Should the President of the United States be Required to Violate His Oath of Office?

The above question was raised in response to the fact that one cannot arbitrarily obtain an original birth certificate for another person.

It is part of a conspiracy theory suggesting that since people who are not qualified under the law are not allowed a copy of the original birth certificate of the President of the United States, there must necessarily be something fishy going on.

The Hawai'i State Department of Health explains who is eligible to receive a certified copy of any vital record (e.g., birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate):

• the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
• the registrant’s spouse;
• the registrant’s parent(s);
• a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
• a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
• a legal guardian of the registrant;
• a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
• a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
• a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
• adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
• a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
• a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
• a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.​

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, in part (the "Equal Protection Clause"):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Boldface accent added)​

The Presidential Oath of Office as expressed in the Constitution of the United States (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph viii):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

(Boldface accent added)​

It would seem that the proposition put forth by our neighbor would suggest that the President of the United States, who is sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, should forfeit, as a condition of his office, the application of that very document—the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Paragraph ii)—unto himself, thus violating his very oath.

The question, then:

Should the President of the United States of America, in swearing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, be required to forfeit those very rights assigned him by the supreme law of the land?​

____________________

Notes:

Hawai'i State Department of Health. "Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?" (n.d.) Hawaii.gov. August 18, 2010. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html

United States Constitution. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Topics.Law.Cornell.edu. August 18, 2010. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Out of curiosity--which is only now manifesting because I tend to view "birthers" as wastrels--does the president have to prove his citizenship? And to whom? I mean, there is that whole constitutional thingamajingy, so who verified this shit and, having done so, is there any reason to believe they faked their testimony?

Thanks. I'll take the question off the air.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "Hawai'i Conspiracy", and other notes

The director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome L. Fukino, declared publicly in July, 2009:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

(Nakaso)​

This, of course, is insufficient for the Birthers, whose argument implicitly demands that Dr. Fukino, and even Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle have lied.

I think it would be a fascinating exploration to figure out just how many people would have to explicitly lie, or support the lie by remaining silent despite whatever knowledge they might have, in order to make this conspiracy theory true.

However, I also noticed your vote that a president should have to forfeit constitutional rights. Which of these would you expect a president to give up? And how would you reconcile that expectation with the Fourteenth Amendment, which pertains to the states, or the Fifth Amendment, which includes the federal government, as well as the presidential oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

That is, I cannot say you are wrong, especially as I don't know what you're referring to; but I would suggest that if a president should forfeit certain constitutional rights, the Constitution itself requires amending to make that possible.
____________________

Notes:

Nakaso, Dan. "Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real". USA Today. July 28, 2009. USAToday.com. August 18, 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't understand the issue. Obama himself could request a certified copy and show it to whomever he wished. Of course, a certified copy would not satisfy the lumpenproletariat... but fuck 'em.

 

More on the context

As to the satisfaction of the Birthers, well, therein lies the problem.

But, as I noted at the outset, the "question was raised in response to the fact that one cannot arbitrarily obtain an original birth certificate for another person". That is, because Jerome Corsi was denied a copy of Barack Obama's original birth certificate, the State of Hawai'i must, necessarily be protecting him. (See posts #190-191 in "Shoot the Darky" for more information.)

 

Does not and should not the Congress verify such things? It seems more a federal issue to verify qualifications for the POTUS not the individual states. There is the occasional possibility of subterfuge.

In fact, if I were pressed for an answer, I'd have to state that I'm pretty sure someone on the federal level has verified his electability. The FEC, maybe?

~String

 

Also, I answered incorrectly on the post. I do not think the POTUS should forfeit constitutional rights. I clicked wrongly. Guess I could just fix it.

~String

Mod Note: Superstring's [my] vote has been deleted from the question.

 

This song has no title

I would guess that, as you suggested, the verification is by the FEC, at least barring a valid judicial challenge. Beyond that, though, birth records are state issues, which is where Hawai'i comes in. To that end, I would suggest that Dr. Fukino's statement was more addressed to the public controversy than anything official; there is no indication that, despite the formality of the statement, it was sworn or otherwise intended as such.

But no, I'm not certain who does the verification.

 

Huh. Wonder where I could find the answer. Wonder why we haven't heard the answer from some official stating, "Hey. I'm the person who does this and I can aver with certainty that BHO is indeed a natural born citizen of the USA."

Wait. Wasn't his mother a citizen? Doesn't that automatically make him a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born?

~String

 

They have: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

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

 

Not that it wasn't settled before, but it can safely be stated that it's especially settled now.

~String

 

As an interesting side note, politicians are notorious for taking office in violation of their oaths. We ran a story a few years back about the number of state legislators who owed back taxes. They served, despite the fact their oaths asked them to affirm they were in good standing and owed no money to the state. Nobody ever took the matter to court, either, but they were flagrantly in violation of the law.

 

Exactly how does revealing Obama's Birth Certificate violate Obama's Constitutional rights?

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

The next question is what actual power does Dr. Chiyome Fukino, have to verify that Obama is qualified to be President.

Birth records are public documents, and not protected under the Constitution.

