While it appears that LTC Lakin’s counsel will never accept any statement regarding the birth or origin of Pres. Obama, I give the rest of you this bit of additional background on the Anderson Cooper statement about Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s, Hawaii’s Director of Health, review of the President’s birth certificate (prior CAAFlog coverage of it here and here).  In an interview about the bill permitting Hawaiian government offices to ignore duplicate requests for government records, the Republican Hawaiian Governor, Linda Lingle, had this to say (CNN coverage here and YouTube audio of interview here):

[The birth certificate issue] is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. . . . And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health. . . . The president was in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and email and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. . . .It’s been established he was born here. . . . I can understand why people want to make certain that the constitutional requirement of being a, you know, natural born American citizen … but the question has been asked and answered. And I think just we should all move on now.

104 Responses to “Hawaiian Governor’s Statement on Birther Issue”

  1. Anonymous says:

    But his dad wasn’t an American citizen, and I know for a FACT that the Founders wouldn’t want him to be president.

    And if that doesn’t work, I gots six more reasons why, and only one of them is because he is Black!

  2. BigGuy says:

    OK, here’s what I want to know:

    Suppose the judge in the Lakin trial says, “OK, I think you’re right, we need proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.” So he asks Hawaii for a Birth Certificate, they send him an official certified copy of the COLB, and then he says, “OK, I guess he was born in Hawaii. What do you have to say for yourself now, Col. Lakin?”

    What’s Lakin going to say? “Thank you, sir, but I’m still not going to Afghanistan until the Supreme Court rules that a natural born citizen doesn’t have to have two citizen parents”?

  3. Christopher Mathews says:

    And if that doesn’t work, I gots six more reasons why, and only one of them is because he is Black!
    You know, I rather think all of them are.

  4. Ama Goste says:

    Yes, after he continues to claim that only the birth certificate, not the COLB, is the proof required.

  5. Sef says:

    Lakin isn’t the one who gets to say what is adequate proof.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Lakin has no say in anything so far. This supposed intelligent, educated man is being used and led astray by a bunch of wackos. (Un)fortunately for him, he has to answer the MJ’s questions on how he wants to proceed. His fate is in his hands and he can stop this crazy train from going off the rails. But he won’t. He’ll prove to the world that he’d rather be identified with the racist simpletons of this country.

  7. Cheap Seats says:

    I love this COLB vs. birth certificate nonsense. Having been involved in an international adoption, I had to get several copies of my birth certificate. As it turns out, I have ONE certified 1970’s copy that my Mom gave me. They will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. So, I went to my state to get certified copies of my birth certificate. ALL THEY WILL ISSUE is a COLB similar to the one that the POTUS has released. They won’t issue the “old” one anymore. So, I have a copy, but the state won’t even issue me one if I want. And guess what? The information on both the 1970’s birth certificate and the current COLB match exactly. Funny how that works…

  8. Trevor says:

    Anonymous,

    You state that Lakin can stop the crazy train from going off the rails….

    That train not only pulled out of the station, went off the rails, was immolated in a fireball, cut up for salvage and recycled into Toyotas waaaaaaay long ago.

    Even if he turned around and said “Oopsie” now it will not change the nature of the charges, to whit, missing deployment and refusing orders.

  9. John O'Connor says:

    “Even if he turned around and said “Oopsie” now it will not change the nature of the charges, to whit, missing deployment and refusing orders.”

    ———–

    You might be right about that. But I wonder what would happen if Lakin came in and said “oops, my bad, can I please deploy on the next plane out.” I’m not so sure the response would be that he can’t deploy because he is going to court-martial. That might be the response, but I wouldn’t bet my life against NJP plus immediate deployment.

  10. JimmyMac says:

    What I find so refreshing is the realization that we labor in this country under a pesky document called a Constitution – the highest law of the land in a land governed by the rule of law. And guess what? If we want to go “guano” and embrace the notion that there were several shooters on the grassy knoll, flouride is a mind control drug, and men didn’t really land on the moon, we can. What LTC Lakin and his ilk fail to recognize is the second part of that equation – you have to take reponsibility for the results of embracing those notions.

  11. JWS says:

    I am not a “birther” and I have time for Lakin & the idiots who enable him. And the 14th Amendment makes it clear that anyone born in the US is a citizen — even if both his parents are not US citizens.

    That said, will someone tell me why the State of Hawaii cannot just post a facsimile of the birth certificate on their website? Just what is there that everyone is working so hard to keep from the rest of us?

    By the way, lest people get too carried away with silly political innuendo, recall that there are similar boneheads on the left who assert to this day that Sen. McCain was ineligible to run for prez because he was not born in the US. I say “boneheads” because a moment’s checking would show that at the time the Canal Zone was a US Territory. And that doesn’t matter, of course, because both his parents were US citizens. But that doesn’t stop them.

  12. BigGuy says:

    That said, will someone tell me why the State of Hawaii cannot just post a facsimile of the birth certificate on their website?

    Because it’s a violation of privacy laws.

    Not to mention the fact that it would accomplish nothing — we would still be hearing about the Pakistani travel ban (which never existed) and the Indonesian adoption (which never took place) and the two citizen parents (which was never a requirement for U.S. natural born citizenship) — and it would send entirely the wrong message about appeasing nut jobs.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Charges, smarges. There’s no conviction yet, he still has his liberty, no dismissal/loss of retirement. His mil atty has time to inject some sanity into the process and negotiate a better outcome for this poor misguided fool of a client, to wit: prevent a derailing. .

  14. JWS says:

    Because it’s a violation of privacy laws.

    And no one has asked for a waiver? If this were President Bush’s birth certificate, do you doubt there would be clamor for him to sign a waiver? Recall the demand that President Bush release his college transcripts? Followed by the demand Sen. Kerry release his? Or President Bush’s OQR?

    The only reason we can’t see a facsimile of the birth certificate is that there is something there out of the ordinary. It will come out some day, I expect — though we’ll all be long gone by then.

  15. BigGuy says:

    The only reason we can’t see a facsimile of the birth certificate is that there is something there out of the ordinary.

    Well, my explanation is that it’s a violation of privacy laws — which it undoubtedly is.

    Your explanation is that “there is something there out of the ordinary,” which is pure conjecture.

    A fact versus a conjecture. Which do you suppose should carry more weight?

  16. Anon says:

    Wait, I don’t think George Washington’s father was an American Citizen. That didn’t appear to be a problem for the Founders . . . . Anonymous 1025, you sir are an Ack Jass.

  17. Cheap Seats says:

    Sarcasm font must have failed again…

  18. Granite1 says:

    The COLB is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii sends out. Hawaii does not send out copies of the original anymore (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). The COLB would be accepted by any court.

