I’m just trying to find out where that statement by the official from the State of Hawaii is wrong. Either it does apply to “all” or it doesn’t.
And if it doesn’t apply to “all” federal requirements, then that state official needs to be “called on the carpet” and he needs to change his statement. If he doesn’t change his statement, then that obviously means that he’s right.
I would like to find out which way it’s going to go.
Let me know when he changes his official statement for the State of Hawaii...
There are “federal requirements” that simply pertain the the format of an electronic facsimile (certification) of a birth certificate.
In this context the phrase “Federal Requirements” is a term that simply pertains to the structure the form, and is not being extended to all things pertaining to identity. There are different “Federal Requirements” for different things. Examples include applications for passports and security clearances. Each of these items have very different standards. Another example is eligibility to hold office of the POTUS - yet very different from the first two.
The alleged statement by the Hawaiian official pertained to the standards for the structure of the Cert of Live Birth form. It was not in relation to the federal standards to be eligible to hold office of the POTUS, a passport, security clearance,...etc.