You said, “The state of Hawaii only produces the computerized version Certification of Live Birth since 2001, so if a long form were to be released, it would be a copy of Obama’s original that the Obama administration would produce.
On top of that, there is no additional information on a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that is relevant to eligibility to be president.”
They computerized their files. Now what is sent in response to a request for a birth certificate is the “short-form”, computer printed, certified and embossed copy. HOWEVER, the originals are still on file in Hawaii. Upon request of the person named on the birth certificate OR upon request of a court of law, they WILL produce and/or copy and certify the ORIGINAL long-form birth certificate. That would be the one with the doctor’s name on it.
As for whether the current short form contains all information necessary to prove eligibility for POTUS, that all depends upon what the definition of “natural born citizen” is.
This is something that no court has yet sufficiently defined, although most who have studied the issue with an open mind must come to the conclusion that a person must be born to TWO U.S. citizens and (in most cases) on U.S. soil.
The COLB on FactCheck does not specify the birth place or citizenship of his parents. Polarik contends that the newest version of COLBs now (perhaps, oh, too conveniently) contains that information.
IF Obama wanted the original long-form birth certificate released, he could have that done, post haste. He could release all of the ORIGINAL document(s), whatever they are, if he cared to do so.
IF he’s telling the truth about his background, his parentage, his place of birth, his eligibility for the presidency, there’s no LOGICAL reason for him to spend thousands of dollars and waste the time and resources of the judiciary (paid for by taxpayers, btw) to prevent showing documentation that will prove that he’s telling the truth. Is there?
You said, “The state of Hawaii only produces the computerized version Certification of Live Birth since 2001, so if a long form were to be released, it would be a copy of Obama’s original that the Obama administration would produce.
On top of that, there is no additional information on a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth that is relevant to eligibility to be president.”
They computerized their files. Now what is sent in response to a request for a birth certificate is the “short-form”, computer printed, certified and embossed copy. HOWEVER, the originals are still on file in Hawaii. Upon request of the person named on the birth certificate OR upon request of a court of law, they WILL produce and/or copy and certify the ORIGINAL long-form birth certificate. That would be the one with the doctor’s name on it.
As for whether the current short form contains all information necessary to prove eligibility for POTUS, that all depends upon what the definition of “natural born citizen” is.
This is something that no court has yet sufficiently defined, although most who have studied the issue with an open mind must come to the conclusion that a person must be born to TWO U.S. citizens and (in most cases) on U.S. soil.
The COLB on FactCheck does not specify the birth place or citizenship of his parents. Polarik contends that the newest version of COLBs now (perhaps, oh, too conveniently) contains that information.
IF Obama wanted the original long-form birth certificate released, he could have that done, post haste. He could release all of the ORIGINAL document(s), whatever they are, if he cared to do so.
IF he’s telling the truth about his background, his parentage, his place of birth, his eligibility for the presidency, there’s no LOGICAL reason for him to spend thousands of dollars and waste the time and resources of the judiciary (paid for by taxpayers, btw) to prevent showing documentation that will prove that he’s telling the truth. Is there?
We know from Obama’s book “Dreams For My Father” and from other authenticated sources that Obama’s father was born on the 4th of April in 1936 in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District in Kenya Colony of the British Empire.
Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham born on November 29, 1942 in St. Francis Hospital in Wichita, Kansas.
We know that the short form must contain all the constitutionally required information to qualify as an Article 2, Section 1 natural born citizen because one court has ruled that to be true and 69 other courts have refused to reverse the results of the 2008 election, the certification of Obama’s electoral votes or the swearing in by Chief Justice John Roberts and Obama has been president for a year and a half now.
Here’s what three courts have said about Obama’s eligibility:
First, the Indiana Court of Appeals:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
So I guess the Indiana Court of Appeals didn’t have an open mind. And neither did the original trial judge nor the Indiana Supreme Court who refused to hear the appeal.
Second, the US District Court for the District of Columbia:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
I guess Judge Lamberth, a Reagan appointee also doesn’t have an open mind.
And third, the US District Court for the Central District of California:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.”
October 29, 2009
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009
No open mind for former US Marine, Vietnam Vet, Bronze Star and Purple Heart winner, Judge Carter either.
Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has had seven opportunities to look at this issue and they have rejected all seven appeals. Its pretty obvious that they aren’t interested and see no significant constitutional issues.
As for spending money on this issue, when people sue you, its probably best to hire an attorney and have that person show up in court. However Obama has only presented a defense in the form of submitting a legal brief asking the judge to dismiss the suit in four of the more than seventy lawsuits that were filed, so it is highly unlikely that he has spent too many thousands of dollars on this issue.
Many of the lawsuits that have been filed don’t even name Obama as a defendant so he has zero legal fees and all of the suits that actually name him since he was sworn in have US Attorneys doing the representation of Obama at taxpayers’ expense. The inflated numbers for what this issue has cost Obama are an internet rumor with zero substantiation.
From Obama’s point of view, he provided the entire planet with a copy of his birth certificate back in 2008 when he posted a copy of his COLB on the internet. The state of Hawaii has confirmed his birth there and declared him to be a natural born citizen and just within the last month, the Republican Governor of Hawaii declared that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu. Two birth announcements for him appeared in the August 13 and August 14th editions of the Honolulu newspapers.
If he released a long form Certificate now, would anyone who qualifies as a doubter as to his eligibility be dissuaded? I doubt it.
Would YOU trust a copy of a birth document released by Obama? Would you even trust a copy of a birth document released at this late date by the state of Hawaii after they have gone out of their way for almost two years now to defend Obama’s birthplace as Honolulu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m. Particularly when all the people doing the defending of Obama are Republicans (Governor and Attorney General) or appointees of those elected Republicans.