On October 31, Hawaii’s Vital Statistics Office told the press that they have verified the validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate in that state. See this article. Thanks to the commenters who made me aware of this news. Apparently, besides Phil Berg’s lawsuit in Pennsylvania over Obama’s citizenship, there have been somewhat parallel lawsuits filed and already dismissed in Ohio, Hawaii, and Washington state, and perhaps others.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Berg’s lawsuit as he says even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he may have forfeited his American citizenship. I just want the case to be heard, don’t like the “No Standing” ruling
Has any other presidential candidate refused to release their birth, schooling, and passport history to the courts?
Has any other candidate had it demanded of them? -snicker- The answer is no, which of course leads to the question — Why are the legally ignorant willing to believe lies from someone with a solid history of filing frivolous nuisance suits, yet UNwilling to believe truth told by his targets?
Sure sounds bass-ackwards to me. }:)
Bill, They demanded McCain prove he was an American citizen. I don’t know if Obama is here legally or not.. But it’s obvious he hiding something. Why not just release his bith certificate and University records? Not to mention the tape the LA paper has. Obama has tapped danced around all of these issues. He’s better than Gregory Hines.
You guys aren’t even READING what AP reported. HVSO verified that they HAVE a certificate. They did NOT verify what’s on it. Birth certificates can be issued to persons born overseas in certain circumstances.
Mr. Obama has been given numerous opportunities to resolve this – $10 and a phone call is all it would take to produce a certificate noting the hospital, vital stats and attending physician. Instead, he spends thousands in legal fees and, in the end, the judge says ‘It’s none of your business’. Imagine that.
If this guy solves ALL our problems the same way, we may be in for a very bumpy ride.
$10 and a phone call – what’s he HIDING, anyway?
Yes, actually it has been asked of another candidate. John McCain. And he willing provided the required documentation. He did not have a team of attorneys fight the request on technicalities.
Whether or not you agree with the politics of either candidate. We should be able to ask, and furthermore expect, that each candidate willing provide the documentation requested to confirm their eligibility to be become President of the United States. Why would any candidate try to conceal such documentation? The only answer is that they are trying to hide something.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino said today she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate. Obviously Hawaii has a document but the question is not whether they have his original certificate, but whether that certificate indicates he was actually born in the U.S. and not born the child of a Hawaiian citizen abroad. The latter of which is what has been alleged by Philip J. Berg based on an eyewitness account of Obama’s birth in Kenya from his paternal grandmother. Up to l972, a child over the age of one in Hawaii could get a birth certificate by an affidavit of the mother that he was born at home…. The US deserves the facts!
If Barack Obama ultimately wins on Tuesday, this issue is not going to go away without the official “vault” birth certificate being produced. I hope there isnt a constitutional crisis.. I hope Obama is not like John edwards (love child), Sptizer (prostitution) and McGreevy (gaylifestyle) who ran for office hoping these problems would not show up.
Of course this entire issue would go away if Barack Obama would simply authorize the release of the document. Why does he continue to fight this issue and not just put it to rest?
A quote from the person responsible for public statement produced for the State of Hawaii.
“This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”
This statement alone shows the bias of the public officials who released the information.
Which certificate have they verified? This news is a white-wash and undoubtedly disseminated by the Obama camp (which is most of the msm). The proof comes with the simple and easy production of the relevant documents that have been demanded.
Where are they?
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/11/state-of-hawaii-backs-andy-martin-in.html
I want the courts to see this through if for no other reason than to confirm that we as a Country are still concerned with following our own constitution and laws. If this is allowed to pass without a proper hearing from the courts then there is something seriously wrong.
Of course our leaders are concerned with following the law. Didn’t the Texas Supreme Court prove it?
It would be an understatement to say this entire waste of time, energy, and emotion is a whitewash… however, certain circles would likely call that a racist remark… evidently, there are data on the birth certificate which would not enhance the candidate’s position. Perhaps, not just his place of birth.
American voters are being treated like mushrooms; they’re being kept in the dark and feed a lot of horse manure… some politicians and various news sources are dictating to the public what is “best” for the public. Voters must insist on the truth, and they need to send a clear and resoundingly loud message that democracy works best in the direction which runs from bottom to top.
Let us suppose that Obama was born abroad how did he get into the country with out travel papers of some sort being filed with the department of Immigration? All I have seen is accusations with out any evidence. I again think that if the Birth Certificate that Obama published was that abnormal then find another Birth Certificate from the same county issued during the same time period that is noticeably different. Surely there must be at least one republican who was born in 1961 from that county. Untill then this is really lame Johnathan.
I think this a desperate last moment attempt to get voters in swing states to vote for McCain. I think that those who are promoting it in the bloggs are PATHETIC LOSERS!
Everyone keeps wanting to know why Obama doesn’t just cough up the original certificate. Well, perhaps it’s because if he jumps through one bogus hoop, there will be another and another and another. He has posted an abstract of his original information and that abstract has been independently handled and approved by at least two trusted websites. Now the state officials in Hawaii have been forced to state the obvious in an effort to get the wackos to leave them alone. I hereby challenge anyone at all to provide any information at all that indicates he is not an American citizen born in Hawaii.
Posting an image on a website is not evidence. It would NEVER be accepted as evidence in ANY court proceeding. Hawaii officials have only stated that a document exists. Until it is presented as EVIDENCE, it is nothing more than rhetoric. Their statement would also not be accepted as evidence.
There has certainly been enough evidence presented for this to be checked out thoroughly. Just the circumstances surrounding his birth are enough to verify.
