Hawaii to pass the "Coverup" bill

[Freiwillige]

Bill would shun Obama birth certificate requests

Associated Press
Posted on April 21, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Updated today at 2:00 PM

HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii lawmakers are moving closer to passing a measure allowing the state to ignore repeated requests for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.
A conference committee unanimously voted Tuesday to advance the bill to final votes in the House and Senate.
The proposal allows state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The bill is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They say he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
___
The bill is SB2937.

[Tribesman]

So this bill means they no longer have to waste money releasing information individually to every crackpot lunatic if they have already released it.
Wow they still get around 20 muppets a week asking for the information. I didn't realise the birthers could be so consistantly dumb.

[Freiwillige]

Birthers, I love the slang terms that political opposition groups come up with to silence people. Its an old trick really and works well. Basically you use a word while slamming around negative ideas linked to the word until it sticks and creates what they call in psychology a "negative emotional response" in the masses.

Examples being Commie for Communism or Nazi for National Socialism.

Anyhow back to the Birthers comment. Until the proof is in the pudding as they say I do not see an issue as I understand it with these "Birthers" wanting to know a very expensively hidden truth.

Now many will say that his birth certificate was shown but.....
It is actually a certification of live birth which can be had without birth taking place in the U.S.

“[§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]”
Everybody get that?
As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.
The child, on the other hand, could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya, or a back-alley in Budapest.


Now I can care less one way or another but, I do believe as history has shown that anybody who has something to hide usually does so and at great lengths. The truth one way or another will eventually come out.

[Thresher]

It cracks me up that the bill has a sunset date of 1 July 2013.

I guess the Hawaii legislators figure Obama won't get re-elected. :woot:

I will give their lawmakers credit for redacting the term "Birther" and replacing it with "vexatious requester". :har:

[Platapus]

http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[CaptainHaplo]

Here lies the problem.....

IF those who have already - under FOIA requests, gotten certified copies of the documents - as "birthers" - why is it that as soon as the request was filled - they were not out in the streets proclaiming "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!" ....... unless of course the record provided showed he was a US citizen.....

But then - if it did that - their failure to notify all their "birther" friends and help to end this issue is a real pity. I detest double standards on stuff like this - regardless of which "side" its on....

[August]

Here lies the problem.....

IF those who have already - under FOIA requests, gotten certified copies of the documents - as "birthers" - why is it that as soon as the request was filled - they were not out in the streets proclaiming "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!" ....... unless of course the record provided showed he was a US citizen.....

But then - if it did that - their failure to notify all their "birther" friends and help to end this issue is a real pity. I detest double standards on stuff like this - regardless of which "side" its on....

This ^

[Platapus]

Does anyone really think that Mr. Obama would be able to not only run for but be elected to the office of State Senator, Federal Senator, President of the United States, without some government office verifying his basic qualifications? At least once?

He was elected to three separate offices, each requiring that he be a US citizen, and he was able to fool all three? Even when he was a no body first running for state senator?

I just can't see that. :nope:

Lots of things to complain about Mr. Obama. His citizenship is the least of them. :yep:

[Freiwillige]

The issue as I understand it is not that his documentation is fake. It is a certification of live birth. That is not the same as a long form hospital birth certificate.

Then there is this.....
http://www.mediacircus.com/2009/08/obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate/

I honestly do not know if he was born here or there or on Mars. But anything that is questionable I will question, It is my nature.:shucks:

[frau kaleun]

Do these people not understand that a child born to a US citizen (provided any other requirements on the books at the time of his/her birth are met) is by law a US citizen? The geographical location of the birth is irrelevant.

If they're going to continue making this argument, they could least approach it from a more viable angle, i.e., one that makes sense given the actual laws involved. Prove his mother wasn't a citizen, or that he had no legal claim to US citizenship as her natural born child because one of them didn't live in the US for the required amount of time before or after or at the right ages or whatever. Otherwise STFU already.

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually thats not correct - just because you are a US citizen and have a child does not make the child a US citizen.

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

There are specific circumstances - but the issue is that by law he must be a "NATURAL BORN" citizen - meaning he must have been born on US soil - either in a state or territory, on a US military base or in a consulate if abroad.... *Natural born also applies if on a US military vessel.

[Freiwillige]

Then there is this.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/21/20100421arizona-birther-bill-supporter-politico.html

[frau kaleun]

Where is "natural born" legally defined as "born on US soil"? If it is so defined in US federal law, I will concede the point. However I have not seen it so defined in the Constitutional requirements for the office, or in any of the sources (admittedly nowhere near an exhaustive list) I've looked at regarding citizenship.

