Nobody is disputing that they are different documents.
"...one is the actual birth certificate, the other is a short form abstract not necessarily based on the original source document, considering amendments that could be made to the original. The short form does NOT verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate and does not contain the exact details of the birth which can be corroborated. They do not carry the same legal weight and the short form IS NOT a birth certificate. It is an ABSTRACT in lieu of the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, per the law."
No. It is legal, prima facie proof of the facts on it. It does carry full legal weight. From the front of the certificate, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
"For example, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands requires the original long form birth certificate to prove Hawaiian status:"
Already discussed and debunked. The "status" in question isn't identity or being born in Hawaiian. It is having a certain degree of native Hawaiian blood. It's not that won't take the birth certificate, it's that proof of ancestry is ALSO required FOR THIS PROGRAM. It is not a comment on the legal validity of birth certificates.
"The US Passport Office does not accept some short form abstracts, to prove citizenship:"
But this isn't one of those forms.
"Further, the State of Hawaii allows/allowed for out of state births to be registered in Hawaii up to one year after the birth, which would call into question the credibility of the original birth certificate. Obama's sister was born in Indonesia but has a Hawaiian birth certificate."
Also previously discussed by others. If true, and if it applied to Obama's circumstances, things that aren't given, who says it is going to lie? You mean "generally popular liberal opinion"..funny how liberals care about the law when it comes to interrogation but want to use "generally popular opinion" to solve a constitutional issue.
Hawaiian law distinguishes between the two of them, as cited, and states that the short form is simply a “verification in lieu of the a birth certificate”, NOT A CERTIFICATE.
No. It is legal, prima facie proof of the facts on it. It does carry full legal weight. From the front of the certificate, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
Prima facie evidence is not enough to settle a constitutional dispute when the source document exists and would be required. I can only hope that this gets adjudicated and Obama refuses a court order on that basis when it clearly does not carry the same weight.
Already discussed and debunked. The "status" in question isn't identity or being born in Hawaiian. It is having a certain degree of native Hawaiian blood. It's not that won't take the birth certificate, it's that proof of ancestry is ALSO required FOR THIS PROGRAM. It is not a comment on the legal validity of birth certificates.
There is nothing to debunk. The example I used showed where the short form does not carry the same legal weight as the actual birth certificate, for those purposes.
But this isn't one of those forms.
Again, this is an example where the SHORT FORM DOES NOT CARRY THE SAME LEGAL WEIGHT.
Also previously discussed by others. If true, and if it applied to Obama's circumstances, things that aren't given, who says it is going to lie?
Huh? That made no sense. The US Passport office acknowledges that passport fraud occurs by forging birth certificates, therefore we know that it does happen and explains how Obama could have gotten a passport in spite of a suspect birth certificate (this is a typical defense by Bots). If it was possible for out of state births to be registered in Hawaii and his sister was registered that way, it possible it happened in Obama’s case, given the circumstances. No one in the state records office needs to lie, they only commented that a birth record exists and did not elaborate on the detailed information, whether it has ever been cross checked with the hospital and the delivering doctor, how it was filed and by whom, and any AMENDMENTS that have been made.
By law, Obama has a right to request a certified copy of his original long form birth certificate for $10, as opposed to $5 for a verification IN LIEU OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE (COLB). There are basic questions about where he was born, who delivered him, what his name was at that time, how the birth record was filed, whether he is a natural born citizen and qualified o be President. TEN DOLLARS WOULD CLEAR UP THE MATTER. Instead Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars by some estimates to prevent it from being released and the only defense from his Bots is a weak argument that a short form abstract is sufficient instead of the ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENT. The short form does not carry the same legal weight and lacks the detailed information necessary to allow for corroboration of the facts in dispute.