Exactly where do you come up with the idea that for Obama to reveal His Long Form Birth Certificate violates a Constitutional Right?

What is being violated here is the Right of the Citizens of the United States under the Constitution to know positively that Obama meets the requirements of the Office.

 

It really isn't that difficult

Since you ignored somehow missed it in the other thread and also the topic post, I might as well try once again; after all, they say the third time is a charm.

From Corsi's WND article—

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.​

—that you found so credible, and also the Hawai'i State Department of Health:

A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

• the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
• the registrant’s spouse;
• the registrant’s parent(s);
• a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
• a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
• a legal guardian of the registrant;
• a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
• a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
• a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
• adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
• a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
• a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
• a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.​

​

Thus, someone like Jerome Corsi is not entitled to that record. Though our neighbor suggests this shouldn't apply, since Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Thus, Hawai'i would have to set aside its laws in order to release to Corsi a record he is not otherwise entitled to have. This would deny Barack Obama equal protection under the law.

It's not especially hard to figure out, Mr. Roam. Or maybe it is for you.

Would you assert that Hawai'i should deny President Obama equal protection under the law, simply because he is the president, in order to satisfy Jerome Corsi or any other Birther?
____________________

Notes:

Corsi, Jerome R. "Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor". World Net Daily. October 26, 2008. WND.com. August 18, 2010. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174

Hawai'i State Department of Health. "Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?" (n.d.) Hawaii.gov. August 18, 2010. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html

United States Constitution. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Topics.Law.Cornell.edu. August 18, 2010. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

 

One of the funny things about people on the extreme right is they are all for things like states rights and against activitist judges except when they are in conflict with their political agenda (e.g. Terri Schiavo, the birther issue, bush v Gore, etc.). And I just love the "strict constructionalist" arguement for the Constitution. They are "strict constructionalists" except when it comes to things they like (e.g. defense spending). mr. buffalo roam has repeatedly refused to comment on the US Air Force...since it is funded by Congress but not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. How is the Air Force Constitutional in the "strict constructionalist" view of the world?

 

One could similarly argue that complaints by Jerome Corsi (and all other birthers) are invalid because they're not American citizens because I cannot obtain their birth certificates from the authorities to prove that they're Americans.

Adminstrative and judicial remedies exist to address the grievances of "birthers", "thirteeners" etc, but instead, they choose to "try" our POTUS in the media. It's a sophisticated form of lynching.

 

Isn't that always the case?

Every U.S. President has been tried over and over, ad nauseam, in the court of public opinion. This is nothing new.

 

The "birther" obsession with seeing the original birth certificate is very strange to me. If they really believe that there's a conspiracy extending to the upper echelons of the Federal government, then what the hell is a single printed piece of paper supposed to prove? Surely the participants in such a conspiracy would have the resources to fake a birth certificate. It's probably impossible for anyone, anywhere in the world, to create a document that the US Federal Government couldn't covertly counterfeit. And we're talking about a fifty year old birth certificate from before they started covering every document with security watermarks, holograms, special ink that changes color depending on whether or not the person holding it is sexually aroused, etc. Yeah, I'm sure you would need to pay attention to the age of the paper, type of ink, etc, but that would all be pretty trivial for someone with the resources that such a conspiracy would command. Hell, I would be very surprised if there wasn't already a "department for creative document manufacturing" in the CIA somewhere that could crank it out before lunch.

The "proof" that they seem so desperate to obtain would be meaningless for disproving their imagined scenario.

 

Why are you birthers not concerned with Senator McCain's birth certificate during the election? Senator McCain, the Republican candidate for president, was in fact not born inside the territorial boundaries of The United States. He was born in Panama. Why were you guys not protesting McCain's right to be president if he won as you did with Obama?

 

Whoa!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is that grounded in science? Or are you babblin?

I wouldn't be surprised at a counterfeiting agency myself.

Well, perhaps this issue is a contrivance like many others.
But they have help, to be sure.
State Health Secretary Fukino, and Governor Lingle of Hawaii declaring it a moot issue is hardly a reassurance to many. Neither is the recent footage of White House press secretary Gibbs utterly diverting and avoiding the issue of the Social Security number. He thinks answering a question with another question about a Social Security number by going into the birth certificate, and hence, the whole "birther" nonsense, and then proclaiming that he put the REAL certificate online is pretty stupid.

Moreover, that one left-wing website, was it factcheck.org? They claimed to have touched, and handled the original birth certificate. Proof???
Their assertions that they handled it, but did not photocopy the thing, really don't make much difference to me.

Funny, though, how someone can get their hands on Obama's Connecticut Social Security number, but not his full, original birth certificate.

If there is nothing to these allegations, then why the hell is there so much obfuscation and rustling of papers and semantics? Oh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's just because they're so tired of answering all these silly questions?
If they would actually stop obstructing and answer shit, maybe there wouldn't be any questions.

Fact is, no one has been able to reasonably use any court action to actually get at the document.

I'm willing to believe this a conspiracy, (yes, conspiracy) to make an issue where there shouldn't be one. It would take people on both "sides" of the proverbial fence to do that. I wouldn't put it past them.

They seem to be doing a pretty good job.