Reverse Analysis: Why Did Hawaii Get A Different DNC Certification Than Other States?
[UPDATED 7:12 PM - I will be on Sentinel Radio tonight at 9PM. ]
[UPDATED 3:11 PM - see RED ink below.]
[Updated 12:07 PM See red ink below.]
The blogosphere was on fire for the last few days concerning an article entitled – The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie – published by JB Williams of Canada Free Press concerning the two very different certifications issued by the DNC (and signed by Pelosi) concerning Obama’s nomination. (While the CFP site is running, the Williams article mysteriously does not appear accessible at this time – but you can follow the analysis and read the follow up by Williams – at The Right Side of Life blog.)
THE ISSUE: One DNC certification attests to Obama being “legally qualified” under the US Constitution, while the other simply states that Obama was duly nominated.
Apparently, the certification containing the “legally qualified” language was sent to Hawaii, while the certification containing only the “duly nominated” language was sent to the other 49 states.
I am awaiting confirmation that the above is accurate, but for the sake of argument we shall assume Hawaii received the certification which contained this language:
“…the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”…
We shall also assume that the other 49 states received a certification which did not include the “legally qualified” language.
The question raised by JB Williams concerns why two very different certifications were used when the one with the “legally qualified” language would suffice for all 50 states. It’s a very fair question.
To answer the question, it has been suggested that Hawaiian law requires the more detailed certification attesting to the legal qualifications under the US Constitution while the other states do not. However, I cannot find anything unique in the election laws listed in the Hawaii Revised Statutes that sets it apart from other states.
[UPDATED- Section 11-113 states:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
I've looked at many different state election codes through this process, especially New Jersey and Connecticut. So far, I have not seen a reference to a specific provision of law in Hawaii which would require that the DNC prepare a unique certification just for Hawaii.
[Hawaii does require the "legally qualified" language as quoted above.]
So, the next thing necessary was to review the prior certifications used by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 to see if they contained the “legally qualified” language. Those were provided by reader Justin Riggs in comments to this blog. Kerry’s 2004 certification is here. Gore’s 2000 certification is here.
Neither contains the “legally qualified” language.
This would appear to end the argument… unless we reverse the question.
Everyone has been asking, “Why was the legally qualified language left out of the DNC certifications?“ But maybe we need to turn the question around and ask the following:
Why was the “legally qualified” language inserted into the DNC certification for Hawaii?
Is it possible that Hawaii specifically required an assurance from the DNC that Obama was eligible?
If so, why would Hawaii require such an assurance?
Recall, Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s statement:
“I … 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…”
As I have previously reported, there’s no possible way Fukino could legally certify Obama was a natural born citizen. All she could do was state that – according to records she claims to have examined – he was born in Hawaii. But being born in Hawaii does not change the fact that Obama was British at birth. Needless to say, I was perplexed at the language chosen by Fukino (which was more likely chosen for her).
How did Fukino come to the conclusion Obama was a natural born citizen?
We need to know whether Fukino was relying on the DNC certification when she stated that Obama was a natural born citizen.
If we had a truly free press, we could get such an answer. But we don’t and Fukino has managed to dodge future inquiry by stating:
“I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Since the 2000 and 2004 certifications do not appear to include the “legally qualified” language, investigators now need to focus their attention on why the “legally qualified” language was inserted in the DNC certification to Hawaii.
Perhaps we’ve been looking at the question backwards? We need to find out whether the DNC certifications sent to Hawaii in 2000 and 2004 contained the “legally qualified” language or whether Hawaii received the same DNC certification as the other states.
If Hawaii - prior to the 2008 election - received the same DNC certification as the other states then we will truly be onto something. If the “legally qualified” language was in the prior certifications given to Hawaii by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 then this is probably a non-issue.