Like it or not, one of these suits will be heard on the MERITS, and not just be dropped on standing. And when this happens, we will get to the bottom of it.
My question is this: If he is in fact a Natural Born Citizen, why are you or anyone else concerned about providing the evidence of it? If he has the necessary documentation and other evidence required to pass legal standards then it is all a moot point.
If you are so sure that he is a citizen you should welcome the inquiry.
Merits. Yes. Good idea. What are the merits of the charge of Obama’s noncitizenship? The best I’ve heard is that someone says there is a tape of Obama’s Kenyan stepgrandmother saying he was born in Kenya. Apparently the courts haven’t heard that tape or they think that the evidence for citizenship is sufficient. So, let’s see some merits.
That is the point of the lawsuit. It is now on the docket of the Supreme Court. Case 08-570. The courts are the way disputes such as this are decided. If the case fails based on the merits of the case, then so be it.
But keep in mind, any attorney will tell you that if you are faced with a lawsuit and have clear cut evidence to clear the case, you present it. You don’t go and argue to have the case dismissed based on technicalities. Which is exactly what Obama’s attorneys did. If they did not have something to hide, they would have simply presented the required evidence at that hearing. And all of the attention that this has garnered over the last few weeks could have been avoided.
Why would they risk this hurting the campaign? The polls are all over the place. It will be close. So why risk losing votes over it? Why not put an end to it categorically? Which they could have done. So either they are hiding something, or they know something about the election that no one else knows. These are questions that no here can answer.
There must be a nurse or doctor in Hawaii who remembers this baby being born. I don’t think it was very common in 1961 for a white woman to give birth to an African American baby, was it?
Some of you people are playing with words. They could not have verified that they held this certificate without looking at it. And of course they looked at it, Hawaii also has a GOP governor and they are not part of some mass conspiracy.
No one is playing with words. The Hawaii health department is not the final authority on this. They only hold one of many pieces of information that will be required to confirm his status. As far as the Governor being a Republican, I am not suggesting a conspiracy. The Governor is simply enforcing the law.
Again, lets present ALL the evidence to the PROPER authorities and let them hash it out. Factcheck.org and snopes are not authorities of anything. So many people seem to place a lot faith these sites without really knowing anything about them. Like who provides funding, etc. To those who have supreme confidence in these sites, I challenge you to find out who is behind them. Who finances them. Who works for them. These sites are attempting to place themselves as a higher authority. The final arbiter of the facts. So I suggest you know something about them before just accepting what they present as “truth”.
[1] Dark skinned people are born light skinned. The melinin does not kick in for a week.
[2] On the national to do list,
*************
National minimum standards for candidates
ALL candidates, parties, and organizations.
***************
National abolishion of the Electorial College.
**************
National inclusion of ALL United States citizens in presidential contests, Guam, Mariannias, PR, Virgin Islands, Samoa, DC, and residing in other nations.
**************
Abolition of birthdate barriers, sans that of voting age on election day.
****************
Abolition of national birth requirements,
replaced by citizenship on election filing.
****************
In a perfect world: term limits
I’ll pass on your “to do” list.
Another Reader hides their name. What were you saying? Ohh yea if you don’t have anything to hide then don’t hide. And I respond. In America we expect the accusers to present their evidence and not just let them go on fishing trips. You know like the NSA listening in on every phone conversation, I might not have any thing to hide but I also mite like to have the right to say something stupid and funny to a friend with out it being published world wide.
Pins a Big L for Another Lame Looser on Another Reader
What’s a ‘looser’?
Only a loser would use that word.
Steve, you are the loser. Because you just don’t get it at all. I am not the accuser in this case. Those who brought the lawsuit are the accusers. And they will get the opportunity to present their evidence in the courts. And as is also the American way, Mr. Obama will get his chance to refute the evidence. And if he can provide the courts with the necessary evidence to clear this, he will win. If not, he will be shown to be ineligible to hold the office of President.
This is a case for the Supreme Court, because it addresses issues with the enforcement of the Constitution. It will be their place to make the determination, because it was not clearly defined by any other means. They will provide clarity to the definition and by whom it will be charged to verify this type of information in future elections. So we don’t have this type of problem again.
By the way Steve, what is you last name? Where do you live? What is your phone number? You have not been very forthcoming with your information in this forum either. Is Steve your real name, or is a cover? Kind of ridiculous isn’t it. This is just a forum for folks such as ourselves to discuss topics such as this one.
One more point Steve, people who don’t understand the issues surrounding the topics or ideas that they are talking about resort to personal attacks against those with whom they are arguing. You are actually doing the very thing that you seem to be upset with those who are merely talking about what is going on with the election at the moment. Remember it is about the issues, and as it turns out, this will end up being quite an important one concerning this campaign.
Here is some more VERY interesting information concerning this case:
Hawaii state law:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Even if Obama’s COLB is perfectly legit it does not meet the requirements for US Citizenship, nor does it provide enough information to legally establish that he is a “natural born citizen” since the mother could legally have the baby outside of the state or even US and still obtain a COLB
I know the best solution around the whole problem of if either Obama or McCain is eligible to be president — vote Libertarian, or vote Constitution, or vote Green. Let’s not waste our time screwing around with the old, corrupt parties.
Interesting that Berg says Obama WAS DEFINITELY born in Kenya, but if he WASN’T, that he renounced his citizenship….. Berg can’t even keep his own story straight.
I thought the Governor of Hawai’i sealed Senator Obama’s birth certificate last weekend. If so, then someone must have unsealed it to determine that it was valid. But they won’t make a copy of it available to anyone, not even for purposes of putting to rest a lawsuit. But it must be valid, right?
