Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii Health Department’s Fukino Now Constitutional Lawyer?
NaturalBornCitizen | July 28, 2009

Posted on 07/28/2009 11:09:59 AM PDT by ckilmer

Hawaii Health Department’s Fukino Now Constitutional Lawyer?

BCreal

Well kiddies we really shook them up yesterday with our  post revealing the US Supreme Court’s most on point decision regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” in the case of Minor v. Happersett which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.   They were quick to respond weren’t they.

After building up the main stream media pressure for the last week for what was sure to be a long form BC in the face, they were confronted with a severe blow to the mantra that the 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”.   It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in Minor.  Their response was an emergency statement by Hawaii’s Department of Health which seeks to stop the fire we started yesterday.  Their response was literally concocted only hours after our last post.

To recap, yesterday we proved that the most on point and controlling decision in our entire history of SCOTUS jurisprudence with regard to the definition of the term “natural-born citizen” – the Minor case – unequivocally states that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” is  not defined in the Constitution.   This analysis destroys the Obama eligibility supporter mantra that 14th Amendment “native born” citizenship is equal to “natural-born” citizenship.

SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:

1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition

2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to  foreign parents can be President

This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen.  As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.

Yet, apparently Yahoo news and every other main stream news source in the country would have you believe that Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is a better Constitutional scholar and source of  law than our own Supreme Court precedent.

Only hours after I posted my analysis of the Minor case, Fukino issued the following statement:

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…”

Wow!  Fukino has transmogrified the Constitution.  She, and she alone is the sole arbiter of who is and who isn’t a natural-born citizen.  Incredible.  Where did she get her law degree?  Or is she simply the great legal oracle of our generation.  Have we discovered, as the monks discover the new Dalai Llama, the legendary great legal oracle of our generation?

Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution, then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President.  The Supreme Court makes it clear as the sun that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination.  Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President.  The natural born citizen requirement was meant to protect the nation from foreign invasion and influence.

The Minor case also tells us that doubts exist as to whether native born persons of  foreign parents can be natural-born citizens.  And with that SCOTUS decision is supposed to come legal precedent and respect.  But apparently the great legal oracle Fukino thinks because she maintains a database of birth records, she is now an authority on Constitutional law.

And this is where our main stream media goes for Constitutional law advice – to Hawaii’s  Department of Health Director.

Well Fukino, since the Supreme Court states you must look outside the Constitution to determine the meaning of “natural-born citizen”, please tell us where you went to make this monumental announcement that Obama is a natural-born citizen.  Please do tell.  Because as we’ve said all along at this blog, we believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

We’ve also said that when push comes to shove Hawaii is going to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Now Hawaii is going even further than we anticipated.  Not only is  Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is also now defining natural-born citizen for the rest of United States history.

Yes, it’s true, Fukino mandates from her little cubicle at the Department of Health in Hawaii that she has overruled the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and she has seen the light of legal truth and all doubts mentioned by SCOTUS in Minor can now be discarded.  The great legal oracle of Hawaii has spoken.

What a load of crap this is.  Thanks to all the BC fringe for giving such power to the BC.  I’ve told you a million times that the BC does not matter at all.  If Obama were born on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan sipping a Martini while reading a masonic Bible with a million man march full of witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally expressed such doubts in Minor. And that being said, I will admit that while SCOTUS has expressed such doubts, they have never defined “natural-born citizen” either.  While I believe the great weight of evidence proves he is not eligible, I will not be as low down filthy as the opposition and tell you that the law has been determined.  It has not.  But it should be.  And that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

SCOTUS expressed their doubts about Obama’s eligibility in Minor.  The current court should have clarified the issue with a decision.  Obama should have asked them to clarify such an important doubt by bringing the Arizona sworn affirmation to them and asking whether he could sign it without committing perjury.

