It doesn't matter, however, since the short form version Obama released has all the information necessary to prove he was born in the USA.
curiosity:”It doesn’t matter, however, since the short form version Obama released has all the information necessary to prove he was born in the USA.”
The primary difference between the long form and the short form birth certificate of course is verifiability. The long form has much more information allowing greater scrutiny of the evidence (attending physician, exact location of birth, time of birth). There has been no hard evidence of Obama’s birth in HI except for this short form birth certificate (announcements in local newspapers would not be admissable in a court). Almost all leagal cases would require at least a few pieces of corroborating evidence to confirm a fact.
All documents - to have any value whatsoever - must somehow be identified as authentic. By the way, why do you think that Hawaii requires the vault copy to be kept as “confirmation” of the short form? Why would they not just throw away the vault copy and keep the short form on record. Obviously even the state of Hawaii understands the distinction between these two documents and the importance of maintaining the “paper trail”.
To request the vault copy as evidence so that Obama’s claims can be corroborated seems to be a very common and reasonable request - one that most all US citizens would (and normally do) provide when asked. Why not Obama?
You're correct. What I should have asked El Gato was:
"Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."
How do you know this one is one of those not acceptable?