    The explanation of why we cannot see the original is that Obama does not have it. He asked for his birth certificate in 2007, and Hawaii sent him the COLB–which is what it sends to everyone.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Anon, your sarcasm detector is on the fritz, so ease off on the “Ack Jass.”.

  20. JWS says:

    Granite1 says:
    He asked for his birth certificate in 2007,…

    I never doubted it. But, do you really think that the Governor of Hawaii would decline a request by the President of the United States to produce a facsimile? The President could direct the FEC to issue a subpoena and a US Marshall could serve it on the governor & the head of the agency with possession. A facsimile of the actual birth certificate can be had if the President really wants it out. But it is the President’s business & his choice alone.

    BigGuy says:
    … and it would send entirely the wrong message about appeasing nut jobs.

    Oh, dear. Where was all this when, e.g., the nut jobs were screaming for President Bush’s OQR and college transcripts? There is substantial value in putting rumors to rest.

    BigGuy says:
    A fact versus a conjecture. Which do you suppose should carry more weight?

    A conjecture to be sure, but a plausible one. If the actual birth certificate were totally benign, the political utility of producing would have it in to the public domain by now. I will leave a note for my grandkids to check on this.

    Anon says:
    Anonymous 1025, you sir are an [redacted].

    SNCO to you officer-types, I say yet again: play nice.

  21. Anonymous says:

    “The only reason we can’t see a facsimile of the birth certificate is that there is something there out of the ordinary.”

    Which the Republican governor is lying about since she sent one of her folks to view the original birth certificate?

    Unlikely.

  22. BigGuy says:

    BigGuy says: “A fact versus a conjecture. Which do you suppose should carry more weight?”

    JWS says: “A conjecture to be sure, but a plausible one.”

    I see. Facts ordinarily outweigh conjectures — but not when Your Majesty deems the conjecture to be plausible.

    Lots of luck getting public policy set on that basis!

  23. Anonymous says:

    You operate from flawed assumptions:

    1. that seeing the original BC would end the matter, it wouldn’t. People would claim it was fake, that you can put anything online, that the font doesn’t match or there is an error that proves it is fake.

    2. the ones who believed the BC was real would say that it was too easy to get an Hawaiian BC and that it doesn’t prove he was born in Hawaii.

    3. the ones who believe the BC was real AND he was born in Hawaii would then revert to his father being a British citizen or would argue he gave up his citizenship when he went to Indonesia as a child or when he went to Pakistan as a child.

    There is no political utility in producing the BC. It would appease few people because the sane ones are already appeased.

  24. Granite1 says:

    I was asked: “do you really think that the Governor of Hawaii would decline a request by the President of the United States to produce a facsimile?”

    Perhaps not. On the other hand, perhaps she would. Since the president could not be sure whether she would or would not, why ask when it is not necessary (The COLB is the official birth certificate). Moreover, why ask for something that other people do not get? That would certainly be unfair. And as has been pointed out, it would send the wrong message about appeasing nut jobs.

    But the main reason is it is unnecessary. The COLB is the official birth certificate, and the facts on it have been repeatedly confirmed.

  25. Christopher Mathews says:

    “The only reason we can’t see a facsimile of the birth certificate is that there is something there out of the ordinary.

    JWS, let me offer an alternative to your conjecture:

    The President and his advisers have concluded that the birther movement is an embarassment to the GOP that many Republican politicians would like to walk away from. You may or many not believe that’s true, but I think most Democrats believe that it is.

    Providing further documentation would give the Republicans the fig leaf they need to break with the birthers with their dignity intact. You’d see Republicans who have flirted with the birther movement saying they’re proud to have asked the tough questions and lauding themselves for forcing the Administration to acknowledge the legitimacy of those questions by finally releasing [insert name of records here].

    By refusing to give up any further documentation, the President has left those politicians in the position of continuing to embrace a constituency that much of the country thinks is frothing at the mouth, but which constitutes a sizeable fraction of the GOP primary electorate and therefore cannot be repudiated without substantial political risk.

    The old adage that you should never interrupt your adversary while he’s in the process of doing something stupid is really all the rationale the President needs to stick with the status quo.

  26. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    We really ought to just close comments on this thread after JMTG’s comment.

  27. Anon says:

    My most humble apologies – you so expertly captured the tone and tenor of the birthers and their bizarre legal ruminations that I went for the bait like a Sturgeon on the first day of fishing season.

  28. Norbrook says:

    But I wonder what would happen if Lakin came in and said “oops, my bad, can I please deploy on the next plane out.” I’m not so sure the response would be that he can’t deploy because he is going to court-martial. That might be the response, but I wouldn’t bet my life against NJP plus immediate deployment.

    Considering that the LTC has done a very good job of making an idiot of himself publicly, maligning superior officers and the Army in the process, I doubt that’s a possibility anymore. It’s now a case of “we need to make an example of someone, and guess who just volunteered.”

  29. Trevor says:

    You mean the identical image of the identical certified copy of the same BC/COLB that is already posted on line….

    If I didn’t know any better I would smell the stench of a “concern troll”

  30. soonergrunt says:

    See Poe’s Law, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Poe%27s+Law

    “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

  31. John Harwood says:

    Judge Mathews hit the nail right on the head. The dems love just sitting back and watching the GOP go down with the birthers’ ship. Little things like this are the only way to prevent a GOP landslide in November, so there’s no way in Hades that our CINC is going to put this fire out.

  32. AGC says:

    A point I would like to bring up, not necessarily to validate the point of the birther right, is to question the dates. If we look the Pres. reported birth date (August 4, 1961) as well as the date of the inception of Hawaii as a state (August 21, 1959), they are awful close. A few fat fingers away is a legit birth certificate. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this. Does anyone know if it would make any difference if he was born in a territory vs. a state?
    HAIL THE CAAFLOG

  33. That Other Mike says:

    Does anyone know if it would make any difference if he was born in a territory vs. a state?

    It’s been assumed thus far that being born into a Territory under the control of the US is equivalent to being born in a State – IIRC, there’s little to no jurisprudence on the issue, because it’s been an uncontroversial position so far. Barry Goldwater, for example, ran for President without any controversy, and he was born in what was then the Arizona Territory.

  34. Anonymous says:

    except the fire wouldn’t go out. The Birthers would just say it was forged/faked, or pull out the other excuses.

    This fire will never go out no matter how much cold water you pour on it.

    Thankfully, the damage is contained to the crazy.

  35. Kenneth Olsen says:

    Hear ye, hear ye!

    Lakin (and all citizens of the world) have the right to see the long form birth certificate.

    Next case!

  36. soonergrunt says:

    Lakin has NO right to see the long form birth certificate, and that will be one of the first orders of business dispensed with at Court Martial according to the lawyers here.
    Second, as a rather obvious wingnut conservative, you aren’t supposed to care what “citizens of the world” want or need.

  37. Kenneth Olsen says:

    Sir! Another outburst like that and you will be cited for contempt!

