Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
james777:
You are a crackpot. Vattel was relied on heavily for Virginia and the U.S. Constitution.
I suspect you know this but you want to marginalize the inspiration for our laws to draw people to your side.
It may work for lazy people but our documents and laws all have extant at their creation an influence or evolution of prior knowledge or work.
Vattel is one of them.
If and when an actual 21st Century court of law (at any level of the judiciary from a magistrate court to the Supreme Court of the United States) rules that Vattel has historical constitutional relevance, I’ll be won over to your side. Until then...not so much.
Oh for the good old days when conservatives were originalists and strict constructionists and were loath to depend on international law to interpret the law of OUR republic. But today, some conservatives have become constitutional liberals and want the legal theories of a Swiss law professor to determine the meaning of our Constitution.
I rarely use my microwaves. I never cook in them. I use them to warm coffee, things like that. I know people that cook nearly every meal in them. I never do. I used to heat canned dog food for my dogs after it had been in the refrigerator until my vet said that it destroyed many of the vitamins.
LOL! The same poo that he flings on the walls. :P
One more, just in case you’re bored with what I already posted - or if you want to fondly remember what it was like to deal with a 2-year-old who just learned how to say “Why?” lol.
In the case of adoption, where the original BC is sealed, is there a way to hide or lock the record (seal it electronically, so to speak) so that the record is still there but won’t show up when queried?
This is a weird what-if, but just humor me, OK? lol. Suppose Joe Blow was adopted and became Joe Cool. Then later on he was adopted again and became Joe Six-pack. His BC# was kept the same through all those changes. If a person queried that BC# which name would show up? Is the BC# sort of like a social security number - the identity of the person, regardless of what name that person might have at any given point in time? If so would there be anything to keep a bureaucrat from creating fake identities by re-using the same BC# over and over but with a different name associated with it?
Like, for instance, if a bureaucrat wanted to get rich could he find the BC# of a dead child and create ID’s for a whole bunch of illegals, giving them all that BC#? When their name was checked in the EVVE system it would show them as having a record, but if the BC# was queried would it show a bunch of names for that BC# so somebody could tell there was a problem?
The key phrase is “readily retrievable.” Would you say having to assemble information from multiple pieces of paper in multiple file folders in multiple drawers in multiple filecabinets is “readily retrievable” to you as opposed to grabbing one sheet of paper or one file folder? The answer is no.
It’s easy for a DBA to run queries but was the law written with that in mind? I doubt it. To administer vital statistics records, a lowly clerk has access to a software application that allows them to access data in the database in a specific manner. They can use that software to do only those functions programmed into the software. It’s likely that in considering the difference between what is “readily available” and what isn’t, the HDoH considers what their software is programmed to do and what it isn’t. If a DBA has to run a specialized query to retrieve data rather than a clerk pressing buttons in pre-programmed software to retrieve records, then the information isn’t “readily available.”
So with that in mind, you asked if the 1961 - 1964 index was readily retrievable? There are two answers. For a DBA? Yes. For a clerk using special software? No.
Regarding the date of birth verses the date accepted, the index data contains only the date of birth. They’re not required to provide the date accepted.
Can you tell what field was queried? Yes, if you’re a DBA.
The key phrase is “readily retrievable.” Would you say having to assemble information from multiple pieces of paper in multiple file folders in multiple drawers in multiple filecabinets is “readily retrievable” to you as opposed to grabbing one sheet of paper or one file folder? The answer is no.
It’s easy for a DBA to run queries but was the law written with that in mind? I doubt it. To administer vital statistics records, a lowly clerk has access to a software application that allows them to access data in the database in a specific manner. They can use that software to do only those functions programmed into the software. It’s likely that in considering the difference between what is “readily available” and what isn’t, the HDoH considers what their software is programmed to do and what it isn’t. If a DBA has to run a specialized query to retrieve data rather than a clerk pressing buttons in pre-programmed software to retrieve records, then the information isn’t “readily available.”
So with that in mind, you asked if the 1961 - 1964 index was readily retrievable? There are two answers. For a DBA? Yes. For a clerk using special software? No.