Let’s see…a postal worker or passport office clerk was able to see a copy of Obama’s birth certificate when he originally applied for his passport. But the American people can’t see a copy of it when Obama applies to be president of the United States?
That must make sense, right?
Andy Martin held a news conference in Chicago yesterday in Chicago (11/1/08). The link below gives details of that news conference.
http://www.pr-inside.com/state-of-hawai-i-backs-andy-martin-r893026.htm
As for the lawsuit that Berg filed against Obama he released a 10 minute video explaining the details here:
http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/lawsuit5/
No, Berg believes that Obama was born in Kenya but that even if Obama wasn’t, he is still ineligible for the presidency because he became an Indonesian citizen as a child.
Looks like you can’t even keep your pro-Obama spin straight.
Per Jury: “No, Berg believes that Obama was born in Kenya but that even if Obama wasn’t,”
That’s what he *says* he believes. If Obama could lie, so could Berg. In point of fact he has *more* reason to do so than Obama — he’s a disgruntled Clintonista who only went ballistic about Obama’s birth after Hillary’s candidacy went irrevocably south. He also has a history of filing frivolous suits, as well as trying to convince people to buy into questionable conspiracy theories.
Those 3 things are facts; they don’t depend on assumption of what he actually believes. They’re hard, solid facts. It’s evidence, not assumption; verifiable facts, not unquestioning trust in what may/may not actually be what Berg really believes.
Give me facts any day — they’re vastly more reliable in terms of arriving at the truth than blind reliance on un verified statements made by someone whose veracity is seriously in question 😉
“But the American people can’t see a copy of it when Obama applies to be president of the United States?
“That must make sense, right?”
Right, it does — it’s called the Privacy Act. It’s been in force since 1974, longer than most of the people here trying to bypass it have been alive. 😉
Bill you incorrect in your statements. The bill was enacted in 1999, not 1974. See the following: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session1999/bills/SB1315_.htm
Presidential candidates must provide proof of their eligibility. They can not hide behind “right to privacy laws” to prevent the release of information that they would otherwise prefer to remain unknown.
Unfortunately, this may not play out before the election on Tuesday. But it will be heard before January. The electoral college does not cast votes until then. If it is shown that he does not meet the requirements, he will not become President. Even if he wins Tuesday. This will create a Constitutional mess that will have to dealt with by the Supreme Court.
There are well over a dozen active lawsuits concerning Obama’s eligibility and there may well be even more next week. This will eventually be put before the proper court and Obama will have to produce the requested documentation or be removed from consideration.
I have done considerable research on this and I personally believe he can not prove it. If he could, he would have done so when it first came up. So he either A. truly believes he is above it all, B. believes that if he wins the election on Tuesday, that it will somehow all go away, or C. he has already prepared an argument to counter the challenge that he knew would come all along.
Personally, it is sad that so many people seem perfectly willing to overlook such a huge issue. This goes straight to the core of the Constitution. And it must be upheld, regardless of how popular a candidate may be at the time. These people should be angry at the DNC for putting forth a candidate that was not fully vetted. For if they had, it is quite likely they would win Tuesday with a legitimate candidate.
“Personally, it is sad that so many people seem perfectly willing to overlook such a huge issue.”
Personally, it is sad that so many people think they know better than somebody who’s daily work has been subject to provisions of said act for well over 30 years now. I refer you here — http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_7_1.html You may want to get your facts right before challenging the old man again. The rest of your statements are equally in error. You may want to re-do your “research” at places that *don’t* have agendas; it’ll help you come off as at least somewhat credible next time. My previous post on this appears to have hit ye olde bit bucket, but if you need me to reconstruct it I’ll be happy to. I don’t think you’ll like it very much, though since unfortunately it lays complete & total waste to the points you attempted to bring to bear in support of your premise. :)]
Sorry, glitch there, not sure why. “who’s daily work” should of course read “whose daily work”
FWIW, the Privacy Act was enacted in 1974. You can also verify that at gpoaccess.gov. The citation is Public Law No. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1897 (Dec. 31, 1974)
As long as I’m here correcting, I may as well correct your error re the electoral college too. The EC meets to cast their votes not in January as you claim, but on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December; that makes this year’s meeting on the 15th.
You really do need to do your research at more reliable sites, I hate to have to say. Every single one of your points was dead wrong. I’ll be more than happy to address line-item by line-item if you wish, but I won’t unless you insist. I honestly don’t care for pounding people into the canvas when they’re already reeling on mandatory 8-count unless it’s absolutely necessary. 🙂 Unlike a lot of folks, I do, though, make certain I have my facts right before posting — it’s much better for the credibility, after all. 🙂
“That’s what he *says* he believes…”
Huh?? You’re just a bit too clever by half. They’re one and the same.
“If Obama could lie, so could Berg. In point of fact he has *more* reason to do so than Obama — he’s a disgruntled Clintonista who only went ballistic about Obama’s birth after Hillary’s candidacy went irrevocably south.”
That’s why this case needs to be heard–to get to the truth.
“He also has a history of filing frivolous suits, as well as trying to convince people to buy into questionable conspiracy theories.”
And Obama has a history of associating with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, etc. BUT regarding the topic at hand, who cares about the history of either Obama or Berg? Let’s determine whether or not Obama has proven that he’s eligible to serve.
“Those 3 things are facts; they don’t depend on assumption of what he actually believes. They’re hard, solid facts. It’s evidence, not assumption; verifiable facts, not unquestioning trust in what may/may not actually be what Berg really believes.