    If I misunderstand the process correctly, the next hearing will determine whether or not a Court Martial is even in order! If the good LTC is acting in good faith, surely he is a credit to the military, and those who oppose him have some explaining to do…

    Second, whether they want it or need it, the citizens of the world have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  38. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    “If I misunderstand the process correctly . . .”

    Exactly.

  39. soonergrunt says:

    I was just going to let that go, myself. It was just too easy.

  40. Anymouse says:

    If a requirement of the public office one is seeking is that the seeker be born in a particular place, who decides whether that requirement has been met? The public? The courts? Or the elected leader of the area the person claims to be from? Not being fully briefed on election laws of the US, I would imagine since its a public office, wouldn’t the privacy issue be a non-issue, considering the requirements of the position?

    From what I’ve read on HI law, anyone who has lived in HI for at least a year can receive a COLB for their kids from the state, regardless of where they were born. I think this is why the birthers are demanding to see the long form BC. If the illegals in CA/AZ/NM/TX were able to, and were smart enough to do so, they would travel to HI & register their kids there. If the COLB is all one needs, one could theoretically get a SSN, passport, & eventually a drivers license. Citizenship for the young ‘uns on a budget & without all the hassle.

    I’m betting that if it ever finally came out, it will show somewhere in HI as his birthplace. Whether it will satisfy the birthers or not remains to be seen.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Simply not true. Yes you can receive a Hawaii COLB but it will STILL list where you were actually born on the COLB, it will not say Hawaii.

    Illegals cannot go there and register their kids there to get American citizenship, and if their kids were born in the US, they are already citizens.

  42. Kenneth Olsen says:

    Wow. Tough crowd!
    But, as von Clausewitz used to say:
    “If you can’t take a joke…” et cetera!

    Bombing on the military blog, KO

  43. Kenneth Olsen says:

    Wow. Tough crowd!
    But, as von Clausewitz used to say:
    “If you can’t take a joke…” et cetera!

    Bombing on the military blog, KO

  44. yguy says:

    The COLB is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii sends out. Hawaii does not send out copies of the original anymore …

    Actually, under HRS §338-13 and §338-18, Obama has every bit as much right to a certified copy of the original (which allegedly existed as of 2008) as he does to a COLB.

  45. Trevor says:

    Actually, under HRS §338-13 and §338-18, Obama has every bit as much right to a certified copy of the original (which allegedly existed as of 2008) as he does to a COLB.

    Oops,

    Yguy neglects to mention that he tried these interesting, albeit wholly falacious, pieces of information already and it has been extensively debunked (and derided) already on http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/

    Better luck next time Yguy

  46. Sef says:

    To yguy’s comment: Obama MIGHT have a right to a copy of the “original”, but YOU have no right to it.

  47. JWS says:

    sef:
    That’s my point. The Prez, if he wanted to, could demand a copy & give it to the press. Like when President Bush & Sen Kerry gave up their college transcripts. Or President Bush gave up his OQR.

    I do not doubt for a nanosecond that the Prez is constitutionally qualified & lawfully elected. But, given that birth certificates are fairly benign, I can only conclude there is something there the Prez would just as soon not have the world know. That is his right. But then neither Bush nor Kerry had to give up their college transcripts.

  48. yguy says:

    …I can only conclude there is something there the Prez would just as soon not have the world know. That is his right.

    Not if what he wants hidden is that he is foreign born, it isn’t.

    But then neither Bush nor Kerry had to give up their college transcripts.

    Which have no bearing on explicit constitutional eligibility provisions, so I don’t know what your point is.

  49. nbc says:

    …I can only conclude there is something there the Prez would just as soon not have the world know. That is his right.

    yguyNot if what he wants hidden is that he is foreign born, it isn’t.

    Of course we know that the COLB shows him to be born on Hawaiian soil, a fact confirmed by the DOH of Hawaii.

    You have yet to explain how the full birth certificate would show him born in a foreign country when the COLB which is based on the full certificate shows him born on US soil.

    Really yguy…
    You should have stopped when you had some credibility left in ya. Did you not learn from your presence at obamaconspiracy.org that your assertions, void of reason and logic, remain irrelevant?

    Perhaps you would like to make a real argument but I understand that such may cause some discomfort. Of course the alternative is that you continue to make random claims that lack any relation to known facts.

    And no, you have no right to see his COLB or his original certificate. The president was nice enough to provide the Country with a copy of his COLB but honestly, you have no rights to see the document. 67 lawsuits should have taught you that lesson.
    And even a cursory understanding of the Constitution would have caused you to understand why…

  50. nbc says:

    Lakin (and all citizens of the world) have the right to see the long form birth certificate.

    Under what fiction of law?

  51. nbc says:

    Not when Obama was born and note that this would not show them born in Hawaii but rather it would reflect their actual birth place.

    From what I’ve read on HI law, anyone who has lived in HI for at least a year can receive a COLB for their kids from the state, regardless of where they were born

  52. nbc says:

    If the good LTC is acting in good faith, surely he is a credit to the military, and those who oppose him have some explaining to do…

    He may be acting in good faith but refusing to follow an order is done at one’s own risk. In this case failure to follow what appear to be direct orders and quite legal ones hardly can be explained away by ‘good faith’.

    I do not think that the military is too impressed with self help lawyering which leads one to refuse to follow orders.
    The courts never have been.

  53. nbc says:

    The timeline would not add up and the birth was announced in two newspapers in 1961.

    A point I would like to bring up, not necessarily to validate the point of the birther right, is to question the dates. If we look the Pres. reported birth date(August 4, 1961)as well as the date of the inception of Hawaii as a state (August 21, 1959), they are awful close. A few fat fingers away is a legit birth certificate. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this. Does anyone know if it would make any difference if he was born in a territory vs. a state?
    HAIL THE CAAFLOG

  54. yguy says:

    You have yet to explain how the full birth certificate would show him born in a foreign country when the COLB which is based on the full certificate shows him born on US soil.

    Again, this assumes the COLB accurately represents the relevant content of the original documentation, which is a fact not in evidence.

  55. Dwight Sullivan says:

    yguy, the accuracy of the information on President Obama’s certification of live birth (which lists “Honolulu” as both his city and county of birth and “Oahu” as his island of birth) will never be in evidence at LTC Lakin’s Article 32 investigation or, if referred, court-martial, since it has no legal bearing on whether LTC Lakin committed the charged offenses or has a legal defense to committing the charged offenses. But, of course, there is evidence attesting to the accuracy of the information on the certification of live birth — the statements of Dr. Fukino, who personally verified the information based on President Obama’s original birth certificate — and Governor Lingle — who recently reconfirmed that her state’s official records verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii and even identified the Honolulu hospital where he was born. And, no, we won’t entertain a best evidence rule objection, since (again) this won’t be an issue in the court-martial. I know of no reason to doubt Dr. Fukino’s and Governor Lingle’s statements. They are not merely evidence — thus refuting your claim — but compelling (and for me conclusive) evidence.

