Replies

So what they do is certify that it could be an original, or it could be an abstract of a record in their files, which means they won't tell us exactly what it *IS*

And no one who understands our system for recording and certifying births in this Nation (being it a State Secretary or U.S. Congressman) questions the sufficiency of Hawaii's certification or sees anything unusual about it. Compare this, oh brain-less one:

Notice the certification form at the bottom?

"This is to certify that this is a true and correct reproduction or abstract of the official record filed in this office."

Wow. I guess the state of North Carolina is another of those "weasel word" states that just won't say what it *IS.* Right?

But in your goofy view of the world, the Secretary of State of North Carolina in 2012 should have rejected the Hawaii form which was produced because the "or abstract thereof" language made it legally insufficent. What a load of B.S. you shovel out.

Take off the "tunnel vision" glasses you wear and see things in their broader context for once. You might actually learn something and sound intelligent.

And here you trot out the ole "argumentum ad vericundiam" fallacy. No thanks. Dealt with it too many times. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people in positions of authority nowadays. The country has gotten more infantile since World War II.

Wow. I guess the state of North Carolina is another of those "weasel word" states that just won't say what it *IS.* Right?

And here's the old "tu quoque." Because one state does something stupid or deceitful, it should justify other states doing something stupid or deceitful.

It also completely overlooks the point that such a certification of an abstract is perfectly reasonable for "Joe Smith" to get his driver's license, but is quite insufficient when it directly impacts compliance with a Constitutional law. A nation can tolerate a useful fiction to serve a good purpose regarding the adoption of children, but a nation can not, and ought not tolerate this sort of subterfuge when it directly impacts a Constitutional requirement to meet qualifications to be President.

All state laws should have fallen like wheat before a scythe when they are put into confrontation with Constitutional law.

The Default standard implicit in the wording of article II should be to require a person to establish proof of eligibility, not to assert they have it until proven otherwise.

But as I said, the Nation has become far more infantile and stupid since World War II, you being but one example of the decline.