Actually, looking at the Constitutional requirements, it says:

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;

Emphasis mine. I realize it's probably a result of an antiquated comma placement, but I suppose if I wanted to I could take that phrase to mean that anyone who was not already a citizen at the time of the official adoption of the Constitution doesn't qualify. Of course that would mean that no one born anywhere after that date would qualify, since it's impossible to be a citizen before one actually exists. :O:

[August]

Where is "natural born" legally defined as "born on US soil"? If it is so defined in US federal law, I will concede the point. However I have not seen it so defined in the Constitutional requirements for the office, or in any of the sources (admittedly nowhere near an exhaustive list) I've looked at regarding citizenship.

Actually, looking at the Constitutional requirements, it says:



Emphasis mine. I realize it's probably a result of an antiquated comma placement, but I suppose if I wanted to I could take that phrase to mean that anyone who was not already a citizen at the time of the official adoption of the Constitution doesn't qualify. Of course that would mean that no one born anywhere after that date would qualify, since it's impossible to be a citizen before one actually exists. :O:

The word "or" is key here I think... :up:

[CaptainHaplo]

I will defer to the US Supreme Court on this one:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. (Minor v. Happerset 88 US 162)

and

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649)

A few other cases are listed on that bane of a data site - Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

[Tribesman]

Birthers, I love the slang terms that political opposition groups come up with to silence people.
The term isn't there to silence these idiots, its to publicise them.

Then there is this.....

:har::har::har::har::har:

[mookiemookie]

Oh good lord, are there still crackpots who believe in this stuff?

Birthers will never ever be happy with any evidence, no matter how damning, that ever could be released on this. They have no concept of testing a null hypothesis. Any evidence to the contrary of their opinion is discarded as false, simply because they have themselves convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Nothing will ever change their minds of that. I'd shut the books and tell them to screw off too. Save everyone the time, money and hassle of dealing with these lunatics.

[AVGWarhawk]

I ordered my copy before this law is passed. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Does anyone really think that Mr. Obama would be able to not only run for but be elected to the office of State Senator, Federal Senator, President of the United States, without some government office verifying his basic qualifications? At least once?
Agreed, someone would have checked. On the other hand none of those 'someones' seems to have spoken up.

He was elected to three separate offices, each requiring that he be a US citizen, and he was able to fool all three? Even when he was a no body first running for state senator?
Well, Federal Senator requires that you be a citizen for nine years, not that you be naturally born. Of course if he wasn't naturally born and never applied for citizenship...

The Hawaii state legislature only requires that you have been a citizen of the state for at least three years. The Illinois state legislature requires that you be a resident of the district you wish to represent for at least two years.

That said, I completely agree with your summations. Anything negative I've said is purely for fun. FactCheck's page is plenty good enough for me.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed, someone would have checked. On the other hand none of those 'someones' seems to have spoken up.

Also, I'm sure that both the Hilary and McCain campaigns would have found anything if there were something to be found. Both of those were very cutthroat races.

[SteamWake]

This must have been in reaction to the push in Arizona to have legislation that if any presidential candidate to appear on the state ballot they must have proof of citizenship.

Why that isnt already a requirement Ill never know.

Let me add a little gasoline to the fire ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk3OMRqO7aY

[August]

Oh good lord, are there still crackpots who believe in this stuff?

Birthers will never ever be happy with any evidence, no matter how damning, that ever could be released on this. They have no concept of testing a null hypothesis. Any evidence to the contrary of their opinion is discarded as false, simply because they have themselves convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Nothing will ever change their minds of that. I'd shut the books and tell them to screw off too. Save everyone the time, money and hassle of dealing with these lunatics.

Yeah they remind me of the "Bush stole the Y2K election" people and the folks who think 9-11 was an inside job.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah they remind me of the "Bush stole the Y2K election" people and the folks who think 9-11 was an inside job.

Similar to those crackhead Tea Party nuts. :haha: Each Presidents seems to spurn their opposition groups.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah they remind me of the "Bush stole the Y2K election" people and the folks who think 9-11 was an inside job.
What? Why, I happen to know for a fact...

Or is that "I happen to know somebody who knows somebody who knows..."
:rotfl2:

[August]

Similar to those crackhead Tea Party nuts. :haha: Each Presidents seems to spurn their opposition groups.