Regarding the date of birth verses the date accepted, the index data contains only the date of birth. They’re not required to provide the date accepted.
Can you tell what field was queried? Yes, if you’re a DBA.
It’s going to be a complex answer. Freepmail coming.
. I meant that anti-birthers like me don’t believe they are trolls, thus our silence when birthers call them out. We don’t call people trolls for disagreeing with us, that’s a birther thing.
________________________________
SOME ... not all........ are trolls. Take advantage of the search feature on FR. Someone that has never posted anything on FR except things that are favorable for Dems, get a clue, they are trolls. While you’re using that search feature, search for concern troll. I don’t call people a troll unless I have thoroughly checked them out and have come to that conclusion.
Some aren’t liberal trolls, they just enjoy trolling the BC threads. However, Jamese777 is clearly a troll. He came to FR and began citing bad Bush poll numbers. Bashing Bush, subtly, but bashing him. He has never been a conservative. After O was elected, he has posted all over the internet, day after day, with his talking points defending O on the BC issue. No one spends that much time on something if they thinks it’s silly BS.
Obot jamese..you stated to your comrades on Dr. Conspire site.. “Vattel is an obscure writer..” Jefferson disagrees.. “we have produced proofs from the most enlightened and approved writers on the subject...”
If any AMERICAN Court of Law should ever agree with you that Vattel has any constitutional relevance, then perhaps I’ll pay a bit of attention. Until then...I prefer to continue living in the 21st Century.
CURRENT United States Federal Law: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
—US Code: Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
Are clerks in charge of printing out the index books?
Why is there a marriage index for 1960-65 (6 years), if the clerks are only able to do 5-year increments at a time? As far as I know from the index book pages I’ve seen, that is the only index book that has 6 years rather than 5. Whoever printed that index was able to do a different parameter than the standard one so I would think they could just as easily make the parameter narrower as to make it wider.
Keep in mind that the HDOH told the whole world in an AP interview that they could print the 1961 birth index for anybody who asked as long as they paid $98.75.
Also keep in mind that Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that all index data requests are about Obama. A clerk I spoke to said that all requests about Obama have to go to Janice Okubo, whereas other requests were supposed to go to the fulfillment department so the request could be processed. I had called in to check on the status of my request and the Vital Records Office clerk couldn’t find any record of my request. We were both baffled and then all of a sudden she asked if my request was about Obama. I asked if it would make a difference and she said that requests related to Obama are treated differently; they have to go through the communications dept rather than to the clerks at the fulfillment dept.
Did you catch that? They are treating requests perceived to be about Obama differently. Okubo is the watchful eye, the keeper of what goes out regarding Obama. And all index data requests are considered a threat to Obama, to be handled by Okubo.
So index data requests are filled by Janice Okubo and the communications department - not by the clerks in the fulfillment department of the Vital Records Office. And I can tell you that she doesn’t necessarily get her records fresh from the printer or from the index books themselves. Two documents that she sent me were retrieved from a 3-ring binder, because they still had the punch holes showing on the copies she sent me. They showed no signs of ever having been in a 2-prong printout binder like the index books.
I also know that Janice Okubo has met with the IT department at least once just to figure out how to get out of giving me information that is supposed to be discloseable. They accidentally left the e-mail attached which mentioned the meeting they were going to have where my request would be brought up. So there’s apparently not a problem with using the IT Dept’s time on my requests - only with using the IT Dept’s time to FULFILL my requests.
FWIW: my son was adopted while I was in the Philippines. The Philippines created an amended birth certificate showing his new last name.
When he was naturalized, we changed his first name. However, we have never tried to get him an amended birth certificate in the US...might be interesting to try, since it would be much easier for him. Right now, he has to show both his birth certificate from the Philippines and the name change from the court in San Antonio...and his Philippine birth certificate is getting pretty ragged.
It might be interesting to see if Arizona would issue an amended birth certificate showing his current legal name + his birthplace in the Philippines. It might help him out someday...if he ever loses his paper copy of his Philippine birth certificate, it will be a pain to try to replace it.
I bet they would issue it if you asked, and I bet it would be a pain to try to replace the BC if something happened to it.
