Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
It’s beyond sick and perverse.
I never said that military courts weren’t part of the federal judiciary. Where did you come up with that one?
A military court (e.g. court martial) is inappropriate because it addresses questions of military law under the UCMJ.
As it stands now, you can request a hearing in the state of Hawaii under their ballot laws to contest a presidential candidate’s inclusion on that ballot. We need Freepers to be ready to challenge on the basis of this law in case Stitch Lips decides to run for reelection.
Nothing wrong with that. it’s the most reasonable thing to try.
Two caveats though:
1. A state can’t ask for documentation in excess of what the originating state provides. That would run afoul of the full faith and credit clause.
2. Any state that tries to define what a natural born citizen is in excess of “born here” will be sued and could have its law overturned as adding additional qualifications to the Constitution. But at least then the matter would be officially documented.
1. No state has provided any documentation in regards to Stitch Lips.
2. The Supreme Court defined natural born citizen as “born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Under this standard, Stitchy would need to provide documentation of his U.S. birth and his parents’ birth/naturalization papers. Shouldn’t be a problem, no??
Yes, but he filed in federal court. An ordinary citizen had standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility by filing in a state court to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying Obama’s name on the ballot. There were no such lawsuits, which speaks to my original point that it isn’t the judiciary’s fault they weren’t presented with a proper case.
I can’t believe that cretin was spawned from the US Marine Corps.
You and I had an email exchange about this in the past. If anyone didn't follow all details of this, they might think it's cut and dried and they would get the wrong impression from your assertions.
The reality is that the Hawaiian HDOH rules are a mess (and certainly the HDOH bears the responsibility for that). You cited a 1955 document that has handwritten cross outs and handwritten notations.
A much later statute, HRS338-18(a) specifically contradicts the "you can have a noncertified copy" portion of the 1955 rules, by mandating what is protected. HRS338-18(a) forbids anyone "to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health."
So the legal question for the lawyers around would be whether the "as authorized by this part" supercedes the "by rules adopted" in the 1955 document. I would say that is nowhere as definitive as you make it sound that Hawaii DOH is obliged to release a noncertified copy.
For those slow on the uptake, I am referring to the documentation said state would produce upon request in 2012 if another state passed a law requiring that for the ballot.
“2. The Supreme Court defined natural born citizen as “born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” Under this standard, Stitchy would need to provide documentation of his U.S. birth and his parents’ birth/naturalization papers. Shouldn’t be a problem, no??”
Nope. Your confidence that the Supreme Court has defined NBC as that is yours alone and is not binding upon anyone. You are free to support writing a state law demanding that. But it will be litigated, and then an answer will be formally documented for all.
Great comments as usual, STARWISE. And this:
“It’s all a big joke, and ha ha to them.”
Just like so many on these threads. They’re clones of the two *** *****s in the article.
I made calls to my SOS and was told there was no way ANYBODY was going to be able to see documentation from Hawaii. The laws didn’t allow for that kind of documentation to be requested, he said. And besides, the media would never lie to us and neither would a politician. We just have to take them at their word.
Leo Donofrio sued to keep Obama’s name off the NJ ballot. Wasn’t there somebody in Washington or Oregon who also sued? Alan Keyes sued in CA.
State judiciaries are a sick, sick joke anyway. At least in Nebraska. The only vote they won’t overturn is a result achieved through corruption or illegalities. All Nebraska requires for placement on the ballot is the certifications of nomination from the national parties. No state lawsuit would ever go anywhere here. And I suspect the same thing is true all over, judging by the responses to the Ohio SOS corruption, Alan Keyes’ battle in CA, Donofrio, Wrotnowski, etc. Federal lawsuits are only necessary when the state won’t even bother to listen to you.
How are your pursuits there in TX going?
I made calls to my SOS and was told there was no way ANYBODY was going to be able to see documentation from Hawaii. The laws didn’t allow for that kind of documentation to be requested, he said. And besides, the media would never lie to us and neither would a politician. We just have to take them at their word.
Leo Donofrio sued to keep Obama’s name off the NJ ballot. Wasn’t there somebody in Washington or Oregon who also sued? Alan Keyes sued in CA.
State judiciaries are a sick, sick joke anyway. At least in Nebraska. The only vote they won’t overturn is a result achieved through corruption or illegalities. All Nebraska requires for placement on the ballot is the certifications of nomination from the national parties. No state lawsuit would ever go anywhere here. And I suspect the same thing is true all over, judging by the responses to the Ohio SOS corruption, Alan Keyes’ battle in CA, Donofrio, Wrotnowski, etc. Federal lawsuits are only necessary when the state won’t even bother to listen to you.
How are your pursuits there in TX going?
