Posted on 08/08/2010 2:39:21 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
RSA 655:47, I Presidential Nominations; Declaration of Candidacy. The names of any persons to be voted upon as candidates for president at the presidential primary shall be printed on the ballots upon the filing of declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state in the following form and signed by the candidate:
“I, ____, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
I further declare that I am domiciled in _____, in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, that I am a registered member of the _____ party; that I am a candidate for the nomination for the office of president to be made at the primary election to be held on the ____ day of _____; and I hereby request that my name be printed on the official primary ballot of said _____ party as a candidate for such nomination.
No corroborating documentation required, so it is a pretty weak test, but it is a start.
I'm snerking and laughing.
The Founders were highly educated men. I'm astonished at some of the things the Bam trolls try to spin with.
Ms Rogers likes being the Dimbulb.
I request an additional response after you’ve read down some...like after reply 61.
I have a good state rep in my district, so I'm going to drop him a line and suggest he introduces such legislation next session. I hope everyone hammers their reps and senators to do this.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Post 52 is meaningless. The translation of the French does NOT support NBC, nor was it translated thus until AFTER the Constitution was written.
There were 2 possible sources - Vattel and English common law. The courts have very consistently used English common law, since the analogous phrase ‘natural born subject’ was well know to all the Framers and had a clear definition.
You don’t like that, but you cannot win in court on wishes. And the Supreme Court will not try to throw out a popularly elected President by overturning 150 years of consistent legal interpretation and applying instead a phrase from a book not found until AFTER the Constitution. Your like or dislike is irrelevant. You lost that argument many years before you were born.
You are welcome not to respond, but I will feel free to contradict you in posts. For those whose minds are not closed, I suggest reading the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
A sample:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law...
...The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
You're saying that because it leads to a very different conclusion than you want, doesn’t it?
I don’t debate Obama supporters/defenders.
It would not matter, because Obama was never on the ballot.
In presidential elections, the individual voters do not vote for the president. They vote for electors, who happen to pledge that they will cast their votes for a particular candidate. The original purpose of the "electoral college" system was that the people would not be expected to know who would make a good President. Instead, they were supposed to vote for people of good judgment (electors), who in turn would assemble and hash out who they thought would be a good recipient of their state's electoral votes.
there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.
...nor was it translated thus until AFTER the Constitution was written.
That's why you go to the original.
It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
--- Thomas Jefferson
Here's the thing: I'm not a "birther" and I don't really follow the birth certificate issue but it seems to me that here we have a State Government that has decided to ignore a part of the population that elected it to govern by simply passing a law making it legal for the State Government to do so.
The Federal Government does much the same thing with Bailouts, TARP, seizing GM and Chrysler, "Banking Reform" etc..
Just pass a law, it's all legal --- we (the Government) can ignore the American people.
Again, not a "birther" but I certainly do pay attention to the "unique" ways in which OUR GOVERNMENT at ALL LEVELS is completely ignoring the American People, and THEY, the Govenrment is pushing this country to the BOILING POINT.
I fear for my country when it gets so bad that we've passed the BOILING POINT.
No need to wiggle.
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
“The Natural or indigenous do those who are born in the country of Parens Citizens.”
http://translation.babylon.com/french/to-english/
It is simply false to say “Les Naturels ou indigènes...” means “The natives, or natural-born citizens...”
Indigenous. Not ‘natural born citizen’. No one reading this thread needs to be a French scholar to see that. One DOES need to be blind to cling to Vattel as the source of the phrase NBC in the Constitution.
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity...Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 1829
LOL!!!
Did you know that ‘natural born citizen’ is English? Thus it is NOT found in the French, by definition. However, the French could have supported using that translation, except it does not. And I posted the French to support that fact.
Nor did the Founders use the original French in the Constitution, since they would have then required one to be a native, or indigenous person.
I’ve posted both the French and English. I’ve posted Supreme Court decisions stating common law is the source of the phrase.
And you?
Who is wiggling? The one citing the French & SCOTUS, or the one citing...nothing?
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.