  56. Dwight Sullivan says:

    In the completely guano crazy department, here’s a link to a reconsideration motion filed by Orly Taitz in the case of Taitz v. Obama, which Chief Judge Lamberth ordered dismissed:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31697878/TAITZ-V-OBAMA-QUO-WARRANTO-MOTION-FOR-RECONSIDERATION-5-19-10

    Among other wild claims, the motion for reconsideration suggests that President Obama nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Supreme Court as a quid pro quo for ignoring Dr. Taitz’s challenges to President Obama’s legitimacy. Here’s the actual text:

    Yet another fact, that became known after the original order was issued, is the fact that Obama has appointed Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the position of the Supreme Court judge. Many wondered why would the President appoint a candidate, who never worked as a judge, not even as a small claims court judge, not even as a traffic court judge. This fact becomes less perplexing in light of the following information: Taitz forwarded to Kagan, as a solicitor general, not only her pleadings of Lightfoot v Bowen, submitted to the Supreme Court and distributed by Chief Justice John Roberts for conference of all nine justices, not only Quo Warranto submitted to the Supreme Court, but also all the dossiers sent to Attorney General Holder. Kagan was sworn to uphold the Constitution and act on behalf of the People of the United States of America, as a solicitor, top advocate for the United States of America, not as a private attorney for Obama, she received information regarding the fact that Obama’s Social Security number was assigned to another individual, that the certification of life birth provided by Obama to the public could not be considered genuine without analyzing the original, yet she did not take action and remained silent. In light of all of the above a question begs to be asked: was there a quid pro quo, was the appointment to the Supreme Court a thank you for her silence?

  57. JWS says:

    Col. Sullivan:

    Good points all. They do, however, continue to beg the question: what is on the original the Prez would like to keep from public view? I have a copy of my birth certificate & that of my son — from back before the COLB nonsense was instituted. The data is entirely benign.

    What, then, is the big secret?

  58. yguy says:

    I know of no reason to doubt Dr. Fukino’s and Governor Lingle’s statements. They are not merely evidence — thus refuting your claim — but compelling (and for me conclusive) evidence.

    Unless she either got a court order or violated HRS §338-18 to inspect the original, Lingle’s statements are hearsay. Her latest is also questionable on its own merits since she claimed Fukino issued a statement to the effect that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, when she did no such thing.

    As for Fukino, her 2008 press release left open the possibility that Obama’s BC was issued under HRS §338-17.8, and she waited months to affirm that he was born in HI; and there is no apparent purpose in either statement beyond providing cover for Obama on this issue. Plenty of potential there for an interesting deposition or cross-examination.

    And as for my claim being refuted, no. Obviously the COLB is prima facie evidence of the content of the original, but that does not make it a fact that indeed it reflects that content.

  59. NBC says:

    Yguy Unless she either got a court order or violated HRS §338-18 to inspect the original, Lingle’s statements are hearsay. Her latest is also questionable on its own merits since she claimed Fukino issued a statement to the effect that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital, when she did no such thing.

    Lingle’s statement about the location of birth may be ‘hearsay’ as she is likely not the one who has the authority to make such statements. However, even as hearsay, it significantly undermines the position of those who argue that President Obama was not a natural born citizen. The latter is established through a prima facie legal document and self authenticating under the FRE, namely the COLB which, being printed on security papers, with the requisite seal and signature, shows President Obama to have been born on US soil. The same facts are supported by the statement of the Department of Hawaii. Statements which in a court of law are not covered by the hearsay rule.

    As for Fukino, her 2008 press release left open the possibility that Obama’s BC was issued under HRS §338-17.8, and she waited months to affirm that he was born in HI; and there is no apparent purpose in either statement beyond providing cover for Obama on this issue. Plenty of potential there for an interesting deposition or cross-examination.

    Assuming that there will be a deposition or cross examination. HRS 338 17.8 is a law that came into existence in 1982, 21 years after Obama was born. Since the document shows that his birth was filed soon after his birth, there is no reason to believe that Obama’s BC was issued under 338 17.8. Common sense has ruled out that possibility quite effectively and unless Yguy can show that a similar law was in effect and that such a law would have shown a foreign born child to be born on US soil, his position remains void of fact, logic and reason.

    And as for my claim being refuted, no. Obviously the COLB is prima facie evidence of the content of the original, but that does not make it a fact that indeed it reflects that content.

    You do not seem to understand the meaning of prima facie. The mere possibility that it does not reflect the content of the original has to be overcome by showing that it is probable not possible.
    As such, the Court would have to reject your claim as to lacking in legal reasoning.

    So what have we established so far:

    1. Fukino, who is by law responsible for and authorized to certify facts related to birth and death has certified that President Obama was born on US soil and is thus a natural born citizen.
    2. Fukino’s statement supports the facts as established through the release of the COLB, which is prima facie legal evidence and shows president Obama born on US soil.
    3. HRS 338 17.8 is a law which came into effect 21 years after Obama was born and since Obama’s birth was registered within 4 days after his birth, there is no evidence that there was a late filing.
    4. Since Yguy has failed to show that a birth on foreign soil under 338 17.8 would be registered as a birth on US soil, and given the common sense observation that it would reflect the actual location of birth we have to reject YGuy’s assertion that there is any relevance to 338 17.8
    5. Since YGuy has so far failed to overcome the prima facie nature of the COLB and given his inabilities to present a probable scenario that would indicate that President Obama was not born on US soil, common sense dictates that we have to reject, for the same reasons the court would reject, his ‘arguments’ as improbable, and lacking if supporting reason, logic and evidence.

    All YGuy has is that Lingle’s revelation that President Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital, may have been in violation of Hawaiian law but it serves to further undermine the improbable case proposed by Yguy.

    As to hearsay exceptions

    Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.

    So it is not clear that if the Governor ordered Fukino to release the relevant records based on her official capacity, that the fact of the location of birth would be considered to be hearsay, even though under Hawaiian rules, Fukino could not have made this information public.

    Of course, there will unlikely be discovery in a legal case as we have a record of 0-67 cases in which lack of standing or the doctrine of political question were sufficient to deny the lawsuits.
    In the case of Lakin, the eligibility of the President is incidental to him not following orders given by his direct command, orders which do not appear to be patently illegal as they are given and have been given for decades, if not centuries.

    Furthermore, since Quo Warranto cannot be used against a duly elected president and since the legality of the officer cannot be addressed collaterally, Lakin will have a tough time. Since in this instance, the issue of the legality of an order can be determined by the judge and the Constitutionality of the President is a political question, it seems further unlikely that Lakin will succeed in getting discovery in these matters. His beliefs about the President are largely unrelated to what he stands accused of.
    Of course, as I am not a lawyer, but just someone who has attempted to be well informed, I am open to logic, reason and factual evidence as to why my position is fallacious, incorrect, incomplete or totally brain dead.

