Hawaii's record isn't too good in that regard. This is just one that has been found. There's a couple more that have been noted so I've pinged Polarik to the tread, I'm sure he can recall the others.
Posted on 07/30/2009 5:06:48 PM PDT by curiosity
Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If you think that it’s a “glib lie” — in saying the State of Hawaii is giving out an official announcement, *because* it’s on their state website and it’s on the State letterhead — then you’ve got a very strange sense of reality.
Most anyone in the general public will look at a State of Hawaii letterhead, with the State Seal on it, and the governor’s name on the letterhead and say to themselves, “This is an official state announcement.”... LOL...
That’s how your average Joe is going to think... and he’s right. That’s because that’s “rational thinking”.... :-)
And then, if you think that it’s a “glib lie” — in saying that the State of Hawaii would take the *utmost care* with such an announcement and vet the announcement carefully with every word and have their attorneys check everything out — then you’ve got a weird and strange sense of what goes on in the world and how a state should do its business...
All I can say about that is that I hope you don’t get into the job of ever running any State business with ideas like that... LOL...
So, was your Pres_ _ent alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? If so he woul dbe grandfather in as eligible by the same wording as Jefferson was grandfathered in. So what is your point, n00b?
Okay... you might be dealing with the issue of karma, but I’m sure not dealing with the issue of karma. As far as I’m concerned... karma has nothing to do with this...
I have never seen anyone mention karma as part of this issue. That sounds like something totally and completely personal to your own thinking and I can’t find any room for its involvement in the birth certificate issue...
So, if you want to invoke “karma” in this birth certificate issue, you’re going to have to do that on your own. There’s nothing I have to say about that....
She can’t state a legal conclusion as to the definition of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
She can only do it if Sr isn’t the daddy and he was born in Hawaii.
There is no statute or amendment or case law that definitely states that a man in his position would be a NBC.
Absolutely.
I prefer the strictest standard but I don’t think that is what SCOTUS or Congress would decide.
Right now, it is anybody’s guess..and I think the lower courts punt it if any agree to hear it.
Sooner or later a criminal is going to bring this up at trial...maybe then the records will be opened.
I sure don’t want this current Congress to decide the issue. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would be too happy with passing bills they don’t even read.
Oh wait, you had too many negatives in that sentence and I misread it. I think the only thing you can say natural born citizen isn’t as an absolute ..would be ...not born to two US citizens and born on foreign soil.
the only absolute that it is..two US citizen parents born on US soil.
Anything else is up for grabs. I think it is possible that Marbury struck down something that was constitutional. He took his power and did it..and expanded judicial review.
So ...don’t be so sure how Scotus will rule - especially with the Wise Latina onboard.
Okay, just getting back now... :-)
You mention following some Congressmen and several state legislators in regards to the laws I mention. Of course, one of the things that I’ve said is that I don’t think this is going to work with Congress getting this legislation passed. I just don’t think so... :-) So, I wouldn’t bother there; it’s a waste of time.
But, I do think certain states can get it done. And it doesn’t have to be all of them, but maybe five or so. I would hope it wouldn’t be that difficult to get about five of them through.
So, what states have you see doing this. I’ve seen Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma. I’m in Oklahoma and it failed. It got out of committee but it failed in the Senate. So, there’s the next session that it can be tried again. I am hoping that there is more interest from the “people” on this. I mean, if we have just a *fraction* of the people involved in those state laws that I hear hollering about “getting the birth certificate” we would have it made. I don’t know why so many people want to “holler” about getting the birth certificate, but apparently want to do nothing in their state in getting a law passed. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
And what is worse and even makes less sense, is that I’ve had some posters here say, “We don’t need a law to get Obama to show his birth certificate!”... and I guess that means they’re not going to help to get a law passed in their state! What’s up with that?!
With any of this press, if there is anything that is useful about it all, I can see nothing else useful — except one thing. I can only see the one thing of getting someone motivate to help get a state law passed in their state as the *only useful thing* I can see for any of these press stories. Otherwise, there’s nothing to accomplish with them.