The Tea Party is a lot bigger and diverse than that, stop falling for Dem propaganda.

[AVGWarhawk]

The Tea Party is a lot bigger and diverse than that, stop falling for Dem propaganda.

I'm not brother...making light of what we see from President to President. You would think the Tea Party movement (bowel movement as the head of ACORN called it) was some type of new thing. Really, it is all nothing but hype....

[krashkart]

Yeah they remind me of the "Bush stole the Y2K election" people

Had a friend then that was a Gore supporter - that was pretty much her reaction when Bush won. :doh:

[Fr8monkey]

Bush didn't steal the election. He just had the Supreme Court rule in his favor instead of going to the Senate to decide as per Constitutional law.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah they remind me of the "Bush stole the Y2K election" people and the folks who think 9-11 was an inside job.

For once, we agree.

[Freiwillige]

Yea Gore would have been the better choice all things considered!

[AVGWarhawk]

Yea Gore would have been the better choice all things considered!


Go Green! :yeah:

[Platapus]

This must have been in reaction to the push in Arizona to have legislation that if any presidential candidate to appear on the state ballot they must have proof of citizenship.

Why that isnt already a requirement Ill never know.



Because it is up to the state election commission of the state of residence for the candidate to certify their eligibility. Once a state election commission has certified eligibility, I don't see why another state has to do it again.

Seems like a waste of state's money and time.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Hmmmm...one thing I wonder: if Obama weren't named Obama, but, say, Harrington and his father was a white Kenyan of pure English descent (I'm pretty sure they exist) would there be such a focus on his birth certificate? The expected response would be "of course not." Sort of like the myth that the Tea Partiers come from all walks of life and are against all "unnecessary" government spending (yet only appeared after Obama got elected...and have no problem if their state takes in more federal dollars than it pays out, etc).

Also, I suspect there will NEVER be enough evidence to prove Obama was born in the U.S.A. for these people.

[SteamWake]

Because it is up to the state election commission of the state of residence for the candidate to certify their eligibility. Once a state election commission has certified eligibility, I don't see why another state has to do it again.

Seems like a waste of state's money and time.

Well evidently none of the states have the requirement on the books. Seems they all took it for granted that a candidate would qualify under the constitution.

[Fr8monkey]

I think the whole thing in Arizona and Hawaii is just pure racism that's all.

[SteamWake]

I think the whole thing in Arizona and Hawaii is just pure racism that's all.

Really? How so? Please explain it to me I guess I'm stupid.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Really? How so? Please explain it to me I guess I'm stupid.

I think my post you're ignoring touches upon it.

[SteamWake]

Well I dident bring up the race issue you did so.....

[August]

Hmmmm...one thing I wonder: if Obama weren't named Obama, but, say, Harrington and his father was a white Kenyan of pure English descent (I'm pretty sure they exist) would there be such a focus on his birth certificate? The expected response would be "of course not." Sort of like the myth that the Tea Partiers come from all walks of life and are against all "unnecessary" government spending (yet only appeared after Obama got elected...and have no problem if their state takes in more federal dollars than it pays out, etc).

Also, I suspect there will NEVER be enough evidence to prove Obama was born in the U.S.A. for these people.

Well one thing *I* wonder is if you still wouldn't have a problem with Obamas true orgin if he had an (R) after his name, or whether you'd still hate the Tea Partiers if they were Democrats. Given your repeated posts like this I have to say the expected response would be yes to the former and no to the latter.

[Sailor Steve]

Bush didn't steal the election. He just had the Supreme Court rule in his favor instead of going to the Senate to decide as per Constitutional law.
Maybe you need to reread the Constitution. It's the House, not the Senate, who decides, and then only if none of the candidates recieves the required number of electoral votes.

And a quick history lesson: The Florida recounts went on forever, and the Democrats seemed to pick up a few votes with each recount. That said, Gore never came close to actually passing Bush, and there was the question of where those votes were coming from, especially since the counties in question were all Democrat-controlled.

The Florida Attorney General proclaimed that it was time for the counting to stop. Was she biased? Of course - she was a Republican and it was her guy who was leading. Was she wrong? Maybe. But according to Florida state law it was her call to make.

The Gore camp ran to the Florida State Supreme Court, which ruled that she must let the counting continue.

The Bush camp ran to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida law was law and the State Court didn't have the authority to overturn it.

Did the US Supreme Court "appoint" Bush to be president? You can argue it either way, but you are showing your bias if you don't also acknowledge that the Florida Court was trying to "appoint" Gore.