Hawaii law bars release of Obama birth info

AP/Yahoo ^ | 1/22/11 | Mark Niesse

[markomalley]

A privacy law that shields birth certificates has prompted Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was born outside Hawaii, his office says.

State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws bar him from disclosing an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Friday.

"There is nothing more that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document," said Dela Cruz. "Unfortunately, there are conspirators who will continue to question the citizenship of our president."

[Girlene]

Concur with your possible scenario that could explain how "all the documents and all of the statements made by the officials of Hawaii after examination of the documents could be consistent with a birth outside of the United States without any conspiracy having taken place."

I don't, however fully agree with this conclusion, "We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us."

If obama's Hawaiian birth was based on a family member's affidavit, and not based on hospital records, obama would have a lot of explaining to do. He has said he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, and that he had seen his birth certificate (in his first book). This would open a whole new can of worms regarding obama's birth circumstances.

[opentalk]

Is there an Obama Birth Certificate or not is the Wrong Question

I don’t doubt that Hawaiian officials are accurately reporting that the document they saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

“Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii.

...If the records of his birth are an affidavit filed by relatives with no hospital validating the affidavit the question of AKA Obama's eligibility remains open and he might not have been born in Hawaii.

[XRdsRev]

Yes. This should make it perfectly clear to everyone that President Obama is really the one who is standing in the way of release of this record. I didn’t think much of this issue at first but given all the incredible obstruction regarding the release of a simple document, now I believe that something is definately amiss with the birth certificate.

[itsahoot]

If even one state, like Texas or Arizona, was to actually get such a law passed, it would force the bastard to release it himself.

The fact that no State has done this, speaks volumes.

There is no way they can conceal this information, without the cooperation of the Establishment Republicans.

"You have nothing to fear from this man Obama."
J. McCain

[Smokeyblue]

“Why such vitriol Dela Cruz? Didn’t you get the memo? I mean “conspirator” would imply criminal; it’s right up there with traitor, spy, or insurgent. Seems people are just asking questions which can be answered and legally should be answered.”

It’s called projection. The Dela Cruz has a guilty mind.

[stockpirate]

I think the part they need to grow is a bit lower.

[itsahoot]

I think the person who should be on the case is Issa.

Mr. Issa, won't touch this issue.

When John McCain's NDC status was injected into the debate, the Senate whipped out a Sense of the Senate Resolution, stating that McCain was indeed NBC compliant. The original draft included Senator Obama's name, which was apparently removed.

Explain to me how this chicanery was allowed to happen, with out one single establishment Republican knowing what was really going on.

We have no hope of getting anything useful from the Republicans, they are complicit in the fraud.

[muawiyah]

There are undoubtedly SEVERAL MILLION people related close enough to Obama to meet the standard of Hawaii's laws.

Here's the problem ~ even if you were his sister they are going to interpret the law to mean just his babies.

They don't want any trouble (/s).

[nathanbedford]

The situation as I see it in a nutshell is that there is no affirmative proof of birth anywhere except Hawaii. That is, there is affirmative proof of birth in Hawaii. Please note, I did not say there is conclusive proof of birth in Hawaii merely that there is evidence thereof. So whoever gets to decide this issue would have to say that the mere anomalous nature of Obama's refusal to authorize disclosure of the birth certificate is somehow evidence that he was born elsewhere than in Hawaii merely because his refusal to release his birth certificate is strange and runs counter to human experience and suggests that the man has something to hide. I know of no forum that admits to substituting motive for evidence. I know of no forum which says that in the absence of any evidence we will overrule contrary evidence because of motive, in this case the presumed motive to hide ineligibility if he is in fact ineligible.

I use the expression "forum" because it is not at all clear to me that it is the federal courts alone who have jurisdiction to decide this issue. It might be that the matter is conclusively decided by the secretaries of every state certifying elections, or by the legislatures, or by the House of Representatives, where the president of the Senate, all of whom play some role in the election of United States presidents. It is the House and the Senate which have jurisdiction over impeachments (although the Chief Justice presides) and not the Supreme Court. This is no doubt partly because it was contemplated by the founders that the removal of the president for high crimes and misdemeanors was partially a political proceeding and not a justiciable one.