Give me facts any day — they’re vastly more reliable in terms of arriving at the truth than blind reliance on un verified statements made by someone whose veracity is seriously in question ;)”
Good, then you’re on our side.
Barack Obama should present FACTS concerning whether or not he’s eligible to serve. So far, he hasn’t.
How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?
I understand John McCain was born in Panama. Doesn’t that make him ineligible to be president? I thought the Constitution said you had to have been born in a state.
A: Though born abroad, he is considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.
John McCain’s father was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who was stationed in Panama in 1936, when McCain was born. This has led to speculation as to whether McCain is a U.S. citizen and whether he can be elected president, a question that was raised during McCain’s run for the Republican nomination in 2000 as well.
Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states:
Article II: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.â€
But McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country’s borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. As a congressional act stated in 1790:
Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Another congressional act in 1795 issued a similar assurance, though it changed the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen.”
But the State Department clarifies the issue, saying that the 1790 language is honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This is not the first time the question has been broached in a presidential election. Fellow Arizonian Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory before it was a state. And Mitt Romney’s father, George, ran for president in 1968, though he was born in Mexico. Like McCain, both were born to U.S. citizens and, therefore, considered to be American citizens.
However, both of those candidates were unsuccessful in their bids – and so a smidgen of uncertainty remains. If McCain wins the presidency, the constitutionality of these congressional statutes could be challenged in the courts. Members of Congress have expressed this fear and proposed a more explicit law, or even a Constitutional amendment. Neither has been adopted.
-Justin Bank
Update, June 16: This article originally didn’t note the distinction in language between the 1790 and 1795 congressional acts.
The original birth certificate is kept on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health. All anyone can request is a certified copy. The original will always be kept on file. The certificate on display on the internet is how the standard certified Hawaiian copies look.
So what is the expectation for providing the appropriate documentation? If the original type written document is removed from the Department of Health records then what should be left in its place for future references?
I imagine in all these law suits that copies will be provided and not the original on file.
So what is the big deal if the courts in Hawaii say there is an original on file. No one can get the original only a copy. So the $10 and a phone call have already obtained a certified copy which we have viewed as a scanned copy on the internet.
And all of us from Hawaii look at that and say to each other, yes that is how the certified copies look in Hawaii.
Yet even the certified copy has not proven to satisfy all those claiming that something is amiss. Do they really expect the state of Hawaii to take the original out for show and tell?
So in summary this is the way it works. No one gets an original document. Everyone gets a certified copy. The originals are kept on file for eternity.
What are the Obama supporters afraid of? Why not just insist, as his supporters, that he bring this into the light and get it over with instead of hiding behind privacy laws.
There are 2 issues that Berg is raising:
1. Is Obama a “natural born citizen”? The State of Hawaii says that he has a genuine Hawaiian Birth Certificate. The objection seems to be that he could have been born in Kenya and his mother then registered his birth upon her return to Hawaii. Is that possible? I suppose, but the evidence so far seems weak at best-a supposed tape recording that no one has actually heard by an elderly woman in Kenya “remembering” something that happened 48 years ago. That’s weak to say the least.
Now some of you say Obama needs more proof. But a valid birth certificate is prima facie proof. How do any of us know where we were born? We have a birth certificate and we have what our parents told us. In this case his parents are dead for many years, so the birth certificate is all there is. Hospital records? Most hospitals destroy records after a certain number of years. The non-existence of a hospital birth record wouldn’t prove anything. The fact is that any court will presume the birth certificate to be valid absent very convincing evidence to the contrary.
But let’s go a step further. Suppose he were born in Kenya. He would still almost certainly qualify as a birthright citizen as the child of a US citizen. Yes, I know his mother was 18, rather than 19 when he was born, but you have to look at not just the text of a law, but how it has been interpreted by the courts over time. IMO, it is very likely that a court would consider a child born abroad to an 18-year US citizen to be a US citizen.
But suppose they didn’t. Well, then congress could do as they did with McCain (who was absolutely not born in the US) and simply declare him a natural born citizen. The term is nowhere defined and Congress has wide discretion in electoral matters. Now some have said, well why doesn’t Obama submit his papers to Congress as McCain did. Very simply, because Obama knows he was born in the US and has the birth certificate to prove it. No candidate before has ever gone to Congress to prove where he was born, so why would he? Have you see the birth certificates of Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc.? I doubt it.
The fact is that Obama has proven his eligibility as much as any previous President with documents that are valid unless proven differently. Those who want to question it have the burden of proof. So far they haven’t even come close.
The “proof” as you say, will be presented in court. And as per the Constitution, the candidates have the burden to prove they are eligible. We have not seen his birth certificate. He has posted an image that has been forensically shown to be a fake.
Please cite one instance where an image posted on a website has been accepted as evidence (of proof) in a court of law. Please post it. You can’t because it does not exist.
As far as the date of the electoral college vote, my mistake. But as far as the Hawaii statute that is preventing anyone from pulling a Birth Certificate, I’m sorry but I am correct on that one. This statute has been referenced by number many times now in connection to this lawsuit.
Another Reader:
Have you see the birth certificates of Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc.? What is different here?
As for “forensically shown to be a fake”, can you direct me to a court ruling to that effect?
The difference here is the circumstances surrounding Mr. Obama’s birth. It can not be denied that the facts of the case bear questioning. His father being from Africa and the questions surrounding the status of his mother as well. Also the fact that the man continually and consistently refuses to release any records, including his birth records so that it can be verified he is who he says he is.
As for previous presidents birth records, no I have not seen them and I don’t need to. They are not in question here. The circumstances of their births are not in question. Besides, this is not even an argument.