  60. NBC says:

    The relevant content of the original is the location of birth which is presented on the COLB which is a prima facie legal evidence. As such the fact is indeed in evidence and unless Yguy can overcome the prima facie nature of the fact of location of birth, both established through 1) the COLB, 2) official statements of the DOH of Hawaii 3) supported by contemporaneous newspaper announcements, we have to reject YGuy’s position.
    Overruled.

    Again, this assumes the COLB accurately represents the relevant content of the original documentation, which is a fact not in evidence.

  61. NBC says:

    I know of no reason to doubt Dr. Fukino’s and Governor Lingle’s statements. They are not merely evidence — thus refuting your claim — but compelling (and for me conclusive) evidence.

    Not just compelling to you but under the FRE also prima facie evidence which remains uncontradicted by facts, logic, reason or evidence and supported by statements by authorized officials of the DOH. In other words, in a court of law, Yguy’s objections would not withstand legal scrutiny.

  62. nbc says:

    No secret. The State of Hawaii no longer provides for long form certificates.

    Furthermore, the COLB is sufficient. So why the insistence that the President releases any and all information? Where does it end? His kindergarten records? I am not kidding, some are mentioning that they remain ‘sealed’…

    Good points all. They do, however, continue to beg the question: what is on the original the Prez would like to keep from public view? I have a copy of my birth certificate & that of my son — from back before the COLB nonsense was instituted. The data is entirely benign.

  63. nbc says:

    Simply not true. Yes you can receive a Hawaii COLB but it will STILL list where you were actually born on the COLB, it will not say Hawaii.

    A fair and reasonable conclusion. Common sense seems to prevail.

    So if HRS 338 17.8 did not exist before 1982 and if it shows foreign born children’s location of birth as the actual place of their birth, how would this be relevant to President Obama?

    Something does not make sense here?

  64. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Let’s apply our knowledge of the ways of the world. There’s been controversy about where President Obama was born. Governor Lingle asked her Director of the State Department of Health to look at President Obama’s original birth certificate, which she did along with the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics. The Health Director confirms that President Obama was born in Hawaii. The Governor later mentions the specific Honolulu hospital in which President Obama was born. Doesn’t it seem likely that the Governor and Health Director would discuss the specific hospital in which President Obama was born? Honolulu isn’t that big a place. It would seem fairly natural for the topic to come up in the conversation that no doubt followed Dr. Fukino’s review of the original birth certificate. But whether that theory is true or not, the critical fact is that Dr. Fukino did verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii, just like the certification of live birth said he was.

    Dr. Fukino issued a statement in 2008 that most people would take as confirming that President Obama was born in Hawaii. But some people parsed the language to argue that she left a loophole. So she issued another statement in 2009 closing that loophole and expressly stating that President Obama was born in Hawaii. What possible doubt is left after that?

    Dr. Fukino confirmed the accuracy of the Certification of Live Birth’s statement that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Yguy’s claim that whether “the COLB accurately represents the relevant content of the original documentation . . . is a fact not in evidence” is refuted by Dr. Fukino’s statement, which confirms exactly that. Neither yguy nor any other birther whose statement I’ve come across provides any basis to doubt the word of Dr. Fukino, a public official of the State of Hawaii under a Republican governor.

  65. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JWS, it’s certainly possible that there’s something in the original birth certificate that would be embarrassing — perhaps to the memory of a family member — for some reason. But it’s also distinctly possible that President Obama has never seen a copy of his original birth certificate and simply declines to jump through hoops just because birthers want him to. (I was born two months after President Obama and every time in my life when someone has asked me to prove I was born in Maryland — including for purposes of becoming a Marine Corps officer — I presented a small yellow card issued by a Montgomery County official in Rockville, Maryland. I’ve never seen a copy of my own birth certificate.)

  66. yguy says:

    Yguy’s claim that whether “the COLB accurately represents the relevant content of the original documentation . . . is a fact not in evidence” is refuted by Dr. Fukino’s statement

    No, it isn’t. Her statement can only be considered a refutation if it is known that she is telling the truth, whereas in reality that is an assumption, based apparently on some calculation to the effect that she wouldn’t lie. The only way to refute my claim would be to present the two documents for comparison.

  67. Dwight Sullivan says:

    November Bravo Charlie,

    I’m a big fan of your analysis. In this one instance, I have a quibble. If it were ever offered into evidence in either a U.S. district court of a court-martial, President Obama’s certification of live birth, issued with a seal, would be admissible. But I don’t believe Dr. Fukino’s statements about the original birth certificate would be due to Fed. R. Evid./Mil. R. Evid. 1002. (Fed. R. Evid. 1002 states, “To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.”) If Dr. Fukino’s statement were excluded from evidence, that would be of little importance since the certification of live birth would demonstrate that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    But if we take the question out of the realm of admissible evidence and instead talk about the way we learn and know facts in the real world, Dr. Fukino’s statements are, for me, conclusive.

  68. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Yguy,

    Let’s say that the State of Hawaii were to present you with a copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate. Would you then ask, How do I know that this is the original and not a forgery? Would there be a greater basis for believing the Hawaii official who presents that record to you than there is to believe the Director of the State of Hawaii’s Health Department?

    You still have provided zero basis for doubting the word of this public official, which just so happens to coincide with the information provided on a certification of live birth issued by the State of Hawaii. In the law, there’s a presumption of regularity. We don’t get to engage in discovery based on some remote possibility that everyone in the government is involved in a grand conspiracy to misrepresent the truth. Absent such a grand conspiracy, Dr. Fukino’s statement effectively refutes the notion that the original birth certificate is inconsistent with the Hawaii-issued certification of live birth.

  69. NBC says:

    Again you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with legal proceedings. First of all there is no evidence or logic or reason why she should be lying. Although I do understand that you’d prefer a position where people have to prove their innocence, the presumption is that officials who testify to the accuracy of records are telling the truth unless shown otherwise. You may attempt to impeach the witness but that’s all.
    Furthermore, it is not that I have to refute your claim, you have to refute the COLB and the evidence presented. Your claim is irrelevant although found to be lacking in reason, logic and evidence and actually contradicted by evidence.

    PErhaps you may want to familiarize with some of the basic concepts of law, reason and logic before you continue down this road of failure?

    No, it isn’t. Her statement can only be considered a refutation if it is known that she is telling the truth, whereas in reality that is an assumption, based apparently on some calculation to the effect that she wouldn’t lie. The only way to refute my claim would be to present the two documents for comparison.

  70. NBC says:

    Rule 902: Self Authentication

    (1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

    (4) Certified copies of public records.

