“Under the full faith and credit clause, if Hawaii says that computer printout is proof of birth within Hawaii, the other States and the Fed have to accept it as proof of birth within Hawaii.”
To anyone who knows anything about consitutional law, your statement is categorically false.
The latest example of the noblesse oblige attitude of the federal judiciary is the decision by the federal district court gutting Arizona’s laws, and by diktat ordering Arizona to not enforce it’s `mirror image’ laws of federal immigration and nationalization laws because the feds—under Bush, and now Obama—have adopted an attitude of salutary neglect towards their own laws.
In other words, if the feds aren’t enforcing the law, nobody should enforce the law.
In a trial in which a document is a critical piece of evidence a federal judge with any sense of professionalism and integrity at all would require that federal evidence rules apply, regardless of what the great state of Hawaii opines or any spurious law put forth by those who carry water for Obama. And here that would be the `best evidence’ rule.
To anyone who knows anything about consitutional law, your statement is categorically false.
The latest example of the noblesse oblige attitude of the federal judiciary is the decision by the federal district court gutting Arizona’s laws, and by diktat ordering Arizona to not enforce it’s `mirror image’ laws of federal immigration and nationalization laws because the feds—under Bush, and now Obama—have adopted an attitude of salutary neglect towards their own laws.
In other words, if the feds aren’t enforcing the law, nobody should enforce the law.
In a trial in which a document is a critical piece of evidence a federal judge with any sense of professionalism and integrity at all would require that federal evidence rules apply, regardless of what the great state of Hawaii opines or any spurious law put forth by those who carry water for Obama. And here that would be the `best evidence’ rule.
In my humble opinion the best way to get to view Obama’s original, long form, vault copy Certificate of Live Birth is via a subpoena. Hawaii Revised Statutes: 338-18(b)(9) allow for a birth record to be released without the permission of the person named on the birth record to: “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
I think more people would be likely to accept a vital record as valid if Obama had nothing to do with its release. A prosecuting attorney could apply for a subpoena from any judge as a part of a Grand Jury investigation into election fraud, document fraud or forgery.
Everyone (71 failed attempts and counting) who has attempted to get at Obama’s birth documents thus far has used the civil (lawsuit) courts to no avail because no one except possibly the John McCain/Sarah Palin campaign or the Republican National Committee would have legal standing to sue. You have to be able to show DIRECT, not indirect injury-in-fact and only McCain got electoral votes like Obama did. With 71 civil suits already dismissed on standing grounds, the professionalism of federal judges never gets tested because there is no evidentiary phase of any trial.
I suggest the criminal courts and a Grand Jury investigation would be a better route to subpoenaing the original document.
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin could possibly be granted the right to depose Hawaii officials. We might know later today.
I refer you to the U.S. Constitution....
“Article IV section 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
A ‘short form’ birth certificate is a public record of the state of Hawaii that other states must give “full faith and credit” to. Congress has, by general laws, prescribed the manner of what shall be the minimum requirement for proof of birth - and the Hawaii document meets that standard.
Full faith and credit. I suggest you familiarize yourself better with the U.S. Constitution.
The Federal governments refusal to enforce its own laws or allow Arizona to ‘pick up the slack’ is irrelevant to the full faith and credit clause.