As far as directing to a court ruling, I can not because it has yet to be called in any of the impending court cases. After these cases have cleared we can talk about it then.
What circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth? That his father was a Kenyan? Do we know for sure that the fathers of all 43 previous Presidents were as advertised?
As for his records, his birth certificate has been attested to by the authorities legally responsible for issuing it. If I have a hundred dollar bill and the Federal Reserve says it’s genuine that’s really all I need to know. If that isn’t good enough for you, I’ll spend it elsewhere.
He is displaying what is called a “Certification of Live Birth” not a “Certificate of Live Birth”. They are two totally separate things. The “Certification of Live Birth” simply states that a live birth occurred. It does not state WHERE. This is what Obama is presenting. The existence of this certificate DOES not confer “Natural Born Citizenship” status.
Again, previous presidents cases do not apply or matter. All candidates are required to provide their documentation. Can you show evidence that they did not? The issue was raised with McCain, and rightfully so because the circumstances of his birth unusual as well. The difference is the he willing provided all documentation and it was certified by the proper authorities. He did not point to an image on a website and call it proof. BOTH of this parents LIVE in the United States and have their documentation to prove it.
Obama has none of this to fall back on. Thus the reason to clarify it. Again, why doesn’t he just provide the information? The reason is, as opposed to McCain, HE CAN’T. It does not exist.
Again, any attorney would advise their client to provide evidence to clear a question like this if the client had it. You don’t go to court to fight a request such as this on technicalities if you know that you have the evidence to clear it.
Again, the answer to this is very simple. If he is indeed a natural born citizen as defined by the Constitution and the further defining laws, he should present the evidence. AS IS REQUIRED by the Constitution. And then all of this just goes away.
Let me also address the issue of standing, because this has been much mis-understood by some posters. Let me do so with a real world example.
The law requires drivers to have a license. So, can I pull over drivers who I think are speeding and demand to see their licences? No, because I am not the designated authority to enforce the traffic laws. I can certainly call 911 and report these bad drivers, but it’s up to the police to take action or not. If I’m dissatisfied with their actions, I can vote for a candidate who promises strict enforcement of the traffic laws. But if I sued to force the cops to pull certain cars over, I doubt i’d get very far here.
Similarly in Obama’s case, the authority rests with the state officials, the FEC and Congress. Mr Berg or anyone else can certainly petition them to do what they think ought to be done, but suing to try to force them to follow the Berg line is an abuse of the court system. Berg’s standing (or anyone else’s) is to not vote for Obama or for anyone else he considers responsible. Beyond that, he has no standing. He is not election police.
Another Reader: I don’t think you read the posted story:
“HONOLULU (AP) — State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.”
They are the relevant authority as to who is and is not born in their state, not Phil Berg.
“Again, previous presidents cases do not apply or matter. All candidates are required to provide their documentation. Can you show evidence that they did not?” Can you tell me what documentation previous Presidents provided and to whom? What evidence is there that Obama didn’t provide exactly the same dcoumentation as all of the previous 43?
“he should present the evidence. AS IS REQUIRED by the Constitution.” The Constitution is silent as to what evidence, if any, a candidate needs to provide. Once again though, Obama has satisfied the State of Hawaii that he was born there; that is enough for me. If you need further proof, I understand he is not bad on a surfboard.
Here’s your mistake: It’s not the ‘Berg’ line. It’s the Constitution’s line (regarding eligibility).
“Once again though, Obama has satisfied the State of Hawaii that he was born there; that is enough for me…”
That’s fair. We just have an honest disagreement, I guess, because it certainly isn’t enough for me.
Jury: State Departments of Health are the authorities designated under the law to record births within their state. It is “Berg’s line” because he attempting to supercede their authority. I think I covered this pretty well in #49.
My objection is not to anyone who chooses to not vote for Obama because of this. My objection is to anyone setting himself up as the eligibility police above and beyond the proper authorities, who certainly know more about what their own agency’s papers look like and what documents support them than anyone else.
Wrong and wrong. I think that the U.S. Constitution covered this pretty well when it says that only natural-born citizens can serve as president. (FYI, the Constitution supercedes the state of Hawaii)
BTW, I think the objection you voiced is a valid one; it’s just wrong, that’s all. This is the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court should step in because they are the final arbiters, not you or me.
Jury: I think you are wronger. The Constitution says only natural-born citizens can serve, BUT it does not define the term nor provide how that should be documented. All precedents are that a valid birth certificate from the state you were born in is all that is needed. Obama has that. McCain had an issue (since resolved) because he does not have a birth certificate from a US state. The Supreme Court will step in by refusing to hear the case, thus backing up the State of Hawaii.
The Hawaii Department of Health is NOT an authority on status of Mr. Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status. They are merely the keeper of the records. Nothing could be more laughable than saying the they “have certified” anything other than a document exists.
Bottom line, this case will get heard on it’s merits. And when it does, the facts and evidence will get a proper treatise. And we will ALL know after that.
As Jury says, we disagree. The court system will have the final say.
“Jury: I think you are wronger. The Constitution says only natural-born citizens can serve, BUT it does not define the term nor provide how that should be documented.”
Wronger?? Did God himself create a new English word today?
…or is he busy campaigning with Sen. Biden?
All kidding aside, this is why (as I have stated before) the Supreme Court needs to step in. Only the Court (not you, not me) can decide how candidates can be deemed ‘natural-born citizens’.
“All precedents are that a valid birth certificate from the state you were born in is all that is needed.”
When did the Court establish this precedent?
