President Eisenhower was a home birth in Denton, Texas and he never received a birth certificate. When Ike was in his 50’s he got a birth certificate issued on the notarized testimony of his wife and brother.
A birth certificate is “self-authenticating” under the Federal Rules of Evidence if it has the signature of a custodian and a seal or if it is testified to be authentic by its custodian.
In order to invalidate a birth certificate, probatve evidence of a birth somewhere else would need to be presented. If fraud or deception was done by Obama’s relatives in 1961, that would not impact him in the final month of his presidency in 2016.
And once again, you are talking "legal" jiggery-pokery while I am talking about factually true.
I do not give a D@Mn that rules assert that we should simply accept bogus crap put down on paper. As I have constantly pointed out, *I* posses an authentic birth certificate issued by a state, and it contains all sorts of non-truthful information on it.
What the "Federal rules of Evidence" do not do is make the truth out of non-truth, and we should be concerned with nothing else.
In order to invalidate a birth certificate, probatve evidence of a birth somewhere else would need to be presented.
The US Constitution does not require that someone else prove a man is unqualified. What it requires, or what it would require in a COMPETENT society, is for the man seeking the office to PROVE he is qualified.
What we have nowadays are a collection of disinterested fools in positions of legal authority refusing to do their D@MN job because they don't want to, and then making up legal sounding bullsh*t to alleviate them of any responsibility to do their jobs.
Had Obama been a white Republican, he would have had the entire media, all the Democrat lawmakers and many Democrat lawyers on his @$$ telling him that what he had provided was not good enough.
But because he is a black Democrat, nobody wanted to do their jobs.