How can they accomplish anything when a candidate (and especially now, a President) is not legally required to show his birth certificate? All that is — is the spinning of wheels. At least the state law is getting something accomplished which *will get* the birth certificate.
Lastly you mention “pecking away” until you get the answers. But, I can’t see the “pecking away” getting the answers. The reason why is that you are not in Obama’s power base. Now, if you were one of Obama’s supporters and you said “I supported you this last election but I’m not going to in the next elections until you do this...” — then you’ve got some good leverage if a lot of those kinds of supporters do this. But, Obama’s supporters were 10 million more voters than our supporters. And if you, as someone who is “anti-Obama” to think you have any leverage over Obama, it’s just plainly mistaken to think that.
The anti-Obama people can “peck away” for the next 7 years and it’s not going to make any difference with Obama. You would never support him in any case, so there’s nothing for him to gain by going along with anything an anti-Obama person says.
Thanks!
Well, first of all, you’ve got to remember it’s certainly not her who is doing the legal work... LOL... The State of Hawaii has lawyers who do that, the legal end of things.
This isn’t about a person. This is about a State of Hawaii pronouncement. That doesn’t come from an individual. That comes from an institution, with all its resources. Because of that, it wouldn’t matter who had their name at the bottom of the document, because that *institution* of the State of Hawaii, is the one who did that document. The only reason her name is at the bottom is because she’s in that department.
And believe me... you know the Governor of the State of Hawaii knew exactly what was going on, was involved in that and also cleared what was said in that announcement, too. That got “ran by” the Governor’s office before that ever got out.
So, we’ve got an “institution” of the entire “state machinery” (i.e., whatever resources are needed) put to work to get that statement out (checking documents, verifying information, checking laws, legal meetings, etc.), with its lawyers, also being cleared through the Governor’s office, and then finally put out on the official website for the state.
Do I think they know what they’re talking about? Yes, I do...
Alas, someone already pointed that out to me. My point kind of disappeared.
Hawaii's record isn't too good in that regard. This is just one that has been found. There's a couple more that have been noted so I've pinged Polarik to the tread, I'm sure he can recall the others.
Even to a non citizen mother, and/or father, it makes a citizen, per the 14th amendment. But natural born? That's another issue, one not addressed b any Court, with lots of historical referances to indicate that natural born status goes with parentage, even if citizenship does not.
Think about it. The reason that the provision is in the Constitution, is to keep foreign influence out of the office of Commander in Chief. (That's the way John Jay put it in his letter to "His Excellency, G. Washington). If someone with a non American citizen father were born in the US, raised in the father's country, and then sent back, they would definitely have more sympathy for their father's land and the land they grew up in, than for the United States. That sort of thing was actually done by Monarchs in the centuries before our revolution. True, it sometimes backfired, as the mother influenced the son against his father's country,, but the idea was to get your loyalists inside the government of your rivals or enemies.
I submit that BHO has shown an awful lot of sympathy for the culture and religion of both his father and stepfather, to the detriment of the United States. Add to that the essentially foreign ideology (marxism) of many of his associates, and you have the perferct example of what the natural born citizen requirement is aimed at preventing.
But all that said, natural born must mean today, for Constitutional purposes, what it meant in 1787. If it meant born in the US, born in the US with at least one citizen parent (and if it had, it would most likely needed to have been the father), then so be it. But the question should at least be asked, since there are obviously considerable questions about the matter which has never come up before, either before or during the Presidency of the person in question. Chester Arthur managed to hid the fact that his father was not a citizen when he was born, although he was by the time Arthur became an adult.
No no, I agree with the strict rule of “two US citizen parents born on US soil”
Also, I always have the idea of the founders intent — behind the natural born rule — to prevent election of a President with dual loyalties.
What I meant to say was one could start to define “natural born” by using a process of elimination (logical deduction) as to what a natural born citizen is not.
What is left should be a description of what a natural born citizen IS.
Two US citizen parents born on US soil would seem to cover all the bases.
Anyway, thanks for your response.