(ie; please give the case, the year, and all other relevant info so that I can read the majority opinion)
“Obama has that.”
When did the Court say this? (see above)
“McCain had an issue (since resolved) because he does not have a birth certificate from a US state.”
An entirely different issue. McCain never denied the location of his birth. In fact, he has always acknowledged that his opponents have correctly stated where he was born.
BUT if there’s any issue at all regarding his natural-born status, I’m perfectly content to let the Court have the final say.
“The Supreme Court will step in by refusing to hear the case, thus backing up the State of Hawaii.”
Should this unfortunate event occur, I (unlike Democrats in 2000) can accept whatever action the Court takes. Likewise, if the Supreme Court determines that Obama is ineligible for the presidency, I would expect the same of you.
I agree with Jury on this. This is a case for the Supreme Court. If for no other reason that so that we can avoid a similar fiasco in the future. We should be discussing issues and not whether or not a particular candidate is eligible. This should have been verified long ago.
There is some gray area here, one being who is responsible for checking this type of information. It is the Supreme Court’s duty to step in here and clear this up. And as Jury says, I will abide with their findings.
“All precedents are that a valid birth certificate from the state you were born in is all that is needed.
When did the Court establish this precedent?
(ie; please give the case, the year, and all other relevant info so that I can read the majority opinion)”
Precedents are established not just by specific rulings, but by long acceptance of practices, provided such practices do not violate any specific clauses of the constitution. I don’t know what clause is violated by states issuing birth certificates. Furthermore, the precedent for all presidential candidates before now was that their birth certificates were accepted as proof that they met “natural born” status. That is a valid legal precedent in the case of election law.
We should be clear, the Court’s decision not to hear the case (which is what I expect) is a finding also; i.e. one that how to determine eligibility belongs in the hands of elected officials unless they act in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion. That is not the case here, as they issue birth certificates to anyone born in Hawaii. So, when you say you will abide by their findings, I’m assuming that means their declining to hear the case as well?
“Precedents are established not just by specific rulings,”
You’re obviously not a judge, or even an attorney.
“Furthermore, the precedent for all presidential candidates before now was that their birth certificates were accepted as proof that they met “natural born†status.”
It’s the legal definition of the word that applies here, not the dictionary definition. The Supreme Court has never even heard a case regarding this issue.
(Just admit it, friend, you got caught on this one)
“That is a valid legal precedent in the case of election law.”
Says who?
You or an actual court decision?
“We should be clear, the Court’s decision not to hear the case (which is what I expect) is a finding also;”
Please do some research. The Court has never been presented with such a case. (Mr. Berg is currently in the process of appealing his case, so we will get our questions answered fairly soon.)
“i.e. one that how to determine eligibility belongs in the hands of elected officials unless they act in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion.”
Again, when did the Supreme Court establish this ‘precedent’? And if not the high court, which court?
“That is not the case here, as they issue birth certificates to anyone born in Hawaii.”
Apparently, some people who weren’t born in Hawaii also have birth certificates. Let’s wait and see if the Court decides that Obama needs to release his.
“So, when you say you will abide by their findings, I’m assuming that means their declining to hear the case as well?”
Absolutely. I’m not a hypocrite like Democrats.
I just finished reading all of the very inteligent posts regarding this subject. It appears many of you have great understanding of the leagal system and of the constitution, very impressive. The question I have is, when did the citizens of this country decide it was ok to settle for any candidate that did not have the honesty and charecter to provide the electrate with such information. It seems like it should be a very simple thing to do. I had to provide my sons origanal birth certificate to register him on a youth soccer team, is it too much to ask to require the same for our presidential candidates? Just as McCain provide his when asked it is only right for Obama to do the same. All the legal wrangling in the world can not discuise that fact.
I am one american that expects more form my public servents.
Jury: In fact the courts do give deference in electoral matters to elected officials. A prime example is Bush v. Gore.
What you are missing is that in matters of election Congress is supreme. They can in fact reject the votes of electors. This could have happened in 2000; there was a House challenge to the Florida electoral vote, but no Senator was willing to join it. The reason they didn’t of course was that would have thrown the election into the House, which the Republicans controlled, so there was no point. But had the House been Democratic, they could have in effect over-ruled the Supreme Court by annulling the vote of the Florida electors.
But let’s say in this case the Supremes over-ruled the District Court on standing. Well, then the judge would have to schedule some kind of trial on the evidence. Keep in mind that in such a proceeding, Berg, as plaintiff, would have the burden of proof, something I think he would have a very hard time overcoming. Let’s further suppose that he could actually prove that Obama was born in Kenya. There’s still a claim to natural-born status as the child of an American, just as there is with McCain (I realize the distinction between 1 and 2 US parents, but there is not a lot of precedent here either). All that would have to be adjudicated, again all the way to the Supreme Court.
In fact, I would put money that the Supreme Court will decline to overturn the decision on standing, since this is a perfectly reasonable decision, since Berg has not suffered specific harm. The old saying is that “the Supreme Court reads the election returns”. In Bush v. Gore the electio returns were muddled to say the least. Assuming that the margins predicted by the polls are correct, they will not want to get involved.
“Jury: In fact the courts do give deference in electoral matters to elected officials. A prime example is Bush v. Gore.”
I’m not talking about just any court; I’m talking about the U.S. Supreme Court. And please cite the case where the Court confers this so-called ‘deference’. I’d like to review it for myself. Thanks in advance.
“What you are missing is that in matters of election Congress is supreme.”
Wrong. If there are constitutional questions involved, then the judicial (not legislative) branch is supreme (hence the name SUPREME Court).
