Well - that’s the question. I have seen states issue birth certificates - but the proof of the actual birth in the state was never given - except for some purpose of saying that the child was delivered at home - and not in the hospital. If he was delivered at a hospital in Hawaii - then there should be a separate (non-official) one issued. I know I have both from the hospital and state.
Just asking if this seems to be weird - that the one on the website is brand new - but states nothing about the actual place of birth other than Hawaii the island - what hospital was he born at?
Yes, state law in Hawaii says you can apply for a birth certificate if your child was born outside the state as long as you have lived there for a year. I can find the statute if you want.
You are obviously someone who has spent the last couple months on Mars. The State of Hawaii issues Certificates of Live Birth (as this is - NOT an archival Birth Certificate) for any child born ANYWHERE in the world to Hawaii resident parents absent from the state at the time of birth, providing the absence was for a “temporary purpose”.
By definition virtually all foreign travel by a US citizen is for a “temporary purpose” as the presumption is that one will return to his or her home country. Young Barak could well have been born in Kenya, as has been alleged, and would still have been issued a document in precisely the form and substance as the document he claims to prove his native birth. It does nothing of the kind.
To establish that Obama would need a certified copy of the archival hard copy of a Birth Certificate as originally issued, setting forth all the particulars of the birth including the hospital name and the name of the attending physician. No such document has never been produced by Obama, and neither has any original hospital record, which would also serve to establish the locus of his birth.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
As noted in previous threads on the issue, there are questions surrounding the validity of this birth certificate. Some have suggested that it may be a clever forgery.
There are allegations that another birth certificate exists showing him to have been born in Mombassa, Kenya, at Coast Hospital.
Eyewitness accounts by three of his relatives, including his paternal grandmother, place his birth in Kenya, not Hawaii.
Neverthless, as noted - again - in previous threads, Obama could put this issue to rest once and for all by producing a “long form” record of his birth. The fact that he has chosen to respond to the Berg lawsuit with 2 motions (one to dismiss and the other to keep his personal records sealed) begs the obvious question: “What’s he trying to hide?”
Legally, he is well within his right to file these motions but, politically speaking, this is dangerous territory he treads.
On every legitimate job application in this land, an applicant is asked if he is a U.S. Citizen. If the answer is “no”, the next question is, are you legally eligible to work in this country?
Doesn’t it make sense that we demand proof that our presidential candidates meet the very barest minimum qualifications as laid out in Article 2? After all, we often have to provide proof of eligibility to get a job, shouldn’t they?
I don’t think it’s asking too much and should be easy enough to do for a constitutionally-qualified candidate. On the other hand, it would be impossible to do for someone not constitutionally eligible.
So tell me, what kind of legal posturing would you expect from someone unable to provide proof of eligibility?