Monday, April 18, 2011

Just when I thought the Obama birther issue would go away....

Just when I thought this birther thing would go away, I find an interview like this on CNN:


Believing that this woman was a total nutcase, I decided to look up the laws she referred to and this is what I found. These are the Hawaiian statutes that Orly Taitz refers to:

Hawaii State Legislature Hawaii Revised Statutes-->Vol06_Ch0321-0344

§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a "late" or "altered" certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

(emphasis mine)

For the sake of argument, lets assume that Taitz is correct in her assertions. Those Hawaiian statutes sure look strange, but they are the law. If Obama's Parents/Grand Parents fulfilled the requirements under these statutes to report his birth, it appears they did it legally according to the statutes. So under Hawaiian Law, Obama has a Hawaiian birth certificate of some kind. The birth certificate they issued him obviously was enough to get him a U.S. passport and satisfy the legal requirements of birth for the Presidency.

But do they prove he was actually born in Hawaii? If Hawaiian Law says he's a Hawaiian born citizen, does that supersede any national requirement?

I'm not going to say another thing! I report, you decide.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I see that they have a note up there on the video that Arizona passed a "birther" law asking for candidates for President to prove their birth status prior to being placed on the ballot. A "birther" law? I am angry that the press refuses to see that having to produce proof of where and when a person was born is not attached to President Obama specifically. John McCain actually had to settle this issue before he could run for President. This is an issue that has come up. Let's deal with it and move on!

People who challenge a candidate's status through the courts are told they don't have "status" to ask for birth certificates or proof of eligibility. It makes it easier if states ask for proof of eligibility to run for President BEFORE placing them on the ballot. These lefties in the press are the ones that are crazy!

AZ

Z said...

Like Stewart said on Wednesday,
"He did need a birth certificate to get a passport."
This whole thing is a mess. The only reason it's coming back up is that elections are next year. Can we please focus on things that have importance (i.e. dept) instead of dealing with this again?

Anonymous said...

So it appears that Hawaiian law allows relatives to confirm births to authorities instead of hospitals.

So it is possible that Obama is both foreign born and a native American under Hawaiian law.

This is weird.

larry said...

Are Hawaiian drivers license and marriage license legal in all other states? I believe they are.

So Hawaiian birth certificates must be as well.

State statutes like these should really be challenged by the feds. Native born should mean native born in all 50 states. No loopholes should exist in any state that would alter the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Ellie said...

Orley Taitz is a whole new kind of crazy. I put her up there with Angle and O'donnell. What an embarrassment.

Johan "Mcon" said...

I've never understood this craziness. Whatever else happened, Obama was birthed by an American mother. Thus he is a natural born American citizen by blood if not by geography. Nothing else matters.

DanL said...

"People who challenge a candidate's status through the courts are told they don't have "status" to ask for birth certificates or proof of eligibility. It makes it easier if states ask for proof of eligibility to run for President BEFORE placing them on the ballot. These lefties in the press are the ones that are crazy!"

So are you telling us that Obama needed to be challenged in the courts before he ran for president? That seems to be the implicit message in your words.

Anonymous said...

Even if they proved Obama wasn't born on American soil, it would be hard to prove him involved in a conspiracy. After all, he was only a day or two old.

Johan "Mcon" said...

Dan,

I understand what he is saying and laws like the one in AZ are fine as far as I understand them. The problem is when the underlying reason for implementing them is this birther craziness with Obama. If I have to demonstrate proof of eligibility every time I start work and when I get a license or passport or whatever, then presidential candidates should have to do the same. And I am perfectly OK with more stringent requirements for one who would lead the free world.

Anonymous said...

Why is this the first time that these statutes are being mentioned. So much time has passed, and now we're learning about these possible loopholes used to prove he was native born.

Anonymous said...

DanL,

I am not commenting on Obama and his eligibility at all. I don't follow all the details of the "birther" movement because I don't find it productive or helpful.

I am saying that John McCain had to prove his eligibility to run for President long before Obama arrived on the scene. In the instance mentioned above, I am merely pointing out that when average citizens try to challenge such things in the courts, they are told that they don't have the "standing" to do so. I think it alleviates a lot of this nonsense for the States to require proof of eligibility BEFORE they place candidate's names on the ballot. Since States control their own ballots, this seems like a reasonable solution to this problem.

The current media frenzy over Obama and the "birthers" has defined this as an issue of racism. Is it racist to require an angry old white man (John McCain) to prove that he is eligible to run for President? This issue did not begin with Obama, although it has received far more attention because he is black and they can paint this as a racist issue. Since candidates will continue to have proof-of-eligibility issues even after Obama leaves office (Please let it be soon!), it makes sense for the States to set up standards and adhere to them.

AZ