In fact, so far I am reading only that the legislature has chosen to state “whereas” Obama was born in Hawaii. I am not convinced that is even the same as a statement declaring that he was born in Hawaii— the declaration is actually not a declaration but a subordinate clause preceded by a subordinate conjunction (”whereas”):
“Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii...”
A subordinate clause does not stand on its own. Isolated, it is regarded as expressing a thought fragment in contrast to a complete thought. The thought fragment expresses a presumption or assumption.
Let’s compare this wording with U.S. Sen. Res. 511 of April 30, 2008:
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
[...]
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
The introduction clearly declares the intent of the bill.
The body indicates it was passed with certain presumptions and is intended not to establish fact but to establish a point of law (mccain is a nbc) presuming a condition (mccain was born in the panama canal to US parents, an ambiguous situation in the contemporary definitions of nbc).
Here is the introduction to the Hawaii bill:
Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.
This declares the intent of the bill, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaii (*not* to declare Obama a US NBC).
So I am not convinced that the Hawaii bill has any force in law if and when push comes to shove. Obama’s buddy Ambercrombie (the guy that read the alleged letter from Obama in the alleged hospital of Obama’s birth) added the verbiage as an amendment to a bill that originally had nothing to do with Obama. I think it is legitimate to say that at least the McCain bill addressed the problem in a straightforward manner and by comparison, the Hawaii Anniversary bill with the Obama amendment appears devious, ambiguous, and ultimately evasive... like almost everything else he has produced concerning his past before his entry into public service.
If Obama wanted to take the high road he could at least do what McCain did, and show his birth certificate to Congress so they could pass a resolution... but he did not do that, leaving it to his buddies like Ambercrombie to sneak amendments into state bills instead.
The latest effort courtesy of Dr. Fukino only adds to the contradictions since Dr. Fukino proclaims Obama a NBC while not defining what criteria she used to arrive at that conclusion given that Obama claims a UK citizen was his father, disqualifying him from being a NBC under many contemporary definitions of the term.
Obama’s chronically devious, ambiguous and evasive efforts to defuse the nbc issue leave the impression that he is running as hard as he can away from his own past.
Even presuming that Obama is a NBC, there is still no paper trail that indicates he was such on the day Congress ratified the Electoral College vote. Meanwhile the controversy has reached the armed forces via Cook v. Obama, and this internal controversy is arguably a real and present danger to the security of the United States.
For whatever reasons, Obama obviously places a higher value on his personal privacy than on the safety of the United States. For this reason alone he is morally unqualified in my opinion to remain President. The US is placed in danger when the commander in chief of the US armed forces permits the employment of deviousness, ambiguity and evasiveness on his behalf as a substitute for honesty and self sacrifice in public service. Anyone that aids and abets Obama by means of deviousness, ambiguity and evasiveness to hide his constitutional elegibility for the presidential office should ask themselves why it is more important to shield a person’s personal privacy through deviousness, ambiguity, and evasiveness than to ensure the safety of the United States. With the issues raised in Cook v. Obama and similar lawsuits, and in recognition that the controversy was clearly predictable to the public at large including to potential enemies of the United States, I contend this is not a political issue— it is a national security issue.
The resolution by the Hawaii Leg. is not relevant in any way, agreed.
Fukino does state as a fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. And Fukino is the official who would be responsible for obtaining and checking that information. That is the only significant point here. His assessment of NBC is irrelevant.
As for your other points -
Obama is morally unqualified for his office, he is devious and secretive and untrustworthy, and his actions point to having a lot to hide, all points gladly granted - but these are not significant on this narrow Constitutional point.
NBC is not accurately defined in law. Obama indeed had a paper trail for many reasonable definitions of NBC, including a Hawaiian certification of birth that is acceptable by all government agencies. You want the law clarified and a definition adopted that is stricter than that which is being assumed by the general public; that is going to be very tough sledding.
This controversy is in no way a “clear and present danger” to anyone. The last military case is no more significant than the couple of desertion cases were concerning the legality of the Iraq War. It is a trivial distraction from genuine issues.