You said — “Just one little thing, for a certified copy of the Original Birth Certificate, that the state of Hawaii says they have, to be provided directly to one, just one, of the Courts which have active cases seeking it’s production. That would either make the issue go away, or blow it wide open.”
Well, Berg was saying that it couldn’t be compelled and that’s the problem. If that’s the system you have at the present (and Berg says it is) — and you’re unable to get it — then you’ve got a real big problem. And if the courts won’t compel it, then there’s not much more that one can do.
—
You then said — “BHO has not seen fit to request such a BC be provided. Why has he not done so? And instead sent lawyers to argue against “standing” and any requirement to provide the BC. However much they might have cost him it would be much much more than it would cost ($12 if done over the ‘net) to have one provided to such a court directly from the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health Statistics.”
I know the arguments about providing the info to settle the accusations against him — as I used the same ones before the election... :-)
The problem that is at issue — is not what can be done to satisfy accusations that we see here (and elsewhere) — that’s not the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand is — rather — can one be “compelled” to show this documentation, or even further — can just one particular candidate be compelled to show this documentation and not others be compelled to show it. That’s what the courts are going to be looking at.
Now *after* they decide whether one can be compelled to show this documentation — then we’ll know whether we’ll get it or not. We will if they say it can be compelled. We won’t get it if they say it cannot be compelled.
Now, from what Berg has said — it appears to me that the courts are going to say it can’t be compelled under the laws that we have in place right now. So, that’s going to lead to a legislative solution to correct those laws.
I doubt that is what Berg was saying. At least not as applied to a court. Even under the laws of the State of Hawaii, and the privacy act, a court of competant jurisdiction can order the state to produce a copy of a vital record. But absent such a court order, then yes he can't be compelled to produce the BC, nor is there any rule or law saying he must as matter of course produce it. I know you want to change that, and so do the rest of us, but not just for future elections, but for this one, which is the first in well over a hundred years, where either the President or VP, and the first where the Presidential nominee/President-elect was suspect of not meeting the Natural born test. And only the second one ever. The Supreme was not involved at all in that first one. This time they are, and should do the job properly, meaning they should examine the issues and rule on the merits. If they don't then confidence in the system is greatly weakened.
We will if they say it can be compelled. We won’t get it if they say it cannot be compelled.
And if they say niether? Or refuse to examine what evidence there is for suspecting that Obama is not Natural born? What then?
Refusing to decide is not going to settle the matter, except in the sense that nothing else can be done, unless and until further evidence is brought forward. Evidence such as an entry in an INS log somewhere. Or an airline file, which might show that Stanley Ann traveled from Kenya to the US around the time of BHO Jr's birth. Or even a canceled check from Grandma Toot to said airline at the appropriate time.