Alfred Itamura of the Ombudsman’s Office had no problem figuring it out, and he said the reason the HDOH wouldn’t be disciplined for their refusal to disclose the non-certified abbreviated BC is because it was “reasonable” for them to refuse it since the Administrative Rules use the word “may” rather than “shall”. But then the word used is “may” for BC’s for the registrant him/herself also and state statute requires that be disclosed to the registrant. So even though the rules say “may”, the law says “shall”.
And Itamura also implied what he and I both already know - that under UIPA what is authorized to be disclosed MUST be disclosed.
So the HDOH’s claims that they CAN’T disclose the non-certified COLB is flat-out false, as acknowledged by Itamura. IOW, Itamura admitted that HRS 338-18(a) doesn’t contradict the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-18(a) gives lawful authority to the rules’ disclosure allowances.
And UIPA goes one step farther, to say that what state law allows to be disclosed MUST be disclosed upon request.
1. You missed the point. You said no state can ask for documentation in excess of what another state provides, and I’m responding that no state has provded ANY documentation for Stitch Lips. IOW, there’s no ‘excess’ to talk about because nothing has been provided to begin with. Keep up.
2. Any law citing the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC has a great chance of withstanding challenges based on ... what?? Hope and Change?? What else do you have that trumps the Supreme Court and its definition??
Uh, no. You interjected yourself into a conversation you didn't bother to understand, and to which your pithy observations about what Obama or Hawaii has or has not provided to date are irrelevant. The conversation was discussing a hypothetical case where a state passes a law requiring a birth certificate to get on that state's ballot in 2012. At that point, a candidate would be obligated to request his state provide a certified copy to the questioning state.
Presuming the state can do so, what then are the limits on the requesting state's specifications? The only limit is that the requesting state's legislation would not be able to demand a level of detail beyond what the originating state provides to its citizens. The full faith and credit clause would require accepting the originating state's documentation. For example, if all they issue is a COLB, that's what you have to accept. If they provide either a COLB or a long form photocopy, then you can get the one you specified.
“2. Any law citing the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC has a great chance of withstanding challenges based on ... what?? Hope and Change?? What else do you have that trumps the Supreme Court and its definition??”
I don't think you are correct in your presumption of the Supreme Court definition you cite. I don't think your sentence says grammatically what it intended, either. In any event, I doubt that your personal belief will be upheld if ever put to the test. But if you want to know, get a state to legislate a requirement putting it to the test. Obama and the DNC will challenge it, and it will be ruled upon with subsequent appeals. Then the matter will truly be settled.
1. Tired and old is no excuse for ignorance. The full faith and credit clause is a non-sequitur. There are, however, national standards for vital records and birth documentation. So, yes, most states, if not all, issue by default a birth abstract, rather than a traditional long form birth certificate, however, when such a document is actually presented, it can be physically acertained as legitimate, especially if its provided directly from the state of issue rather than from a candidate or staff member. A jpg of alleged vital record would not be sufficient. It’s dumb to sit here and pretend like we’re not talking about Obama and instead some hypothetical candidate. You’re worred about a law requiring some mythical ‘excess’ documentation, when in Obama’s case, we wouldn’t even have the minimum standard legal documentation to begin with.
The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.
2. You keep expressing disbelief, but you aren’t providing any real substance to explain your disbelief. Chief Justice Waite rejected Viriginia Minor’s claim of 14th amendment citizenship in Minor v. Happersett because he said she was already a natural born citizen. He said such persons were born in the country to parents who were citizens and tied this directly to Art II Sec I (presidential eligibility).
The question now would be, who does the 14th amendment apply to in terms of persons who become citizens at birth?? The 14th specifies persons born in the country, so it has to apply only to people born of non-citizen parents, since Waite rejected it for NBCs. Justice Gray read this decision and cited this definition. He was unable to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. He went on a lengthy diatribe about English common law and how persons could be born as citizens without regard to the status of the parents, but he NEVER called such people NBCs. Second, he made it clear that he understood Minor’s decision as declaring citizenship by virtue of place AND by virtue of parentage. “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...”
Gray also made a second distinction between NBC and 14th amendment citizenship at birth. NBC, he noted was defined outside of the Constitution. The 14th amendment citizenship at birth was defined by circumstanced IN the constituion, specifically in the 14th amendment itself.
What definition do we have that trumps the Supreme Court?? What exactly could Obama or the DNC challenge this definition with?? You need more than a nunnn uhhhh!
“Fool” ?
Face it. He’s a fool. He admitted so in court.
I think he expected more to follow him, but they didn’t. One person is a kook....twenty.... hundreds asking the same question, then you have a movement...and it cannot be ignored....
The birth certificate will be an issue in the next election, I promise you....
As will all the other documents he’s been hiding....
And guess who will be demanding it? The left...
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.