Okay, to insure clear communications I am going to make certain that you understand I am referring specifically to efforts to get a certified copy of his Original Hawaiian birth certificate placed in front of election officials. On what legal grounds is this inadequate? All they submitted was a signed statement by Nancy Pelosi. Do you regard this as adequate proof on which to allow ballot access?
Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times?
(This time referring to the meaning of "natural born citizen" issue, which is a SEPARATE issue from that which I am mentioning in this thread.)
I've answered that many times. It's because the entire legal system has misinterpreted precedent years ago, but they keep erroneously using this misinterpreted precedent.
Why do you think the Supreme Court won't touch it? Because it's legally ridiculous, and wanting it to be effective doesn't make it so.
(Again, on the meaning of "Natural born citizen" issue, which I am NOT attempting to discuss in this thread.)
It's legally consistent, but does not fit the precedent which these people have been taught, which incidentally is misinterpreted.
Both the Republican governor of Hawaii (Linda Lingle) and the spokesperson for the DOH have said 0bama was born there. Many of those bringing up reasons why the released COLB and long form are forgeries have either been discredited themselves, or had their reasons discredited.
The legal grounds that are inadequate are printed right on the COLB: "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."