    A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

    So I believe that Fukino’s statements or similar statements made in Court would be considered sufficient to establish that the prima facie document is in fact accurately presenting the original document.

    Certainly under Hawaiian Law, such certified copy is equivalent to the original document for legal purposes.

  71. NBC says:

    Common sense dictates that the COLB, supported by official statements by officials in charge of such documents and supported by contemporaneous news reports present quite a prima facie case.

    Note that Yguy has so far presented anything of relevance that undermines such a presumption other than by re-asserting that he should be given the right to see the original document.

    A fallacy does not become somehow less fallacious through repetition.

    Absent such a grand conspiracy, Dr. Fukino’s statement effectively refutes the notion that the original birth certificate is inconsistent with the Hawaii-issued certification of live birth.

  72. Dwight Sullivan says:

    November Bravo Charlie,

    Rule 902 provides half of the basis for admitting the certification of live birth into evidence. The other half is establishing a hearsay exception, which can be done under Fed. R. Evid./Mil. R. Evid. 803(6) and (7). The two foundationalo steps are basically consolidated by Fed. R. Evid./Mil. R. Evid. 902(11).

    But Rule 902 wouldn’t make Dr. Fukino’s October 2008 and July 2009 statements admissible into evidence. Even if executed in a form that would qualify under Rule 902, it almost certainly wouldn’t satisfy a hearsay exception. It probably wouldn’t qualify under 803(6) because it doesn’t appear that issuing such statements “was the regular practice” of the Hawaii Health Department. It probably wouldnt’ qualify under 803(7) because Dr. Fukino didn’t appear that the Health Department had “a duty to report” Dr. Fukino’s observations. But even if her statements could meet a hearsay exception and were authenticated, they would still be inadmissible under Rule 1002 (as would her actual testimony about the original birth certificate) because the original birth certificate (or a duplicate offered under Rule 1003) would be the best evidence of the original birth certificate’s content. Again, there’s no need for the admission of either Dr. Fukino’s statements or her testimony about the original birth certificate since (1) the issue of where President Obama was born is irrelevant for purposes of LTC Lakin’s case, and (2) even if it were relevant to some judicial proceeding, the certification of live birth under seal would be admissible and would establish the same fact.

    I believe that Dr. Fukino’s statements are useful and important for purposes of debate and for my own conclusion that the birthers’ arguments are not only wrong, but unreasonable. But they wouldn’t be admitted into evidence over objection in either a federal civilian or military trial.

  73. NBC says:

    As I said, I am not a lawyer and your arguments so far appear quite convincing to me.
    Thanks for clarifying.

    I believe that Dr. Fukino’s statements are useful and important for purposes of debate and for my own conclusion that the birthers’ arguments are not only wrong, but unreasonable. But they wouldn’t be admitted into evidence over objection in either a federal civilian or military trial.

  74. Dwight Sullivan says:

    November Bravo Charlie,

    As I said, I’m a great fan of your reasoning. Would you happen to be the same November Bravo Charlie of obamaeligibility.org fame?

  75. yguy says:

    Yguy,Let’s say that the State of Hawaii were to present you with a copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate.Would you then ask, How do I know that this is the original and not a forgery?

    Obviously that would be a perfectly legitimate question. Since you’re putting me in the role of a judge, I would have three experts examine it and the associated contemporaneous documents and videotape the process. If they all agreed it was genuine and unaltered, and all the documents attested to his birth in HI, I would, barring compelling evidence from other sources to the contrary, pronounce the issue of his birthplace resolved.

    In the law, there’s a presumption of regularity.We don’t get to engage in discovery based on some remote possibility that everyone in the government is involved in a grand conspiracy to misrepresent the truth.

    No such rationale is required. It is only necessary to note that We the People have a right to credible assurances – i.e., based on objective data to the degree that reasonable efforts can make it so – that holders of public office do so lawfully, and that discovery of such data constitutes no violation of the office holder’s rights or anyone else’s.

    Absent such a grand conspiracy, Dr. Fukino’s statement effectively refutes the notion that the original birth certificate is inconsistent with the Hawaii-issued certification of live birth.

    Only in the eyes of those who are content to view prima faice evidence as dispositive by ignoring the existence of easily available and potentially contradictory evidence.

  76. nbc says:

    How did you get to that ‘right’?
    It’s not sufficient to pull it out of thin air.
    And who decides what is credible?

    Good thing that our Courts have not adopted your ‘suggestion’.

    At best there is Quo Warranto but again even QW does not present the ‘right’ you assert exists.

    No such rationale is required. It is only necessary to note that We the People have a right to credible assurances – i.e., based on objective data to the degree that reasonable efforts can make it so – that holders of public office do so lawfully, and that discovery of such data constitutes no violation of the office holder’s rights or anyone else’s.

    Only in the eyes of those who are content to view prima faice evidence as dispositive by ignoring the existence of easily available and potentially contradictory evidence.

    Potentially contradictory… Such as? What is this mythical evidence…

  77. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Yguy,

    Since you’re willing engage, perhaps you could answer the questions I previously asked of CDR Kerchner and kbob to which they never responded. Is it your position that all military orders are illegal? If not, is is your position that every member of the U.S. military has complete discretion whether to obey or disobey any particular military order? If the latter, may any member of the U.S. military in Iraq or Afghanistan lay down his or her weapon and return to the United States without legal consequence? May every member of a U.S. Navy vessel walk off the ship at the next port of call and never return without legal consequences? If none of the above (as the de facto officer doctrine indicates), then what relevance does President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President have to the issue of whether LTC Lakin committed the offenses with which he’s charged.

    I wonder whether some birthers have declined to answer those questions because they would concede that those issues are irrelevant to the Lakin court-martial and they don’t want to publicly undercut his position or because they would answer those questions in the affirmative and realize that those answers would exclude them from polite society.

    Finally, yguy, do even other birthers cringe when they read Dr. Taitz’s motion to reconsider that she filed with Chief Judge Lamberth?

  78. NBC says:

    Which is why I believe you may not get a response from Yguy either

    I wonder whether some birthers have declined to answer those questions because they would concede that those issues are irrelevant to the Lakin court-martial and they don’t want to publicly undercut his position or because they would answer those questions in the affirmative and realize that those answers would exclude them from polite society.

  79. NBC says:

    Finally, yguy, do even other birthers cringe when they read Dr. Taitz’s motion to reconsider that she filed with Chief Judge Lamberth?

    Embarrassment?
    Orly’s filing make a mockery of legal foundations, principles and rules. In my humble and non-lawyer opinion of course.

    Which is why her track record is zero wins, and includes $20k sanctions.
    Sanctions, which she ‘argues’ are punishment for her raising the issues. And in a sense she is right, they are sanctions for her continued inability to address the issues in a legally relevant manner.

