[muawiyah]

BTW, that federal statute I cited doesn't care if it's a certified copy of an original ~ so in Federal Court, your complaint wouldn't last 10 seconds ~ that statute was drafted and passed in 1996 so that certifiable documents could be created at will from a data base maintained electronically, or in digital formats on some media other than paper.

Although the folks in Hawaii state government seem to have the patter down to talk about their birth records data retrieval system correctly, some of them have indicated in the past they didn't really understand it.

Governor Ambercrombie, who has a really bad history of addictive substance abuse, probably couldn't understand it if he had wires stuffed in his head.

You do understand that a certain level the debate over Obama's birth certificate(s) is taking place with IDIOTS and BRAIN DAMAGED Democrat politicians.

[DiogenesLamp]

BTW, that federal statute I cited doesn't care if it's a certified copy of an original ~ so in Federal Court, your complaint wouldn't last 10 seconds ~ that statute was drafted and passed in 1996 so that certifiable documents could be created at will from a data base maintained electronically, or in digital formats on some media other than paper.

The documents are good enough for usual uses, but inadequate for the Presidency. Remember, the Presidency is a co-equal branch of government with the Legislative and Judicial. Regarding constitutional matters his legitimacy is independent of theirs. They cannot pass a law that has an impact on his constitutional eligibility. They cannot make it easier or harder to establish his constitutional requirements by statute.

Consider for a moment that congress passed a statute declaring a year to be only ten months. By that interpretation, a 34 year old could meet the 35 year old age requirement. This is no different from congress passing a law which allows proof which is not really proof.