But the great legal oracle Fukino manages to save the day only hours after the Supreme Court’s Minor decision was finally decoded to reveal beyond any doubt that…

“native born” does not = “natural born” …

Not according to the US Supreme Court – not for Obama and not for any of us.

If you want to be President, you have to prove more than just the fact that you are a citizen of this country.  You must prove you are a “natural-born citizen” and Fukino can’t prove that by showing a long form Obama BC.  And neither can Obama.  And neither can you.

That’s right.  None of us have a long form BC which can prove we are eligible to be President because, as far as I can tell, while our long form birth certificates contain the names and residences of our parents, they do not contain citizenship information.  Since 14th Amendment citizenship, according to SCOTUS in Minor, does not define “natural-born citizen”, the court states that we must look elsewhere to make that decision.

The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US.  If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor.  Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen.  Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain.  Obama chose the word “governed”, not me.

But Fukino has overruled the United States Supreme Court today in a direct assault on the legal truths exposed by this blog yesterday.  What an amazing turn of events.  At least we’ve discovered who the great legal oracle of our generation is.  It’s not Obama and it’s not me.  It’s Fukino.  She is the greatest legal mind of our generation.  All hail the great legal oracle form Hawaii.




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; eligibility; ineligible; naturalborn; obama; obamanoncitizenissue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: MamaTexan

The fact is, both Obama and McCain could have been born on the moon, and McCain would still be a natural-born citizen while Obama would not.

Even IF he was born in Hawaii [which I doubt] the best Zero could EVER be is a native-born citizen...and that’s just not good enough.

Not if you believe in the Constitution, anyway.
++++++++++++++++++++

Your last line may be the whole crux. There may be too many people in this nation who just don’t give a rip about the US Constitution, to make this appeal take force. That’s what bammy’s whole bank is on; that and the media lap dogs..


41 posted on 07/28/2009 1:40:35 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Very interesting information. The more I research into this, the more I find that Obama is NOT eligible to serve as President.

You wrote-
“CHAP. XIX. / Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It / Law of Nations;
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


The United States may be the place of Zeros birth, BUT IT IS NOT HIS COUNTRY!”


42 posted on 07/28/2009 2:04:26 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Not only is the number sequence off, but look at the middle number, 1961. Isn’t the twins’ numbers 61 for the year? Also, notice a hyphen in BO’s. I don’t think that theirs has a hyphen.


43 posted on 07/28/2009 2:42:55 PM PDT by Jewels7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

BTTT


44 posted on 07/28/2009 3:31:57 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewels7
Not only is the number sequence off, but look at the middle number, 1961. Isn’t the twins’ numbers 61 for the year? Also, notice a hyphen in BO’s. I don’t think that theirs has a hyphen.

******

1. I wish that the twins, as an experiment, would request a copy of their birth certificates so that we could see if they were similar to the one that Obama displayed on his fight the smears site.

2. For instance, we could compare the number on the top of the twins' birth certificate with the one on Obama's short form birth certificate.

3. IMPORTANT: If the number atop the twins' short form birth certificates has ONLY two numbers---61---while the Obama short form birth certificate has FOUR numbers---1961---then we know that we have strong proof that someone tampered with Obama's short form birth certificate before it was displayed on the internet.

4. However, if the number atop the twins' short form birth certificates has only "1961" like Obama's short form birth certificate, then we have to look elsewhere to find out if Obama's short form birth certificate is fake or is not a fake.

45 posted on 07/28/2009 7:36:00 PM PDT by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: All; ckilmer

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

—snippet—

In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)

“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697


46 posted on 07/28/2009 7:46:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet ("I won't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral IsorokoYamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the long march

If you look closely at the Hawaiian long form BCs in post 4 above you will see that the birthplace of the parents is one of the required entries.


47 posted on 07/28/2009 8:01:56 PM PDT by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Ping WOW-

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts


48 posted on 07/28/2009 8:24:37 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (The last time I looked, this is still Texas where I live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson