Posted on 05/05/2010 10:41:27 PM PDT by STARWISE
I have looked at your blog and some of your links, and there are enough missing pieces that I can see why a journalist would pass. Specifically, the posted OIP reply does not seem to confirm that 0bama’s birth certificate was amended. Am I missing posted documents that would confirm this?
Do you understand the part about a Glomarized response being necessary if a denial is to be given without confirming the existence of what is being denied? If a denial is not Glomarized (”the records, IF ANY, are denied...”) then the denial of access is an admission that the record exists. This is basic FOIA terminology.
And did you read the OIP Manual which describes the process - and how the first step is always to see if the record even exists. If it doesn’t exist, that is the answer to the request. No more processing is necessary at that point - none of the steps and reasoning that would be required for a record which actually exists.
This is why I say that you can’t take a short glance at the subject, look for a slam-dunk quote that “Obama’s birth certificate has been amended and the Factcheck COLB is a forgery”, and call it good. You have to know what the terminology means - which is defined by the laws and rules.
When OIP Attorney Joesting stated in her letter that the HDOH had correctly denied access to the requested records, that means that Joesting knew those records exist. If they did not exist, the proper response would be that they did not exist - as Joesting said, herself, to Terri K TWICE, as several OIP Opinion Letters I posted said (including one by OIP Director Cathy Takase), and as the OIP rules themselves say.
To somebody just breezing in those words may not seem like much, but if you know the rules and terminology, this is a big deal. This is a Bill Clinton type of a “depends on what the meaning of is is” situation. Parsing words is what these people do. When they say that records were denied that means something TOTALLY DIFFERENT than “We can’t tell you if the records even exist.” A denial of access to records is a statutory admission that those records exist. I think I have at least a dozen legal-quality references in the blog which all say that.
And even if that conclusion seems too shadowy, there is also the black-and-white, right in front of our eyes situation of the certificate number and “date filed”. Do you understand that?
It’s been pointed out numerous times that Buchanan, Wilson and Hoover were all Natural Born Citizens because both of their parents were citizens of the U.S. at the time of the (future) President’s birth. Therefore, they are all Natural Born Citizens. Chester Arthur is the only one who successfully usurped his time in office because he successfully hid from the public the fact that his father was a British subject when CA was born. CA lied his way through and then in a final act, had his papers burned upon his death to cover up his lies. The public at large wasn’t aware he was not eligible because of his fathers foreign citizenship until 2008. Of course, you know all that already, but insist on playing your game of trying to protect Barry.
I understand the point you are trying to make with the certificate date, but I don’t see it as a clincher that HDOH is saying the COLB is forged. As I said, too many missing pieces. You may be right, you may not be, but it won’t convince a journalist to take a risk.
The Wong Kim Ark case clearly stated that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, and naturally when that child is a citizen she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
That is the overwhelming consensus of constitutional scholars and legal experts, and that is why Obama was confirmed unanimously by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States.
Obama falls under the first of the following two categories for Natural Born Citizen, the original category and the one that is unquestioned:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
There have been numerous federal cases that find that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. For example:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
So what would be convincing to them?
I mean, a computer image which others have shown can easily be trumped up is enough for them to believe Obama. What standard of proof would be necessary for them to disbelieve Obama?
What are they waiting for? What are you waiting for?
You need to dig a little deeper than Wong Kim Ark for the quotes you cited. The principle of aliens being natural born subjects under common law was based on Scotland and England being united under King James in the early 1600s. Those children born of aliens prior to his naturalization act were still considered aliens, except these aliens were Scottish and not random visitors or immigrants. The aliens were also required to give an oath of allegiance to the King. We don’t have that in the United States. The closest thing is naturalization, so the principle doesn’t operate on random birth to random foreigners.
Second, whether Vattel was translated using the term natural born citizen before or after the Constitution is irrelevant as Wong Kim Ark still cited that definition of natural born citizen nearly word for word. “...all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Third, the Constitution cites two different classes of citizens. Citizens of the United States and Natural Born Citizen. Wong was declared to be the former in both the opinion of the court and in the dissenting opinion. Two Wongs don’t make Obama right.
“Then showing the birth certificate won’t be a problem?”
I though that if a Government oficial makes a public statement naming a document as the source or foundation of the public statement, that the document can then be requested to be viewed since it is the backup of the Government official’s public statement.
“So what?”
Natural born citizen is not found in Vattel, only in a poor translation. The French refers to the natives, or indigenous people, not “natural born citizen”.
So someone reading Vattel in the French, or using one of the English translation available at the time the Constitution was written would NOT use Vattel as a source for NBC.
“The child of the citizen is “natural born” while the child of the alien is “just a much a citizen”.”
Actually, under normal English, “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle” says that as regards citizenship, there is no difference between the child of an alien born in the US, and the “natural born child” of citizens. Thus the citizenship of a natural born child of citizens and the child of an alien is of equal merit.
It doesn’t distinguish between them, for one “is as much a citizen...by operation of the same principle”.
An apple is as much a piece of fruit as an orange, but an apple is not an orange. By that principle, Obama is a fruit.
in a previous thread of 2 or 3 days again Gov Lingel was quoted saying the bamsters “long form birth cert was burned up in fire” and that’s why he only has the short form
burned up in a fire? omg i’m roflmao if you believe that you can bet that somebody,someone or some group of lawyers put this in her mouth to say on penalty of an unknown personal future o for the gov.
That’s a rule that only counts if the officials are forced to obey the rules - something that doesn’t happen in Hawaii, unfortunately.
My perspective (not a journalist) is not to claim what can’t be well supported. If you say “The Hawaii DOH has confirmed the COLB is a forgery” then you better have good backup for that statement. Otherwise the claim looks very questionable and people stop listening to what else you might have to say that’s better supported.