My nephew was adopted after my sister got married. I’ve wondered whether Nebraska has birth index data for him under the original name.
I would think that the index data wouldn’t show that, if the original birth data is supposed to be sealed. It would be too easy to figure out that somebody with a bizarre last name had an illegitimate child who was given up for adoption, if the index records still showed the original name.
Everything you said makes complete and total sense to me. That’s the way I’d handle it were I responsible for administering those records. They can’t risk having some lowly clerk bribed or sweet-talked into releasing information. So they escalate any requests for Obama to a higher authority. That’s not necessarily suspicious. It’s an acceptable business practice when the integrity of data and the risk of lawsuits is at stake.
I doubt a clerk printed the index data for those binders. I’d bet a DBA did it one time for a clerk and the printed results were assembled by a clerk into a binder to be kept on-hand for public access.
Of course they’re avoiding giving you information. You’re labled a vexatious requestor. Upper management wants to avoid having you spread stuff all over the Internet so they do what they can to interpret their laws in a way that prevents them from disclosing information to you or any other birther who wants information about the POTUS.
Maybe. Pretty sure God gave her to me for a reason.
She was my date to Ballet and Gala functions before she broke her hip and she asked me to take care of her.
She was a spry 96 year old and I while I hope she would live well into her old age, LOL, I’m not sure I expected her go this long and strong.
She just has this incredible outlook and gets every morning, that’s every morning with a smile, says “It’s gonna be a great day!” and then takes on the day in two speeds: Forward and Faster!
You would have to see her to know what I mean. We are actually there to keep her from doing more than she can realistically.
Gotta run and take of something for her.
Be back in in an hour or two.
They have never officially labeled me a vexatious requester. And actually that part of the law never passed. Now it just says that they can ignore duplicate requests. This is not a duplicate request; in fact, they refuse to even show me ANY request that I made for the 1961 computer-generated birth index. lol. They’re denying a request they won’t admit I ever even made (even though they sent back the money I sent with the request) - denying it because I supposedly took too long to decide to make it. lol
BT, how could there conceivably be a successful lawsuit - even by Obama’s thugs - just because some clerk properly filled out a request for index data, which is a required disclosure?
How the heck can index data be cause for a lawsuit, when it is a required disclosure? The way they have treated index data - for crying out loud, INDEX DATA - reveals that this special treatment is not just about lawsuits, although I have no doubts that Obama’s people have scared the skitters out of that department with threats of lawsuits. Their protectiveness over mere index data reveals that they’re afraid of something besides lawsuits - something that would be revealed by INDEX DATA - the most basic public information regarding what records they have in that office!
And they treat EVERY request that way so it’s not about vexatious requests either.
Why are they treating requests for routine disclosures like index data - which they say is publicly available in their office any time - as if it’s something from Area 51 (or wherever that is. I haven’t been briefed on that. lol)?
Sorry, but if I were to point to someone who does a great job of citing sources, I would think of someone like Patlin or rxsid. Citing the same couple of quotes from WKA doesn't = more sources.
It does, if one accepts the WKA decision.
Only in context of the 14th amendment, which I explained, and as I will show even further below.
Their argument that WKA is a NBC is based on the idea that natural born subject and NBC are two ways of saying the same thing, and an alien owes local obedience and allegiance, and thus a child born to him becomes a NBS/NBC.
No, this is YOUR argument, not theirs, through a series of connect-the-dots. Gray specifically cites Minor's definition of NBC, refuses to refute it and affirms Minor's decision by acknowledging that case recognized the natural citizenship that occurs to a child born in the country to citizen parents.
The dates are important because it deals with the case of someone born during the Revolution, when the British Army took and held land for some time. The larger quote is:
The larger quote doesn't change that the opinion of the court who recognized that the child in question followed the election and character of the father. British loyalists were generally pushed out of the United States after the Revolution and after the Treaty of 1783. Those British who remained were not Loyalists and were considered to have ELECTED to become U.S. citizens. Therefore, the children of those persons, born after July 4, 1776, but moreso for those born AFTER the Treaty of 1783, would be considered citizens at birth with no question. From what you quoted, note that it says, "The right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast.” IOW, this is saying that one's birthright depended on whether the parent retained allegiance to the British crown or elected to become an U.S. citizen, the latter of which was necessary for inheritance rights.