    We can only hope that Judge Lamberth allows Orly as pro hac vice long enough to award her for her efforts :-)

  80. yguy says:

    Is it your position that all military orders are illegal?

    No.

    If not, is is your position that every member of the U.S. military has complete discretion whether to obey or disobey any particular military order?

    No, I’d say at a minimum he needs probable cause to believe the order is illegal.

    If the latter, may any member of the U.S. military in Iraq or Afghanistan lay down his or her weapon and return to the United States without legal consequence?May every member of a U.S. Navy vessel walk off the ship at the next port of call and never return without legal consequences?

    No and no.

    If none of the above (as the de facto officer doctrine indicates), then what relevance does President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President have to the issue of whether LTC Lakin committed the offenses with which he’s charged.

    It’s Jensen’s job to make that case WRT Lakin specifically. My contention generally is that an officer in that situation needs to balance the harm done by disobeying the order against the harm done by acknowledging the command authority of someone who may be wielding it illegally; and while I’m sure that sounds wishy-washy, I think that’s an unavoidable consequence of Obama’s failure to be forthright in this matter.

    I wonder whether some birthers have declined to answer those questions because they would concede that those issues are irrelevant to the Lakin court-martial and they don’t want to publicly undercut his position

    I doubt very much that anything I say will have a perceptible impact on “his position”. I just call it like I see it.

    Finally, yguy, do even other birthers cringe when they read Dr. Taitz’s motion to reconsider that she filed with Chief Judge Lamberth?

    I wouldn’t be the one to ask, since I neither pay much attention to Taitz nor congregate with “birthers” per se.

  81. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    My contention generally is that an officer in that situation needs to balance the harm done by disobeying the order against the harm done by acknowledging the command authority of someone who may be wielding it illegally; and while I’m sure that sounds wishy-washy, I think that’s an unavoidable consequence of Obama’s failure to be forthright in this matter

    Yguy, that is a stunning standard for compliance with the orders of your superior officer. How would the above standard allow any officer in a contingency operation any assurance that if he told his Sgt. to take that hill the Sgt. would in fact take that hill and not claim that in obeying the order more harm would be done than disobeying it? And how on earth would that commander have any ability to even ensure that his troops would show up to the airport to report for said deployment to Afghanistan where they would be issued orders to take that hill–or in LTC Lakin’s case, an order treat a wounded soldier who had been ordered to take that hill? Which is exactly why the de facto officer doctrine was developed.

  82. nbc says:

    while I’m sure that sounds wishy-washy, I think that’s an unavoidable consequence of Obama’s failure to be forthright in this matter.

    You mean forthright to a level of your satisfaction. But that may be an unattainable goal

  83. nbc says:

    Yguy, that is a stunning standard for compliance with the orders of your superior officer.

    Which is why military courts appear to have rejected it.

  84. yguy says:

    Yguy, that is a stunning standard for compliance with the orders of your superior officer.How would the above standard allow any officer in a contingency operation any assurance that if he told his Sgt. to take that hill the Sgt. would in fact take that hill and not claim that in obeying the order more harm would be done than disobeying it?

    Here you’re setting up a “heat of battle” scenario in which it would appear there is no room for deliberation, and in which it is clear that disobedience will get our military personnel killed, which to my mind says more harm is done by insubordination.

    And how on earth would that commander have any ability to even ensure that his troops would show up to the airport to report for said deployment to Afghanistan where they would be issued orders to take that hill–or in LTC Lakin’s case, an order treat a wounded soldier who had been ordered to take that hill?

    In that case the answer is not clear.

    That said, I have a question for you: if tomorrow Obama were to admit publicly to being ineligible, and yet refused to resign, is it your opinion that the proper response of the military would be to continue to execute his orders?

  85. Sef says:

    Ooh, ooh, ooh, let me answer it. Obama is the President until he is not & the de facto officer doctrine holds.

  86. soonergrunt says:

    It’s the thread that wouldn’t die.
    The Birthers are like herpes or bad luggage. You just can’t get rid of it and you HAVE to look at it every so often even though you’d rather look at something else…
    So too is that passive-aggressive “what does Obama have to hide” shit that’s nothing more than birtherism without the balls.
    Oh, and Yguy, you’re crazy. There’s not a lot else to say. I had some reservations about whether or not Bush won the election what with his lawsuit to stop counting votes in Florida and the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that essentially started with the conservative majority declaring “don’t ever use this as precedent for anything because even we know it’s bullshit…”
    I mean really. Under your line of thinking, I’d have been on solid ground refusing to deploy to Iraq in 2004 and Afghanistan in 2006 because it was blindingly obvious to me, even before Katrina, that this guy was massively incompetent and may have been in the White House illegally.
    Is that where you want this going?
    So tell me, under your system, whereby Soldiers get to disobey orders of CinCs they don’t like and don’t believe should be CinC, would I, in order to ensure that I wouldn’t be forced to do anything I considered illegal, be authorized to use deadly force or the threat thereof against my chain of command to prevent my unlawful deployment at President Bush’s order? If not, why not? What good is the right to refuse deployment if I don’t have the right to enforce that decision? Can a Soldier claim after he killed his CO that he did it to avoid obeying the CinC he perceives to be ineligible?
    When I deployed both times, I did it because I was a Soldier and in our society, we salute and move out when we’re given an order from our CinC. Having served a man whom I believed should not have been President, how many years in prison should I do for my crime? Because if it’s a defense to AWOL/Missing Movement that the CinC is ineligible or that I believe him to be so, then it surely is a crime to deploy when the CinC is ineligible or I believe him to be so.

  87. yguy says:

    I had some reservations about whether or not Bush won the election what with his lawsuit to stop counting votes in Florida …

    As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is an asinine comparison when one stops to consider the enormity of the task of conducting one or more statewide hand recounts under court supervision versus the trivial effort involved in verifying Obama’s birthplace.

    So tell me, under your system, whereby Soldiers get to disobey orders of CinCs they don’t like

    You have me confused with somebody else.

  88. NBC says:

    Yes. The Constitution seems quite clear about this and various congress people showed a good understanding here. The alternative is just unimaginable.
    There is only one way to remove a duly elected president and that is through Congress and the process of impeachment.

    Was it intended that the title to the office of President of the United States should depend upon a contest in a court, which contest itself is wholly dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of Congress? One Congress might pass a law clothing the Supreme Court of the United States with power to entertain a quo warranto in such a contest, and just when that contest was at its height, and before any decision had been rendered upon it, the next Congress might repeal the law conferring the jurisdiction. Was any such thing as that ever intended by the framers of the Constitution? It seems to me not. It would be a very extraordinary constitution that would thus leave it to the fluctuating will of Congress whether or not if the first place there should be any judicial cognizance of the question at all, and if the next place that would allow Congress one day to provide for this judicial cognizance and the next day or the next week repeal the law that gave the court jurisdiction.