STE=Q
and it only took one greedy fame seeker to end it all before it began.
1 doctor
1 relative talking to a foreign pressman
1 rogue worker at the Hawaii Dept of Health
1 political enemy who put 2 and 2 together...like you did.
0 must have sighed in deep relief after he won. Now he could cover his tracks with the power of the Presidency. Unfortunately for 0 the corporate media is talking about "the Birthers," just as 0's numbers are tanking. That Darn Corporate Media!!! Clearly the WSJ, USA today, and CBS(w/illuminated all-seeing-eye) were forced to defend 0 because of the hard working dedication to our beloved US Constitution by living patriots blogging truth.
God Bless Our United States of America, Our Glorious United States Constitution, and The Free Republic. Amen!
Maybe we should start compiling a list so we can get an idea of the scope of the conspiracy. Now we know they got to Hawaii Director of Health Fukino, and the Registrar of Vital Statistics, possibly the previous occupants of those positions since people have been talking about 0 running for Pres since 2004. oooo and getting Rep Gov Lingle to get on board...what a stroke of luck. Lets add in the Drive-Byes who ignored the story and then brought it back just when 0 was at his weakest. heh heh heh...the blundering fools.
Well its all gonna come out now, we got them just where we want them and we are gonna get em all. In fact the more treacherous 0 conspirators like Republican Gov Lingle, and 0 apologists like Taranto, Bill O and Michael Medved the better. They will all be exposed.
Good Job you got 0 the run.
This isn’t about ‘moving the goalposts’, the fact is, ALL of these questions must be answered in order to eliminate the issue of 0bama’s ineligibility to hold the Office he is currently occupying.
Of all of his 43 predecessors, NONE of them have gone to the lengths that 0bama has to conceal the details of their lives, of their origins, of their scholastic records, of their travel history, and the fact is, he works for US (’We The People’) and none of us would ever consider hiring someone to work in our own business if they refused to disclose information regarding where they were born, the details and conditions of that birth, the details of their education, and if they stated to us that they were born in one place, but their relatives were on record as stating they were born somewhere else entirely, that alone would create enough doubt that ANY reputable employer would demand clarification and evidence to establish whatever the truth might be.
Based upon the vacuum of information regarding 0bama, he couldn’t even pass a security clearance if he were seeking a job in our own Defense Department, how pathetic is that?
0bama promised transparency, and it’s damn time that he lived up to that.
Any chance this was all a left wing plot?
Yes, I see it!!! His approval numbers are going through the roof!!! If the "birthers" keep at it, we'll have barry TOTUS for life!!
Other than "natural born" being a qualifier applied to the word "citizenship," I disagree with your conclusions. Born in the US is insufficient basis for being a natural born US Citizen.
I also don't think that being born in the US is a necessary condition for being a natural born US Citizen.
Yeah, that's the Dem's talking point, all right. But why is a supposed conservative repeating it? The issue, as has been said repeatedly, is easily resolved. WHY has Obama hired one of the most expensive law firms on the West Coast (Perkins-Coie) and spent upwards of a million dollars to avoid the simple thing that virtually every citizen has to do at some point in his or her life??
Sorry, but I can't see it as a laughting matter.
I hate to burst your balloon, but in law it is not any evidence at all of what the phrase in Article II of the Constitution means or whether something in a Hawaiian document meets the requirement set out in the Constitution. What the Supreme Court says about the phrase carries weight. She quite ambiguously refers to a phrase in the Constitution but so could any Hawaii official and it is meaningless in law. It does not even carry the modest weight that an opinion by a legal officer of the estate would, and that would be of minor significance since it is the U. S. Constitution that is at issue. The attorney general of Hawaii could make a pronouncement about C sections but it would not have any authority as a health pronouncement whereas it would carry weight as to any legal issue involved. Similarly the good doctor could say with authority that the One was born naturally rather than by C section but it has zero weight as to whether a constitutional imperative has been complied with. Why do you have such difficulty comprehending such an obvious point. To contend that the doctor’s statement carries legal and constitutional authority is a joke and should be treated as such.
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.