Please notice that he ASSUMES the resident alien is not here forever: “His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory...” He then cites the SecState: “independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be” (there it is, an alien CAN be punished for treason).
Right, but take note that this is on the basis of 'public law' (statutory law, which would have no impact on natural born citizenship) and makes a distinction between a 'stranger born' and 'native-born' — "it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government ..." As far as whether an alien can be charged with treason is irrelevant to the citizenship issue. Gray still made it a point of emphasis that WKA's parents were permanent residents and had permanent domicil.
Not according to the Supreme Court. “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle” -
'As much' does not = 'the same as.' This acknowledges a distinction between these two. An apple is as much a piece of fruit as is a banana, but an apple is NOT a banana. Also, this Binney quote comes from a pamphlet, the full title of which is, "The Alienigenae of the United States under the Present Naturalization Laws" Prior to the part you quoted, it says, "The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute." What it doesn't say in this passage is whether the children of aliens born in the United States is operating under the principle of birth in the country or given by statute. If it is the former, then there was no need for the 14th amendment, and further no need for Gray to even reference the 14th amendment in relation to Wong Kim Ark's citizenship. Gray already had predence from Waite in Minor V. Happersett of recognizing natural born citizenship independent of the 14th amendment. The problem, however, was that Waite gave a definition of natural born citizen that Gray could apply to his plaintiff. Gray had to find another way to make WKA a citizen at birth. Gray carefully piled source references to build a legal justification for the 14th amendment to create at birth citizenship for the child of an alien. What he did not do was redefine natural born citizenship. This is obvious because in this same section of Gray's decision, he carefully and repeatedly explains the relevance of the 14th amendment.
"This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed -- "born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States."
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, ..."
Ironically, Gray quotes a lower case ruling in this section that disputes what YOU believe, Rogers.
"The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. ... The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens."
Whatever so-called common-law principle existed in regards to birth in the country, this judge disputes. The 'white children born in this of parents who were not citizens' would be aliens. And those aliens, according to this judge, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th amendment unless they are domiciled here. We have to assume Gray agrees with this since he quoted it intact. The quote continues.
"The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens."
So there you have it. The parents have to be domiciled here for the children to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th amendment. This is why Gray included residence and domicile as part of his decision, but again, that only made WKA a citizen at birth, but not an NBC.
I didn’t know you weren’t officially labeled as a vexatious requestor. I was under the impression that was the case. Still, they’re probably avoiding birther requests because it’s generally been overwhelming for them to respond.
As you said, they’re protecting all index data not just Obama’s. That’s important and revealing.
Hawaii has had trouble with their immigration law for decades. The laws regarding who is a citizen and who is not a citizen where Hawaii is concerned have been written and re-written many times. The State Department has much trouble with Hawaii natives.
As Danae has pointed out, Hawaii gets federal money based on the number of citizens it has. So it has always been in Hawaii’s interest to manipulate the system for more federal money. Immigration law has an effect on who gains citizenship. The number of times the laws for Hawaii have been changed reflects the fact that problems or inconsistencies exist and that the State Department has tried to address those problems.
If Hawaii were to regularly and easily disclose index data for those early years, when the immigration law was not well-settled, it could reveal the inherent immigration problems with their citizens. Having the data printed out and accessible to the public is one thing. It’s difficult for the public to go in and photograph an entire binder of five years’ worth of index data. But if it’s in electronic form, one can do just about anything with it - like research immigration problems. That would open Hawaii up to lawsuits.
It’s not necessarily a risk of a lawsuit from the public that they’re avoiding where the lowly clerk is concerned. It’s likely the potential consequences of having a clerk reveal data that they’re charged with keeping private. Those consequences could be legal and political.
Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
I’m sorry if YOU are on the level. I don’t know what’s up with you or, at this point, what the eff (to use your term) is wrong with you. Leave off insulting and attacking Danae, El Sordo, Buckeye, and anybody else you’ve gone after lately. Just leave off.
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.