The answer is "nowhere." You can speculate and theorize that they did, but you can't state it as a fact , since no one -- including the attornies filing these lawsuits -- has come up with any evidence that Hawaii changed the place of birth on any such certificate.
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program applies to "a person born in Hawaii who was one year or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii," so how is that relevant?
You said NOWHERE does it say Hawaii will change the place of birth. There would be no change with the certificate of birth. It would be fraudulent information given in order to obtain that type of BC. What exactly do you think applying for certificate of birth in Hawaii was about? A form was filled out by a parent with details.
The answer is "nowhere." You can speculate and theorize that they did, but you can't state it as a fact , since no one -- including the attornies filing these lawsuits -- has come up with any evidence that Hawaii changed the place of birth on any such certificate.
Until obama shows his stuff, everything you are posting is speculation. So go ahead and continue on.
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program applies to "a person born in Hawaii who was one year or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii," so how is that relevant?
You have proof obama's mother registered obama before a year old? Let's see the evidence.
There is something fishy with the law supposedly only being first passed in 1982.
It references “the Territory or State of Hawaii”
No need to reference something that hadn’t been in effect for what? Fifty some years?
To me this indicates, because of the language, that it was in effect (passed) much earlier than indicated, or was taken from another § that was in effect at the time when “Territory” had meaning to the statute.