So we see that the nature of impeachment is somehow different from a proceeding based on in eligibility of a sitting president-or maybe not.

The Constitution does not provide explicitly for a body to adjudicate eligibility after the president was sworn in. Please see the 20th amendment quoted in part:

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Once the failure of the President-elect to qualify is determined, the Constitution creates a responsibility and power in the Congress to sort it out. One can draw intriguing inferences from this about the intent of the framers of this amendment in 1933, but nothing is clear or sure and it does not necessarily mean that one can extrapolate from this to an argument over eligibility after the president is sworn in and say that the Congress shall act as it sees fit. Furthermore, the amendment merely assumes the existence of a failure to qualify and not the test or the forum.

So when we ask the question, "what if," about what we might find in the Hawaii vault and the implications of the existence or nonexistence of certain documents like a longform birth certificate, we have to think, are we asking a political question, a legal question, constitutional question? And if were asking any of these questions we must next ask, who is decide it, a judge, the electors, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the court of public opinion?

Once we determine all of these things, somebody can weigh the evidence or the absence of evidence and apply presumptions of law and decide whether motive should overcome proof.

[muawiyah]

BTW, regarding that big ol Mormon temple ~ and any records they might have ~ a good chunk of Obama’s (and my) ancestry managed to get themselves and descendants forever “excommunicated” permanently about 1836.

[rolling_stone]

from Kerchner’s website:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.” [Case Summary] [Full Case]

[little jeremiah]

Abercommie is either monumentally stupid and/or working for the Clintons. I can’t think of any other option.

[bitt]

How would that help unload Hillary?? I’m missing something...

[Girlene]

The situation as I see it in a nutshell is that there is no affirmative proof of birth anywhere except Hawaii. That is, there is affirmative proof of birth in Hawaii. - Agreed.

So when we ask the question, "what if," about what we might find in the Hawaii vault and the implications of the existence or nonexistence of certain documents like a longform birth certificate, we have to think, are we asking a political question, a legal question, constitutional question? And if were asking any of these questions we must next ask, who is decide it, a judge, the electors, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the court of public opinion?

It is confusing. I'd be satisfied to begin with the court of public opinion. :-)

It seems that the SOS's initially failed to do their jobs. I don't believe any SOS requested any type of BC proof from any presidential candidate. I guess they took each candidate's word that they were eligible. The original poster's recommendation that state legislatures enact reforms requiring candidates produce their long-form BC to be placed on a ballot, is a very good start. Even with that requirement, would obama's long-form BC disqualify him if it happened to be in the form of an affadavit from a family member? I doubt it. That's where the court of public opinion (the voter) comes in. Enough doubt about the truthfulness of obama's birth circumstances may be enough to politically kill his chances at reelection.

The bigger problem I have with obama's birth is that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, or ever. That does not seem to pass the natural born citizen requirmement for eligibility. Again, who's responsibility is it to determine the original meaning in the Constitution regarding eligibility? The Supreme Court? ....and what would it take for them to do this?

Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting post.

[melancholy]

I think the part they need to grow is a bit lower.

Yep, and they're normally in plural!

Growing one each would be better than nothing or maybe try to borrow some from the conservative females! LOL!

[melancholy]

Abercommie is either monumentally stupid and/or working for the Clintons. I can’t think of any other option.

UberCommie is a Corzine in Hippie drag.

[little jeremiah]

Expand, please?

[melancholy]

Thank you for your post. It's heart warming to know that the real patriots had it down pat, in writing no less. The question is, shouldn't our esteemed SCOTUS of Lesbians, Latinos, Libtards and Lawless judges read and "accept" such "hot" cases?

How those 4 Ls judge them, is a completely different subject and unfortunately it becomes the law of the land and eventually, Stare Decisis!

What a bunch of cowards!

[melancholy]

UberCommie looks like a Corzine twin, only shorter and chubbier.

[little jeremiah]

Was Corzine the one who was a regular criminal, or the one who was a criminal and a fag? Sorry, I get NJ govs mixed up. Here in OR we get stuck with leftard Dems no matter what, since at the last moment magical ballots are always found in Multnomah county; the write in ballot stuff makes it so easy for the Dems to always win...