    Followed by the following statement by Mr Thurman

    I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the title of the persons declared in the joint assembly of the two houses to be President should remain in doubt for a single moment, but that, on the contrary, from the time he was declared to be elected all men should respect his title, for he was declared elected pursuant to the Constitution of the country. There might be error in deciding who was elected; every body of men is liable to commit error; courts are liable to commit error as well as congresses; the decision may be in favor of the wrong man ; but the public safety and peace require that that decision, when once made, shall be final and irrevocable.

    Followed by

    Mr. Frelinghuysen: It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is one idea which the Senator from Ohio has entirely omitted, which is conclusive upon this subject,; it certainly is to my mind. I think the twelfth article of the amendments to the Constitution settles who has jurisdiction over this question. It does not do so in express terms, but it does do so by necessary implication. It says that the President of the Senate is to open the certificates and the votes, which are then to be counted in the presence of the two houses. That by necessary implication to my mind gives the jurisdiction over this subject to the two houses; and if the Constitution does give it to them, we cannot by law give it to the judiciary of the country.

    That said, I have a question for you: if tomorrow Obama were to admit publicly to being ineligible, and yet refused to resign, is it your opinion that the proper response of the military would be to continue to execute his orders?

  89. NBC says:

    How familiar is YGuy with US v New?

  90. soonergrunt says:

    @yguy 24may, 2010hrs:
    {You have me confused with somebody else}
    I really don’t. Because I quote the whole thing, not just the part that might serve to make me look good. To wit:
    {My contention generally is that an officer in that situation needs to balance the harm done by disobeying the order against the harm done by acknowledging the command authority of someone who may be wielding it illegally}

    As to the other part, I suspect that my example is only “assinine” because it makes you uncomfortable to see it the other way. So I’ll ask you straight out, and I’d like a little intellectual courage from you if you please:
    Would a Soldier who questions the legal qualifications of the CinC for whatever reason be within his rights to use deadly force to prevent being subjected to an unlawful deployment order? Yes or no? Would LTC Lakin be within his rights, under your model directly quoted above, if he had killed his Commanding Officer to enforce his belief that “harm done by disobeying the order” is, on balance less than “the harm done by acknowledging the command authority of someone who may be wielding it illegally”?
    If you think the order is illegal because the CinC is ineligible, do you have a right to use lethal force to ensure that you are not subjected to such order? If you have a reasonable belief that such order is illegal and you do not disobey it, what should be the penalty for willfully, knowingly obeying an unlawful order?

  91. NBC says:

    In other words, justice depends on the mount of effort needed? That’s just a foolish position.

    Double standards anyone?

    As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is an asinine comparison when one stops to consider the enormity of the task of conducting one or more statewide hand recounts under court supervision versus the trivial effort involved in verifying Obama’s birthplace.

  92. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Yguy, I went to the first phase of OCS in 1980 and for the past 30 years, I’ve been either on active duty or in the Reserve every minute of my life. And in that entire time, I didn’t receive a single order from the President of the United States. If a constitutionally ineligible President were in office, I would continue to obey the orders of my commanding officers, just like I always have. By the way, that’s what the de facto officer doctrine provides for. Here’s how the Supreme Court described it:

    The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 1124, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.

    Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180-81 (1995).

    In the scenario you posit, I believe the highest echelons of the military would continue to obey the Commander in Chief unless and until was impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. In the United States, it isn’t up to the military to decide whether the President is eligible to serve. There are many nationa where it is — and I’m very thankful I don’t live in one of those. But that decision is, as the saying goes, above my pay grade. I would continue to obey the orders that I receive from my superiors.

  93. yguy says:

    @yguy 24may, 2010hrs:
    {You have me confused with somebody else}
    I really don’t.

    Yes, you really do; and deliberately so, to all appearances. So you and I have nothing to discuss.

  94. yguy says:

    “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, “

    Can you think of any negative repercussions resulting from the acquiescence to deliberately illegal occupancy of the Oval Office?

    “and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.”

    If a nominal President lied about his eligibility to get into office, is that your idea of a “technical defect”?

    In the scenario you posit, I believe the highest echelons of the military would continue to obey the Commander in Chief unless and until was impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.In the United States, it isn’t up to the military to decide whether the President is eligible to serve.

    In my scenario, there is nothing to be decided, because the President admits his ineligibility. So as I understand it, adhering to the de facto doctrine in that case would necessitate that officers be oblivious to the glaringly obvious.

  95. NBC says:

    The alternative, in the words of various congress people, is far worse, hence the de facto officer doctrine and the lack of Quo Warranto against a duly elected president.

    I assume you are familiar with the Constitution?

    Can you think of any negative repercussions resulting from the acquiescence to deliberately illegal occupancy of the Oval Office?

  96. NBC says:

    Fascinating….
    How simple to avoid a discussion…

    Yes, you really do; and deliberately so, to all appearances. So you and I have nothing to discuss.

  97. NBC says:

    Yes, in a legal sense that is correct. There is only one Constitutional solution to this scenario and that is impeachment.

    I assume that we all believe in our Constitution under all circumstance?

    What alternatives do you suggest exist?

    If a nominal President lied about his eligibility to get into office, is that your idea of a “technical defect”?

  98. Self says:

    Is there anyone on this blog who has contact with Lakin now who has any comments on his current thoughts about this whole process? Has he realized that he has royally scr**ed himself & that he has been lied to by his birther buds? Will he even consider advise given him by Kemkes?

  99. soonergrunt says:

    It’s pretty chickenshit.
    Either somebody who believes the CinC is ineligible, and therefore is within his right and duty to disobey CinC’s order can defend that right (duty) with force or not.
    If one has a duty to disobey orders one believes to be unlawful, does not one have a responsibility to the constitution and the country and ultimately oneself to defend that duty with force if necessary?
    It’s a simple question. I suspect that for yguy and many others of his ilk, such right or duty to disobey only extends to those who agree with them.

  100. Herpes and Bad Luggage says:

    We resent being compared to Birthers.

  101. nbc says:

    As expected. Yguy is still continuing his foolish arguments at obamaconspiracy.org but appears to have no time to address questions on this blog anymore :-)

    It’s hard to argue with real experts on military justice I guess.

  102. soonergrunt says:

    {Herpes and Bad Luggage says:
    May 25, 2010 at 9:11 pm (Quote) We resent being compared to Birthers.}

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  103. nbc says:

    Another day with no response… We can safely lay this matter to rest now.

  104. KyAtty says:

    Because in conspiracy land, all evidence against the conspiracy was manufactured by “them”. The anonymous birther expert “Ron Polarik” would analyze the Hawaiian document and declare on the internet that it was a forgery, which all birthers will believe because they know the President was born in Kenya.