and thus my comment about his being reluctant to produce it.
At least you admit no court has ever looked at any evidence. They haven't thrown any out, as you imply, they just haven't gotten that far.
Because if it had, it would be public record. At least the fact of it being submitted would be. We'd know.
It is even more likely that a sworn deposition from the Director of the Hawaii State Health Department confirming Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been included with legal briefs submitted by the defense in those lawsuits. A sworn deposition is usually good enough for any Judge but since every Hawaii Certification of Live Birth says “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding,” I’m betting a copy of the document has also been included for judges and justices to review when they are deliberating whether to dismiss or reject a lawsuit.
Ditto.
More desperation.
The short form COLB is the only document that Obama will ever need to produce since it is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since 2001 and because it contains all the information required by the Constitution to establish natural born citizen status.
There you go assuming your conclusion again. A certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth, perhaps accompanied by a sworn statement as to authenticity, would still not indicate the citizenship status of his parents. Even the long form would not do that, although it would show that his father would have needed to be naturalized, since he was born in the British colony of Kenya. So even the long form would require a copy of BHO Sr's naturalization papers, which of course don't exist since he was never naturalized, only being in the US as a temporary resident student.
She, Chiyome Fukino, is not a lawyer, nor did she offer any support of her ‘finding’ on a subject of the most weighty and unsettled Constitutional law. Subsequent requests to Hawaiian officials for clarification and support of that bold statement of fact that were made by various requestors under a number of public access statutes have been stonewalled.
Even the most minimal sense of duty, politeness and respect for the opinions of those whom she serves — would bid her to explain how it was she was able to state so boldly such a thing.
Without such, and with the abject stonewalling, it is entirely clear to all unbiased observers that Fukino and Hawaiian officials are covering up something that is not right, not in order.
The statutes of the state of Hawaii spell out explicitly what her duties are along with those of the Registrar of Vital Statistics whose name appears on all Hawaii Certifications of Live Birth, including Obama’s.
Dr. Fukino has stated her legal rationales very explicitly and posted them to the Department of Health’s web site for all to read and understand:
http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/obama.html
Judges and justices tend to pay attention to the constitutional officers of a state government.
You are free to believe whatever you want about coverups and conspiracies but Obama’s original birth documents can be subpoenaed at any time without Obama’s permission and NO ONE has sought such a subpoena in the two plus years that this issue has been in the public.
There is an established protocol for addressing the man who occupies the office of POTUS. The addressing of the letter followed that protocol. Even those who do not believe Obama is Constitutionally eligible still address him as “Mr. President.” It’s just proper etiquette.
There you go assuming your conclusion again. A certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth, perhaps accompanied by a sworn statement as to authenticity, would still not indicate the citizenship status of his parents. Even the long form would not do that, although it would show that his father would have needed to be naturalized, since he was born in the British colony of Kenya. So even the long form would require a copy of BHO Sr’s naturalization papers, which of course don’t exist since he was never naturalized, only being in the US as a temporary resident student.
The people who would be most likely to be granted legal standing to sue Obama because they can show DIRECT harm are John McCain and/or the Republican National Committee. They have not sued nor have they entered an amicus brief in support of any Obama eligibility lawsuit. In fact, no nationally known conservative or Republican has joined any of the seventy-plus eligibility lawsuits that have been filed.
There is an established protocol for addressing the man who occupies the office of POTUS. The addressing of the letter followed that protocol. Even those who do not believe Obama is Constitutionally eligible still address him as “Mr. President.” It’s just proper etiquette.
I wouldn't say never.
You can call me any name you want, I gave up caring about that kind of childishness in 4th grade!
You act as an Obama apparatchik means you most likely are one.
“Sticks and stones, just sticks and stones...”
Speaking of 4th grade childishness. A 4th grade rhyme. I suspect there is a zot in future.
As the blogger at the link you yourself gave says:
Hawaii must release whatever they used to arrive at the determination that Obama is a "natural-born American citizen", and that may include correspondence between various parties. Of course, that doesn't mean they'll release anything or that the analysis is correct or that they won't try to claim exceptions under the 92F-13 section at the last page. The link above claims that he's making requests and others are doing the same; it would be very interesting to see what results.That was written seven months and one week ago. Where is Hawaii's response to the requests that they received for the analysis used to make such a strikingly bold claim!
Obama's father of best-record-to-date, his father that he claims and all his biographers claim is one Barack Obama, a citizen of Kenyan and never a US citizen. That fact of paternity ALONE, by many informed legal opinions, means that the man now in the White House -- whether he be truly named after that Kenyan or by whatever name he is using -- is ineligible to hols the office as he is not a 'natural born' citizen.
What settled US Court opinion does Hawaii -- Fukino and her legal advisor Bennett -- apply in this case?
It is a simple and natural question, and the fact that it is not answered is a straightforward indicator of a cover-up.
You wholly misrepresent the ruling in Ankeny.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/legal-cases/ankeny-v-governor-of-indiana/
There was NO trial, no presentation of evidence under subpoena and cross of witnesses. The case was dismissed. The ‘appeal’ only affirmed the dismissal.
If Adm Mullen refused an order holding up a verifiable birth certificate showing Obama was born in Timbuktu, YOU would still be claiming he holds the office legitimately, so let’s not have you playing silly games about how a letter was addressed.
LOL
Thank you for the *ithc smack pings! They make my day!
You cannot support this asinine premise.
Either that or the idjit has multiple personality disorder.
And what about my post #524? Would you be among the soldiers firing on the Militia attempting to enforce a Supreme Court order?
Even Nixon didn't claim that the Supreme Court order was unConstitutional.
As I said you have no idea what you are talking about.
with all the Political correctness you need a scorecard to know what’s going on...Its “Clean up on Aisle 5” if you dare notice some terrorist is Muslim!
Let’s see the good admiral do it and then I’ll be happy to report back on my reaction to that revelation.
Until then I’ll continue to go with the official position of the state of Hawaii and with the adjudication of the only two courts in the nation to actually rule on Obama’s eligibility under Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution and you can continue to wait for the tooth fairy to deliver a Kenyan birth certificate under your pillow.
Let's assume that's true for a moment:
1) Are you under the impression that during the past two centuries, Presidential candidates have ever had to show that they did not have any foreign citizenships at birth, or having to swear that they were not born with any dual citizenships? Because I'm unaware of any such test or requirement having ever been applied by election officials.
2) If having a foreign country grant an automatic citizenship at birth is an absolute disqualification, going forward, how do you propose that future Presidential candidates should demonstrate that no foreign country granted them any such automatic citizenship at birth?
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.