Thanks for admitting you had no real point. You're still ignoring the inconvenient fact that Barack Sr. never identified himself as African in regard to his race.
And of course, the only data on a birth certificate that is relevant to Article Two, Section 1 eligibility is date of birth and place of birth.
Not so much. The permanent address of the parents would be relevant as well as anything that might indicate the citizenship of the parents.
Barack Obama Senior could be racially identified as Martian, it bears no significance to a president being at least age 35, a natural born citizen and a 14 year resident of the U.S. Since 1868 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Presidents can be of any race.
According to the Supreme Court they could be of any race and gender prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS said the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizen. The race designation is only pertinent here in regards to the authenticity of the alleged birth certificate.
If it was Ann Dunham’s decision to list her husband’s race as “African” with or without his concurrence, it makes no difference.
There are two data points on a birth certificate that have Article II, Section 1 constitutional relevance: date of birth and place of birth. The following is why even though the Obama birth vital record has been available since June 10, 2008 and a copy of the long form has been on the whitehouse.gov web site since April 27, 2011, all attempts to impeach the data have proven unsuccessful.
Every Certificate of Live Birth (digitized short form abstract) issued by the state of Hawaii carries the statement: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” {Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13b & 338-19}
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
Article IV/Section 1 of the US Constitution says that “Full Faith and Credit” will be given to the official public records of a state by every other state and by the federal government.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec1.html
Federal Rule of Evidence 902 states that official state records are considered to be self-authenticating evidence as exceptions to the hearsay rule and need no further authentification.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 states that copies of public records can be used in court to prove content.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
Put it all together and there’s a sealed and signed certified birth record that is prima facie evidence which gets full faith in credit, is self-authenticating and copies of the original can be used in court to prove content.
Since there has never been an official law enforcement agency or congressional investigation of Barack Obama’s birth record for forgery, fraud or document tampering, the four legal steps listed above have been (thus far) an insurmountable hurdle for challengers to the Obama presidency to overcome.