“They can in fact reject the votes of electors. This could have happened in 2000; there was a House challenge to the Florida electoral vote, but no Senator was willing to join it. The reason they didn’t of course was that would have thrown the election into the House, which the Republicans controlled, so there was no point. But had the House been Democratic, they could have in effect over-ruled the Supreme Court by annulling the vote of the Florida electors.”
Red herring. Actually a red herring in two different ways. First, this has nothing to do with the ‘precedent’ of which you spoke. Second, it doesn’t even have anything to do with either the majority or dissenting opinions of Bush vs. Gore.
Try again.
“But let’s say in this case the Supremes over-ruled the District Court on standing. Well, then the judge would have to schedule some kind of trial on the evidence. Keep in mind that in such a proceeding, Berg, as plaintiff, would have the burden of proof, something I think he would have a very hard time overcoming.”
Thanks for staying on topic this time. The ‘proof’ would be the birth certificate itself. If the Certificate of Live Birth (NOT Certification of Live Birth) is subsequently authenticated and states that Obama was born in Hawaii, then case closed; Obama is eligible to serve. But if someone has tampered with it or there is missing information, then further investigation is warranted.
“Let’s further suppose that he could actually prove that Obama was born in Kenya. There’s still a claim to natural-born status as the child of an American, just as there is with McCain (I realize the distinction between 1 and 2 US parents, but there is not a lot of precedent here either).”
Agreed. Whatever the case is, the Supreme Court should provide answers to any and all questions regarding the ‘natural-born’ status of Obama (and any other candidate, for that matter).
“All that would have to be adjudicated, again all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Thank you very much.
“In fact, I would put money that the Supreme Court will decline to overturn the decision on standing, since this is a perfectly reasonable decision, since Berg has not suffered specific harm.”
Your opinion is just as insignificant as mine. You find the lower court’s ruling reasonable; I don’t. Let the high court decide.
“The old saying is that “the Supreme Court reads the election returnsâ€. In Bush v. Gore the electio [sic] returns were muddled to say the least. Assuming that the margins predicted by the polls are correct, they will not want to get involved.”
If Barack Obama won 100% of the vote, he would still not be eligible to serve if he’s not a natural-born citizen. I think all 9 justices are smart enough to realize this. (Even the liberal ones)
“Natural born* has to do with AT BIRTH ALLEGIANCE to a Nation-State — obviously based on the Nation-State Allegiance of the parents (where ever the child is physically born — in a nation or on the high seas) — or possibly only the Nation-State Allegiance of the FATHER (due to ancient tribal / Middle Ages / feudal stuff).
Obviously Obama’s father (being a *subject* of the then British Empire – in then Kenya Colony) had ZERO Nation-State Allegiance to the U.S.A. when and where ever Obama was physically born in 1961.
See the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — for INSIDE the U.S.A. births.
The qualifications for Electors-Voters and Public Officers are put in Constitutions to NOT let the party hacks have statutory machinations to get rigged results.
This mess may have to clarify whether or note so-called *dual citizenship* can legally exist under the U.S.A. Constitution.
See Art. III, Sec. 2 — the parties in cases — State citizens and Foreign citizens/subjects — NOT to overlap apparently.
U.S.A. citizens in D.C., regular territories and U.S.A. colonies would have party status against Foreign citizens/subjects via the arising under language in such Art. III, Sec. 2 — also NOT to overlap apparently.
Jury: I think you are wrong regarding the role of the Supreme Court in political matters. They are supreme in matters related to the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the state. They are not necesarily supreme in political matters. A few examples:
1. Impeachment-“High crimes and misdemeanors” is a purposely vague term. Its meaning has never been defined by the Supreme Court and will not be. The definition is whatever 67 Senators think it is.
2. Secession-The Constitution has nothing in it that forbids a state to secede from the Union. Do you think that if the Supreme Court had said the South was free to go Lincoln would have said, “Never mind what I said about using force to preserve the Union”?
3. Bush v. Gore-This is not a red herring. The Supreme Court said Bush won Florida. If the Democrats had held a large majority in the House they were free to overrule the Court by simply not accepting the votes of the Florida electors. Without those, Gore would heve held the majority.
In reality, we may be looking here at a situation where, as in the above, Congress, rather than the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
“Jury: I think you are wrong regarding the role of the Supreme Court in political matters.”
Sorry, but this is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. Eligibility for the presidency is stated in the Constitution; therefore, the Supreme Court has the final word. (This is Civics 101, BTW)
“They are supreme in matters related to the rights of individuals vis-a-vis the state.”
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. (Again, Civics 101)
“They are not necesarily supreme in political matters.”
Who said they are? Eligibility to serve as president is a constitutional matter, my friend. (see above)
“A few examples:
1. Impeachment-â€High crimes and misdemeanors†is a purposely vague term. Its meaning has never been defined by the Supreme Court and will not be. The definition is whatever 67 Senators think it is.”
The Constitution explicity states that “the House of Representatives shall…have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments”.
You may want to buy a copy of the Constitution (I can send you one, if you’d like). Clearly, these two statements are very easy for the Court, and everyone else except you, to interpret. (Civics 101)
“2. Secession-The Constitution has nothing in it that forbids a state to secede from the Union. Do you think that if the Supreme Court had said the South was free to go Lincoln would have said, “Never mind what I said about using force to preserve the Unionâ€?”
The South didn’t sue Lincoln. (History 101)
“3. Bush v. Gore-This is not a red herring. The Supreme Court said Bush won Florida. If the Democrats had held a large majority in the House they were free to overrule the Court by simply not accepting the votes of the Florida electors. Without those, Gore would heve held the majority.”
