hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.
(a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.
2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship -- birth within the United States.
OT, you're talking about probative value, correct?
Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate's probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama's birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier?
Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii cannot be regarded as "verified" until these questions are answered.
The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)
A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be Hawaii-born.
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate", which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)
* If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
* If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional's name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama's birth took place in Hawaii.
The posting of the BC on a blog is not verifiable proof of anything.
OT would have you believe as the one court that ruled that the issue "had been blogged, twittered and massaged"
(a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President's Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.
2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Until President Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship -- birth within the United States.
Actually it is YOU that are wanting to throw out 200 years of the law and precedent history whereby over the years for government business the government and the courts have accepted even Family Bibles and Birth announcements as proof of birthplace/date- because there is no standard "national" birth records law or birth certificate-and many were never born in a hospital ------and they have accepted the sworn records of State Registrars as proof..
OT, you're talking about probative value, correct?
Was there a judicial or administrative hearing to determine the birth certificate's probative value? Who recorded the date and time of Barack Obama's birth? Could his actual date of birth have been a week or two earlier?
Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii cannot be regarded as "verified" until these questions are answered.
The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)
A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, reaffirmed the fact that Hawaiian birth certificates were given only to individuals who were believed to be Hawaii-born.
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate", which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)
* If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
* If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional's name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama's birth took place in Hawaii.
The posting of the BC on a blog is not verifiable proof of anything.
OT would have you believe as the one court that ruled that the issue "had been blogged, twittered and massaged"