'Birthers' fade after passage of law against them

Associated Press ^ | August 7, 2010 | MARK NIESSE

[FTJM]

The persistent quest for President Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate has died down since the state passed a law allowing it to ignore repetitive requests for the document.

Far fewer "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president, have asked state officials to provide the document since the law was enacted in May, according to the state.

The law has never even been put to use, said Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The number of people seeking proof that Obama was born outside of Hawaii and the United States diminished without the law being invoked.

Only about two or three e-mails now seek verification of Obama's birth each week, compared to between 10 and 20 weekly requests earlier this year.

"We have a handful of repeat requesters, but they know about the law," Okubo said. "They do everything they can to get around it."

Such tactics include having a relative or friend make the document request, she said, or asking for the vital records of Obama's relatives in search of clues that would show he was born outside the U.S.

Hawaii law has long barred the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

[DJ MacWoW]

Probably because this proves that there is something to hide. There’s no reason to refuse a request for public info unless they have info best kept hidden.

[Soul of the South]

We do know his mother was an American citizen, regardless of his father’s status. He was also raised in the US during his first few years of life. One could make the argument he was an American citizen by birth given his alleged father’s disinterest and the fact during his childhood he was raised by American citizens (mother, father, grandmother). Had McCain been elected the issue would have been raised about him being born outside the US. As I recall there was some controversy about whether or not he was actually born inside the Canal Zone administered by the US or in Panama.

The key issue is whether or not he consciously passed himself as an Indonesian citizen after his 18th birthday. Did he apply to Occidental College as an American or Indonesian? Did he apply for scholarships or tuition aid as an Indonesian. Did he fail to register for the draft because he considered himself to be an Indonesian citizen during college and therefore not subject to Selective Service law. During his trips to Pakistan as a college student, did he travel as a US citizen or on an Indonesian passport? If after the age of 18 he presented himself as a non-US citizen, he should be ruled ineligible.

Rightly or wrongly the birth certificate issue is not resonating with a majority of the American people. In today’s permissive society I’m sure many people can imagine their daughter becoming pregnant by a foreign student in college and being abandoned by that student to raise the child alone in the United States. Those same people would argue that child is a US citizen and should be eligible to hold any public office. Even though some polls show over half of the American people believe Obama may not be “natural born”, the absence of a major outcry suggests most Americans feel he is legitimate because his mother was a US citizen and he was born in Hawaii. The difference between the birth certificate he produced and the COLB is not resonating.

I do believe people would take another look if there was hard evidence he passed himself off as a non-citizen after he reached the legal age of adulthood. I’m guessing he was really born in Hawaii and the COLB would demonstrate that. Fighting the demands to show the COLB serves several ends: 1) Puts the focus on a non-issue and keeps people from focusing on his use of an Indonesian passport later in life. Dragging the COLB issue out allows him to bring the COLB forward at the time of his own choosing. 2) Allows the mainstream media to paint the birthers and other conservatives as right wing fringe crazies instead of citizens concerned with the rule of law. 3) Allows left wing jurists to further disenfranchise the citizens of the country by ruling they have no standing to sue for enforcement of the law.

Clearly something is going on here we cannot see. Why haven’t any Republican state attorney generals demanded the evidence of eligibility? They certainly have standing with the courts.

This issue is similar to the questions about what caused the sudden run on the banks in mid September 2008. The elites know, but don’t trust the rest of us with the truth, whatever it is.

[Mr Rogers]

Yes, I know where YOU get it - a book where the phrase first appeared in print AFTER the Constitution was written.

Don’t you feel a bit stupid saying the Constitution is based on a phrase found in a book AFTER the Constitution?

And yes, the courts HAVE said the definition must be found elsewhere, so they have consistently used English common law and the accepted meaning of the equivalent phrase ‘natural born subject’ - but that leads to a very different conclusion than you want, doesn’t it?

[EQAndyBuzz]

If Republicans take congress they should make it a law and then let the Senate kill it.

That would be a nice campaign ad for two years.

[Mr Rogers]

“Why haven’t any Republican state attorney generals demanded the evidence of eligibility?”

Why didn’t the dog bark? Because it had no need to do so.

The state AGs would dig into it IF there was any dirt to dig.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yeah. There is that. But we have to get Conservatives elected, not just Republicans.

[NOBO2]

Oh yeah, birthers are dead, huh? And that is why all the polls show one out of every 4-5 Americans think he is not a natural born citizen-—yeah, they are really dying in droves.

[wku man]

Dang right! I hadn't even considered that angle, but that might get some people in other states to wake up and get their heads out of their "fourth point of contact".

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[LucyT]

“The persistent quest for President Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate has died down since the state passed a law allowing it to ignore repetitive requests for the document”

Silenced would be a better choice of word.

[philman_36]

...a book where the phrase first appeared in print AFTER the Constitution was written.
You're hanging your hat on when a book was translated into English as if none of the Founding Fathers read or spoke French?

[DJ MacWoW]

You're hanging your hat on when a book was translated into English as if none of the Founding Fathers read or spoke French?

Yup. That was the idiot talking point that was passed around. Isn't that hilarious? Mais oui! None spoke French. *snerk*

[philman_36]

...so they have consistently used English common law and the accepted meaning of the equivalent phrase ‘natural born subject’...
Got link?
How about this one...
Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen
"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".

[null and void]

“the Law of Nations,” was written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.

How is that after the Constitution?

[philman_36]

See above.

[Mr Rogers]

The French did NOT say ‘natural born citizen’. If it had, I’d grant you that point. However, it says ‘The natives or indigenous are those...’ You don’t even need to read French to see that it is NOT naturally translated ‘natural born citizen’.

[DJ MacWoW]

*BG* I don’t debate Bam trolls anymore. I used to but it got boring as it was the same talking points over and over. Then new info would be found. It took a day or two but they’d catch up and say the most ridiculous stuff. I quit responding to them. I now enjoy the threads because I just don’t care what they spew.

[Mr Rogers]

The English translations prior to 1797 (?) did not attempt to translate the French words later translated NBC. I don’t remember the French spelling, but it literally said the “natives, or indigenous” were those born in a country of citizen parents.

And that is true. Certainly indigenous does not imply someone even born of citizen parents, but someone born of a long line. The aborigines are the indigenous people of Australia, although the whites have been there for hundreds of years.

[DJ MacWoW]

I don't engage Obama supporters. I pinged you simply out of courtesy. If you would rather that I not ping you, I will comply with that.

And you'd better see post 52.

[Mr Rogers]

Indonesian citizenship as a child or even as a dual citizen as an adult would not impact Obama's eligibility if he was born in the USA. If he was not born in the USA, then he is clearly ineligible, period.

[null and void]

From a 5th grade text:

Benjamin Franklin did make it across the ocean safely [December 1776], and he received a warm welcome in France. Franklin was a popular visitor there. He had taken the time to learn the French language and French manners. He was also something of a celebrity there because of his famous lightning experiment.

Apparently someone didn't make it that far in school...