Since day one my primary points of view have been procedural:
1) Forgery and document tampering are crimes, you don’t attempt redress of alleged crimes via civil lawsuits. There are no issues of standing in a criminal court.
2) Anyone who has evidence of a crime should present their evidence to a prosecuting attorney to see if that person will convene a grand jury investigation. No U.S. Attorney, state’s Attorney General or District Attorney has ever been presented with purported evidence of criminal activity.
3) Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 allows an original birth certificate to be inspected via a court order and a congressional subpoena issued by the Chair of an investigative committee of Congress has the force of law of a judge’s court order. Congress could have and should have inspected the original document, not a PDF digital image of the original document.
Well, see, here is where we differ. I see the notion of putting process above truth as a "foolish consistency which is a hobgoblin of little minds". If a process yields incorrect results, the process should be dispensed with.
1) Forgery and document tampering are crimes, you don’t attempt redress of alleged crimes via civil lawsuits. There are no issues of standing in a criminal court.
Except when a State does it regarding birth certificates. I have tried and tried and tried to get people to understand that a state can forge a birth certificate and it is not a crime. You and others simply ignore the point. No one ever grasps the point to the extent that it deserves.
Obama has a state produced fake birth certificate. It is not a "forgery" in the normal understanding of the term, it is a legal fake.
I have been consistent in pointing out that the United States should not allow for this sort of dodge when it affects an office as important as the presidency, and that implicit in the requirement that the president be a natural citizen is the authority to require REAL and ACTUAL proof of eligibility.
In my opinion, Constitutional law trumps all state laws that could possibly interfere with confirmation.
Your position is that "procedure" and State law should be allowed to interfere with Constitutional requirements, and in my mind this is just wrong and incorrect.
Every state law should burn and whither like grass if it stands as an obstacle to constitutional law. We have put the cart before the horse with this horses' ass Obama, and the world will pay the consequences of it.