We were talking about eligibility for the presidency. As far as I can tell, the majority & dissenting opinions of Bush vs. Gore has no relevance to Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve. Nice attempt to change the subject, but try again.
“In reality, we may be looking here at a situation where, as in the above, Congress, rather than the Supreme Court is the final arbiter.”
Please retake your high school civics class. The legislative branch of government (Congress) only makes laws.
Have a good Election Day!
U.S.A. Const.
Art. III, Sec. 2 –
The judicial Power [of the U.S.A. courts] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ***
Exceptions — for historical reasons in English legal history –
Impeachments-
Art. I, Sec. 2.
The House of Representatives *** shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Art. I, Sec. 3.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ***
——-
Congress – Election returns and Qualifications Art. I, Sec. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ***
Jury: I guess you are on record as condemning the Bush Administration for their stance that the detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo is beyond Court review. Did I miss that?
And you think if the South had just sued, the Civil War would have been avoided?
But answer me this-If the case on Obama has merit, why haven’t those who would have a stronger case as regards standing, namely, McCain, Barr, Nader, et al. sued? Perhaps because they all think it’s nonsense?
“Jury: I guess you are on record as condemning the Bush Administration for their stance that the detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo is beyond Court review. Did I miss that?”
And how does this relate to Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve? (Smells like another foul red herring to me)
“And you think if the South had just sued, the Civil War would have been avoided?”
You answered this question earlier. The Constitution doesn’t address this issue (as you said yourself); therefore, it’s not a matter for the Court. (You may want to reread your own posts next time)
“But answer me this-If the case on Obama has merit, why haven’t those who would have a stronger case as regards standing, namely, McCain, Barr, Nader, et al. sued? Perhaps because they all think it’s nonsense?”
Or perhaps because they believe that voters (such as Mr. Berg) have standing and can do the dirty work for them. But who knows? I can’t read their minds and neither can you.
Obama’s a natural born citizen.
The tape of his grandmother has yet to surface-why would such damning evidence, already available to the public (talk show host Michael Savage claims to have a copy), go unused? It could have sunk Obama’s campaign at any point. It still could, being as the Electoral College still hasn’t convened. Yet nobody’s produced it.
Also, assuming Obama was not born in America, how is it that:
A birth announcement for Barack Obama was printed in a Honolulu paper on 8/7/1961?
A foreign birth certificate and/or evidence of US naturalization doesn’t exist for Obama?
’nuff said.
1) If you apply for a driver’s license, the DMV will not accept a ‘birth announcement’ from a newspaper.
2) Kenya will not release any records regarding Obama.
3) Mr. Berg claims that Obama could be an illegal alien.
Obama may very well be a citizen, but we won’t know for sure until he makes his birth certificate public. So far, he’s hiding it.
‘Nuff said!
I moved from Connecticut to South Carolina 3 years ago. I went to the DMV, gave them my old liscense and said i would like a South Carolina liscence. THEY INSISTED I BRING THEM A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
I showed them my legal liscense from the state of Connecticut…shouldnt that have been enough?
I showed them my new address from several bills…water, sewer, electric. Shouldnt that have been enough?
Nope, not good enough…we need you birth certificate!
So if all i did was move from one state to another and just wanted to turn in my old drivers for a new drivers representing the new state i moved to, who the hell is Obama to not show his certificate if he wants to be my president.
I had to waste a whole day unpacking boxes to find my birth records and go again the next day just to get a frigging drivers liscence, but we will just let some african be our President with no proof?
This is all bull, This guy shouldnt even be president. He has no experience what so ever, he is liar to the fulliest!! Change, Change, Change, Change what change????????? Read his book !!!!! Muslim this muslim that. This is a SHAME TO AMERICA!That we feel we have to offer the highiest seat in the world to him cuase he is black. Just like ging to a job interview where they have to hire blacks becuase of affirmitive action,even though they arent half as qualified as the whites for the job! How and why does BarracK Hussien Obama deserve to president of the united states, my four fathers or yours didnt die for a black racist like obama to be president. And if you think im a racist, I said nothing that Michelle Obama didnt say about white poeple being the the black mans promblem and rev. Wright. O’ I forgot whites cant say this stuff we have to be ashamed to be white.
This is all bull, This guy shouldnt even be president. He has no experience what so ever, he is liar to the fulliest!! Change, Change, Change, Change what change????????? Read his book !!!!! Muslim this muslim that. This is a SHAME TO AMERICA!That we feel we have to offer the highiest seat in the world to him cuase he is black. Just like ging to a job interview where they have to hire blacks becuase of affirmitive action,even though they arent half as qualified as the whites for the job! How and why does BarracK Hussien Obama deserve to president of the united states, my four fathers or yours didnt die for a black racist like obama to be president. And if you think im a racist, I said nothing that Michelle Obama didnt say about white poeple being the the black mans promblem and rev. Wright. O’ I forgot whites cant say this stuff we have to be ashamed to be white.
If Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Alan Keyes and all of the others making these claims are lying, and this could possibly destroy Barack’s career, and effectively end the Democratic Party, why have the DNC and the Obama Camp not sued them for libel?
I know if these “vicious rumors” were being published and pursued about and against me, and I had nothing to hide in a court of law I would have sued for libel the day these suits were presented.
Instead the DNC and Obama have decided to file injunctions and attempt to have these suits tossed on technicalities to avoid having to prove the unprovable which would ultimately lead to the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party and the “Hope” of changing the course of this country forever.
if there is a birth certificate, just show it.