Posted on 01/17/2016 8:01:33 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Presidential candidate Donald Trump told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he'll consider filing a lawsuit against Ted Cruz regarding his U.S. citizenship. Trump made the comments after Stephanopoulos asked whether he'd sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I was talking about actual court rulings that denied a presidential candidate who qualified as a “Citizen of the United States at Birth.” That would need to be a post Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (1868) ruling.
For example, on Obama: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin:
No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers position that Mr. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the status of his father. April 10, 2012
That only applies to a foreign birth. The state of Hawaii says that Obama was born there.
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.” —[former] Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
“Unfortunately the courts have not agreed with that.”
Funny thing is...what the “court” decides is directly subject to the liberal/conservative majority of the Court. Therefore, what “The Court” has or has not agreed with, is irrelevant to what the Constitution actually states.
But, nice try.
You’re right, I’m certain that you know better than any judge or panel of judges.
The rulings of various state and federal courts have been irrelevant in having Barack Obama declared ineligible. I’m guessing their irrelevancy will extend to Senator Cruz’s situation.
It’s way premature to say that. We’ll see soon enough.
” I’m guessing their irrelevancy will extend to Senator Cruz’s situation.”
Probably so. But that does not make it constitutional. It only makes it an opinion of the “Court”.
They make many rulings that are not constitutional. Otherwise all rulings would be 9-0. Majority is not what makes things constitutional, unless you buy what they are selling. I don’t.
They get to decide what is Constitutional and what isn’t. Their rulings stand unless and until they are overturned by a higher court or a different court.
“Their rulings stand unless and until they are overturned by a higher court or a different court.”
Yep the constitution is up for grabs...
The Constitution always has been up for grabs since Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of judicial review to give the Court more power. Judicial Review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Marshall did that in Marbury v Madison in 1803.
Heresay. Lingle never saw it herself and the health director has never issued an official statement, under oath, attesting to the fact. When the Sec State of Arizona requested verification, they wouldn’t even verify the date of birth. If there were an official BC ( instead of just a “record of his birth” in the archives ), the date of birth would have been easily verified.
Actually the Hawaii Health Directors and the Registrar of Vital Staistics have issued six statements of confirmation including one for the Republican Secretary of State in Arizona, who then cleared Obama for the ballot, one for the Republican Secretary of State in Kansas who then cleared Obama for the Kansas ballot and one for a Ronald Reagan appointed federal judge in Mississippi who then dismissed a lawsuit in that state which challenged Obama’s eligibility.
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/08-93.pdf
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/09-063.pdf
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285
(See the exhibits on last two pages of the Motion To Supplement Counsel.)
“The Constitution always has been up for grabs “
So goes the republic. Stick a fork in her. The constitution means nothing to people determined to bastardize it.
Well, we’ve managed to hang around for 213 years since 1803 and Marbury v Madison.
Did you originally ask for verification of the Date of birth ?
Yes
If so, why was that excluded from the verification ? Was it at the suggestion of the Hawaii Attorney General or Director of Health ?
I don't know why it was excluded. I assume it was an error by whoever typed the verification.
If you excluded it at their suggestion, wouldn't that raise some questions in your mind ?
N/A
Now any competent Sec of State, when asking for a verification of a record, got back in the verification a missing field vital to the verification and assumed it was a typing error, would request another verification, not accept the one with the error as accurate.
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Nothing short of a certified copy released directly from the State of Hawaii to a court will convince me.
Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18 (b) permits inspection of a vital record by a person whose right to inspect or receive a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Also a congressional subpoena has the same force as a court order from a judge.
Its a shame that no one ever got a court order for inspection or that no congressional committee chairman issued a subpoena for inspection.
Additionally, Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka can be subpoenaed and deposed under oath or called to testify before committees of Congress.
As for the date of birth, the Letter of Verification states: Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.
That would include the date of birth matching the original vital record. No one ever challenged Obama being age eligible under Article II, Section 1.
I assume that Ken Bennett, the Arizona Secretary of State never specfically asked the Hawaii Registrar, Alvin Onaka to verify Obama’s birth date. Onaka verified what he was asked to verify by Bennett.
Yes he did. It was on the form he filled out requesting verification. Under :
338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
Thus there is no discretion on the part of Onaka and the DOH to ignore any part of the request. Thus the only reason why Onaka could not verify the date is that he could not legally do so. To assume that Onaka overlooked a part of the request would nullify its validity - the entire purpose of the verification process - as well as to suggest a degree on professional incompetence on the part of Onaka and the DOH.
He also requested of them to verify that the posted longform was a "true and accurate representation of the original record in the DOH files" That is a request that happens all the time. It requires a yes or no answer. They refused to answer it. Instead they answer with "Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files" The only legal reason for not verifying it is a true and accurate representation is that it is not. This is where Hawaii is being misleading.
I don't doubt that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth that he attached with his request matches the original record in their files. What they are doing in that case is looking at all of the fields that are filled in on the online BC and comparing them to their files. I don't doubt that they match. However, there is one field in the online BC that is blank, and thus would not be checked against their records. That is field 23 "Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration" If that field is filled out in their records but is empty on the online version, that is a reason why they could no verify it as a true and accurate representation. The reason why that field is important is because it would show if the BC was filed as a result of a family member swearing to the occurrence of the birth. If that is the case, to me it is only prima facie evidence, and the supporting documentation has to be examined.
Bennett could have simply asked Dr. Onaka again to verify the birth date. There is no reason you can’t get another Letter of Verification.
Interview with Dr. Chiyome Fukino: http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk
That was my point earlier about Bennett and how incompetent he was. He admitted to me that he thought it was a mistake. At that point he should not have accepted the verification and should have asked for another verification. He didn't.
I’d much rather have Bush than TRUMP.... I’d vote for most any other candidate than him. CRUZ is my number one...
TRUMP HOLDS the Democrat values when it comes to marriage, abortion, health care, MOST everything..except the WALL...
You would vote for a candidate that gave money to Mitch McConnell being reelected???
and mocks a handicapped journaist? think hard on that please...
also is pro abortion and says “ gay marriage is the law of the land” and needs to be accepted... sheesh.. he is a demo
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.