Posted on 02/05/2009 7:52:01 PM PST by MindBender26
Now that's interesting.
Under certain circumstances can be a document unto itself. If the birth takes place out of state then the Certification will basically contain the information provided by the applicant. If there are differences or discrepancies between the original Certificate and the Certification document then the court will defer to the *Certificate* of Live Birth.
Again, Hawaii's physical location made this kind out of state registration a necessity; and I think it allowed this kind of flexibility back in the early '60's for a variety of reasons. I am still trying to find what the laws said back then with regards to this particular issue.
Nah, you don’t even need to know the Preamble to the Constitution to know how to undertake that particular task. ;^)
Maybe you should provide a big editorial on this subject at that Media Matters website of yours.
Please demonstrate that it allowed it in 1961.
and the document will show the information that is supplied by the applicant.
Not true. You're making stuff up again.
No name calling, please.
Cite!
Please show that procedure, that it existed in 1961, and how it can result in an official COLB.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
And even there, it allows children born out of state (adopted) to receive the long form birth certificate. And the long form B.C. will be amended. To be certain, we need to see the *source* document. A Certification of L.B. may or may not have the original information. And, no, I am not just talking about adopted children.
With regards to traveling in and out of Hawaii, when people do travel out of Hawaii it does tend to be for longer periods of time because of the cost involved and results in a higher percentage of out of state births (by residents) over the long haul ( because they qualify for the residency requirement within the 12 month interval ).
Of course. This is a law for Hawaiians who have children while out of state. It isn't for tourists. Hawaiians can travel, and they might give birth while elsewhere. Those children still need birth certificates. I would be surprised of most states didn't have a law like this.
But remember, this law was passed in 1982. It didn't exist in 1961. Also, the ability to get a certificate for your child is not a license to lie. Nothing about this statute implies that the state is allowing people to claim Hawaiian birth falsely. Just the opposite:
"The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate."
They want proof, and if your child is born in, say, Kenya, then "Place of birth" will be "Kenya" on the certificate.
"And even there, it allows children born out of state (adopted) to receive the long form birth certificate. And the long form B.C. will be amended."
For *adoptions*. Unless you are claiming Barry Jr was adopted by Barry Sr this is irrelevant.
"To be certain, we need to see the *source* document. A Certification of L.B. may or may not have the original information. And, no, I am not just talking about adopted children."
But the *source* document in an adoption is sealed away and the original BC is replaced with one showing the adoptive parents names. Seeing this one won't clarify anything. Again, not that it applies to this case.
"And, no, I am not just talking about adopted children."
Then you'll need to document whatever else you could be talking about.
Exactly, so it's not like were grasping at straws here. Out of state births are a relatively common occurrence just about everywhere.
But remember, this law was passed in 1982. It didn't exist in 1961. Also, the ability to get a certificate for your child is not a license to lie. Nothing about this statute implies that the state is allowing people to claim Hawaiian birth falsely. Just the opposite:
"The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate."
They want proof, and if your child is born in, say, Kenya, then "Place of birth" will be "Kenya" on the certificate.
That may or may not be the case.
It is already established in that statute they give people in charge at the DoH a fair amount of leeway to determine was rules and procedures are deemed appropriate under a given set of circumstances. And even the power to alter or modify these given inter-department regulations at a given point in time. These include department rules as to what may or may not constitute "evidence". They probably had even more leeway prior to 1982. That is the whole point. Some of the procedures and regulations that may have well been developed internally at the Department of Health for the years prior, during, and after the transition into statehood, were finally formalized into law by the legislature in the 1980's.
"It is already established in that statute they give people in charge at the DoH a fair amount of leeway to determine was rules and procedures are deemed appropriate under a given set of circumstances. And even the power to alter or modify these given inter-department regulations at a given point in time. These include department rules as to what may or may not constitute "evidence". They probably had even more leeway prior to 1982. That is the whole point. Some of the procedures and regulations that may have well been developed internally at the Department of Health for the years prior, during, and after the transition into statehood, were finally formalized into law by the legislature in the 1980's."
I'm sorry, but your "whole point" seems to consist entirely of speculation.
What evidence is there for any of this? What evidence is there that Obama got or could have gotten a false birth certificate? What are the facts?
Here's some additional info as to what kind of provisions they had back 50 some odd years ago. They several different birth certificates at the time :
"Exactly what kinds of birth records does Hawaii provide?
Generally, folks don't know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!
1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961)."
http://mijgreb.blogtownhall.com/
So it was possible to have an out of state birth registered through the testimony of the parent. They could say that there was neither a physician or midwife present and then submit a signed statement stating that the child was born "in Hawaii on such and such date and at such and such time".
Star Parker on Glenn Beck says “...but we haven’t seen his (Obama’s) BIRTH CERTIFICATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHmXOQcQC1g&eurl=http://usatodayadforobamarecords.blogspot.com/
**Note: I had no audio on Firefox, but it played fine on IE
we are no longer a nation of laws and rules. nothing matters. the dems use the constitution only when it is convenient to do so otherwise, anything goes. there will be more.
“...he had created a marriage certificate in that year despite the fact that he was actually married in 1992,...
here’s a link to an image of the CERTIFICATION OF MARRIAGE:
http://images42.fotki.com/v1380/photos/1/1431960/7007735/obamamarriage-vi.jpg
date stamped 4/29/2004.
FROM FACTCHECK FWIW.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_can_panamanian-born_mccain_be_elected_president.html
“February 25, 2008
Q: How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?
I understand John McCain was born in Panama. Doesn’t that make him ineligible to be president? I thought the Constitution said you had to have been born in a state.
A: Though born abroad, he is considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.
John McCain’s father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who was stationed in Panama in 1936, when McCain was born. This has led to speculation as to whether McCain is a U.S. citizen and whether he can be elected president, a question that was raised during McCain’s run for the Republican nomination in 2000 as well.
Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “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.”
But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:
Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen.”
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This is not the first time the question has been broached in a presidential election. Fellow Arizonian Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory before it was a state. And Mitt Romney’s father, George, ran for president in 1968, though he was born in Mexico. Like McCain, both were born to U.S. citizens and, therefore, considered to be American citizens.
However, both of those candidates were unsuccessful in their bids – and so a smidgen of uncertainty remains. If McCain wins the presidency, the constitutionality of these congressional statutes could be challenged in the courts. Members of Congress have expressed this fear and proposed a more explicit law, or even a Constitutional amendment. Neither has been adopted.
-Justin Bank
Update, June 16: This article originally didn’t note the distinction in language between the 1790 and 1795 congressional acts.
You will find images of John McCain’s Birth Certificate here:
http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=145
Clicked the link and it said the videois no loger available.......Did you happen to save it?
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.