The sitting circuit Judge Cudahy, appointed by Jimmy Carter, let an unsubstantiated and irrelevant statement into the opinion in this deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien. This was purely of emotion appeal and total fluff. BTW, Diaz as I recall, was still deported.
1 The quotes I cited were in line with WKA’s argument that if NBS and NBC are equivalent, and a NBS includes those born of alien parents, then WKA is qualifies as a NBS under the existing common law and thus a NBC in American usage, and thus is a citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
I agree they are not strictly analogous, because even in the late 1890s, people didn’t make the difficult and hazardous travel to the USA just for fun. A few did, but births from such pleasure trips were almost unheard of, so the normal alien giving birth was someone here long term for legitimate purpose.
I oppose anchor babies, and think WKA is misapplied when used to show two aliens here for any reason, including a mother only who traveled across the border just to give birth is therefor giving birth to a citizen. I think “jurisdiction” should include things like paying taxes and being subject to the draft, and if someone is exempt from those (as was Barack Obama Sr), then citizenship might not apply. The exception would be as found in another case (whose name escapes me) where a mother who raised her child as white or Indian would be considered to have given him citizenship in the country or tribe per her choice.
I also think Perkins v Elg was improperly decided...but those are the precedents that courts will look at in determining a birther case.
Barry Obama is a difficult case. The father was here long term (years), legitimately, but never intending to make the US his home. The mother was a US citizen, and she doesn’t seem to have given up her US citizenship. The father abandoned Barry at a very early age and was not legally married to his mother.
So that makes a mess. However, I remain convinced that if the US Supreme Court had ANY willingness to rule Barry was NOT a NBC, they would have done so PRIOR to his taking office.
My point on birther threads is that the courts are NOT going to do anything about Barry, so he needs to be beaten at the ballot box by conservative candidates. Money and time spent on birther legal cases are being tossed into the sewer.
“Second, whether Vattel was translated using the term natural born citizen before or after the Constitution is irrelevant as Wong Kim Ark still cited that definition of natural born citizen nearly word for word. “...all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
That is a quote from an earlier decision, and WKA is going beyond it. That earlier ruling, in the sentences that immediately follow the quote you cite, goes on in WKA’s citation:
“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
WKA then goes on to say, “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
The exceptions he cites are the exceptions noted in common law for NB subjects, so he is still using the one to define the other. The court is using NBC and citizen by birth as interchangeable at this point.
And in the dissent, WKA specifically pointed out that it made WKA eligible to run for President. Wile that interpretation of WKA is not legally binding, it does show how other justices on the court interpreted the ruling, and has had impact for the over 100 years that have followed.
What better data could I have? Give me some examples.
Keep in mind that Al Capone was only ever actually caught on tax evasion. There was no smoking gun. It was a bunch of numbers - any of which could have been fudged.
If the data I have showed up on CSI, Obama would already be sitting in jail. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
So, short of the smoking gun e-mail from Okubo saying, “OMG! We were wrong all along and Obama is a lying piece of guano!”..... what piece of evidence would fill in the holes you say exist?
I’ve shown what the terminology means, through over a dozen legal statements. I’ve shown that the terminology was used multiple times and that when requested to correct any misunderstandings, the OIP punted.
I’ve shown that the only explanations ever given for the discrepancies in the numbers have been ruled out by Okubo’s own statement. I have heard nobody give an explanation for how those numbers got screwed up by 3 days, when Okubo says they were processed on the same day they were received.
I don’t understand what holes you’re talking about. What claim have I made that I have not supported by statements from the officials themselves or by the legal documents? If the official documents can’t be believed, over and above an internet image that can easily be faked, then exactly what CAN be believed that would refute the internet image? That’s my question to you.
No
they are not equivalent. Justice Gray would have called WKA a natural born citizen in his opinion if he was one, and he only referred to him as native born.
Native born is not the same as a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court have not mixed and matched the two phrases -- not ever. When the Supreme Court described a subject in one of their opinions as native born who was also a natural born they gave a good background so not to confuse the reader. The Supreme Court in their lexicon and usage do not mix up the two terms willy-nilly.
All natural born citizens are native born, but NOT ALL native born citizens are natural born citizens.
NBS and NBC aren't equivalent. Regardless, the aliens, under common law, had to declare an oath of allegiance to the crown. This gets overlooked.
“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Minor resolves the doubt by talking about early naturalization acts in the United States that didn't declare the children of aliens to be citizens until the father naturalized. There was no assumption of being a citizen at birth for children of aliens. Even in the colonies prior to the Constitution, it was recognized that you could born here of a denizen and be a denizen, not a natural born subject. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1866 shows that clearly, prior to the 14th amendment, being born here of an alien would not make one a citizen at birth. " ... all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
And in the dissent, WKA specifically pointed out that it made WKA eligible to run for President.
No he doesn't. It says, "Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States ..." This allows that the WKA decision would have only made WKA eligible for Congress
From a thread I posted a while back:
The court in Perkins v Elg approvingly cites the AG:
""Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..."
Notice they mix 'native citizen' with the right to run for President, which you say is the different meaning NBC.
They also rule:
"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
Again, they mix without distinction native born with natural born.
In fact, they had no need to use NBC at all in Elg, but they did...in a mix with native citizenship. She wasn't asking to run for President, but just to be a US citizen. Nor does the court distinguish, such as saying, "Not only is she native born, but she is natural born" - the sort of wording one would expect if they considered there to be a difference between the two.
The one I read about on your blog (I didn’t read everything) was that the HDOH confirmed the COLB was a forgery. I just didn’t see that confirmed. Maybe you need someone more conversant with that sort of administrative department than I am.
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.