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.

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.

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

[Platapus]

http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/...n_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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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.

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

[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/o...h-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.

[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/articl...-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.

[August]

Originally Posted by 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:



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.

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

[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