Posted on 05/10/2011 9:34:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The Honolulu hospital indicated on the Obama birth record released by the White House barred WND from its premises and threatened to call police in a visit seeking medical records of the president's mother.
Kapi'olani Medical Center also has hidden away the letter President Obama purportedly wrote Jan. 24, 2009, naming the hospital as his birthplace.
Sen. Sam Slom, Hawaii's only Republican state senator, confirmed to WND at a meeting in Honolulu at his legislative office May 4 that Kapi'olani now has put the letter in a safe.
Nothing that would commemorate Honolulu and Kapi'olani as the president's place of birth is currently on display at the Hawaii Department of Health or at Kapi'olani Medical Center.
"At first Kapi'olani told us the letter was put up in the administrative area of the hospital because the hospital was worried somebody might try to steal it," Slom said, "even if the letter was a facsimile."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thank you. I remember reading that thread.
I think in recent days posts here, esp the explanation from orangegold on utube, have convinced me without a shadow of doubt that the long form BC is a fake.
Trump should retake this to the people. Get Obama to explain away why he thinks the BC is real.
This is basic.
No, the story is not going away.
They're all in on felony fraud....or they were threatened.
If Obama was born at Kapolani, HDOH would have no trouble photocopying either the original or the microfiche copy. It would look just like the Nordykes' LFBC.
He was not born in any hospital in Hawaii. He has NO LEGAL documentation at all.....NONE. We have a communist America-hating illegal alien in the White House. He could be Al Qaeda for all we know and he's in possession of the nuclear football.
You nailed it, sir.
The toilet b.c. just prove, if that is a real proof that he is/was a British citizen and not eligible. The GOP establishment is in bed here trying to cover all corners and to CYA!!
Corsi met the similar stooges in Hawaii as he did in Kenya when Odinga arrested him. Folks we are being screw and there is no hope until the United States of America wakes up and apply a courage's Honduras moment!!!
Six words:........”Kool-Aid drinkers in full display”!!!
Aka FINO!!!
Honduras did the right thing!!!
They were probably the ones who fainted at the 2008 rallies after drinking the kool-aid!!!
“My belief is, however, that this issue is in dispute.”
It’s in dispute on this blog, but the legal community regarded the eligibility of the native-born as clear and settled long ago.
“Please understand that I’m not saying that Apuzzo is right and that his positions would be confirmed by the USSC. That is above my pay grade for sure. Again, I’m only saying that it is a matter that is in need of clarification by the USSC. Do you disagree?”
Apuzzo already presented the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was one of his four questions presented his his petition for certiorari in Kerchner v. Obama. That some people delude themselves into believing that Apuzzo and Donofrio are constitutional scholars is not sufficient reason for the High Court to take a case.
“Here is one guy who at least comes close to satisfying your criteria. In 2008, Lawrence Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote an article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause” that was published by the Michigan Law Review.
The original text of that article which, as of now can still be seen here, clearly indicates that the citizenship of both parents is a legitimate issue to consider when defining what we may regard as indisputably ‘natural born citizenship’.”
If you actually read Solum’s articles, you’ll find he never asserts that a native-born citizen must be born to one or two citizen parents. He’s talking about a much subtler issue.
“This was brought to my attention in great article on the NaturalBornCitizen blog here. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-scrubbing-of-america-how-professor-lawrence-solum-disgraced-himself-to-protect-obamas-eligibility/)";
I had guessed. The actual “scholars” behind this are Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, who are not really any such thing. As the literature of American law stated that the eligibility of native-born citizens was clear and settled, and as Black’s Law Dictionary defined the term “natural-born citizen” so that the native-born qualify, attorneys Donofrio and Apuzzo stood silent. In 2008 they became contrarians, but no one heard them say one word about it when all that was at stake was the principle.
You stated "..but the legal community regarded the eligibility of the native-born as clear and settled long ago."
So is it your position (and that of the majority of the "legal community") that there is no differentiation to be made between the terms "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" as it relates to the question of presidential eligibility?
You also point out in your post "Apuzzo already presented the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was one of his four questions presented his his petition for certiorari in Kerchner v. Obama." That is correct, although the USSC was being asked hear an Appeals Court case that had been concerned almost exclusively with the matter of a District Court ruling that appelants lacked standing to bring a case in the first place. So we can all agree (from a practical legal matter) that Kerchner et.al lacked standing to bring a lawsuit. How does agreement on a matter of standing affect the underlying question of whether there is a dispute concerning the substance of the eligibility issue?
Indeed, from my reading of the Appeals Court ruling, they readily admit that they did not address the underlying question pertaining to the "natural born citizen" phrase. Here is how they put it: "
If you think that he's gone after 2012, you need to dig forward your Magical Wand because he has already secured that nobody will be defeating him, even with lower electoral vote counts!!!
So is it your position (and that of the majority of the "legal community") that there is no differentiation to be made between the terms "native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" as it relates to the question of presidential eligibility?Absolutely not. In our time there has been no question that native-born citizens are natural-born citizens, but the converse does not hold. The question has been whether *only* the native-born are natural-born. The dominant view in the legal community is that the terms are not equivalent, and that "natural-born citizen" means a citizen from the time of birth. As one eminent constitutional scholar explained it:
"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar, "The Constitution and the Candidates" http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Of course, the USSC would not take a case based on their impression of the stature of the attorneys submitting a peititon, that is patently ridiculous. I am not concerned with this matter because I agree or disagree with Apuzzo or any other member of the legal community. My only point is that there is disagreement on the matter and your reply, while appreciated, does not alter that conclusion.Disagreement about whether a native-born child of a foreigner is eligible to be president? I predicted that no one would be able to cite even one constitutional scholar who says that foreign parents are a disqualifier, and so far my prediction has born out. People cited Donofrio and Apuzzo. I mean, come on.
Does this issue require clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court? No. Want to know what "natural-born citizen" means? Just look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. The High Court regularly cites Black's, as West Publishing wants everyone to know.
Here is a working link to...
THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA: How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility.
Parents – plural – again.
And one more time:
The actual “scholars” behind this are Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, who are not really any such thing.
No matter who noted it didn't Solum change his view?
“You’re using Akhil Reed Amar as a source?! That’s just stupid, IMO!”
That I cite Professor Amar is one thing I have in common with Mario Apuzzo. And the U.S. Supreme Court.
And as far as "experts" and using them in court cases, on all Federal levels, all one has to do is recall one Michael A. Bellesiles and his history with his attempts to sway and influence others, including the Courts, with misrepresentations.
It's sad that you don't comprehend that liberal >ahem...spit< "scholars" interpret the Constitution as it suits them, not America. But, hey, if you want to use this leftist as a source of info then head out.
BTW, do you have the text of Apuzzo citing Amar's book so that it can be seen in context? I'd like to see if his book was cited in a positive or negative light. You didn't mention it so...
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.