I saw the original long form birth certificate. His doctor was Dr. X. He was born in Hopital X, the witnesses were Nurses X and X, and his father's name was Barack Obama, Sr.
She didn't. Instead she referred to vague “vital records” which could be anything at all, even amended records.
She would have said NOTHING about his natural born status since she has no authority whatsoever to declare anyone natural born.
If it ever does come out that Obama is not a natural born citizen, I hope this woman is forever shamed in society for being a traitor.
One more thing about Fukino’s carefully constructed obsfucation of a statement. If she had wished to be plain she would have said.
The issue at hand here, for which the State of Hawaii was making an official statement -- is -- (1) Where was Obama born, and (2) Is he a natural born American citizen?
For everything that I've read, about the Constitutional issue, it all comes down to those two things.
Thus, for the State of Hawaii to answer directly those very two things which are at issue in this whole controversy (about Constitutional qualifications) -- I don't call it a "carefully constructed obsfucation" -- to answer those two items directly as was done.
I saw the original long form birth certificate. His doctor was Dr. X. He was born in Hopital X, the witnesses were Nurses X and X, and his father's name was Barack Obama, Sr.
To say something about the doctor, the nurses and the hospital (while it's all there as background information in any case) -- is not the "direct answer" to "Where was Obama born?" and "Is Obama a natural born American citizen?"
The State of Hawaii made an official statement to the very core and crux of the issue, from their examination of the records that they have. The statement given -- was the model of simplicity and the most direct and comprehensive answer that could have been given and completely answer the crux of the issue while maintaining its simplicity at the same time.
She didn't. Instead she referred to vague “vital records” which could be anything at all, even amended records.
Well, when I read that, "vital records" means that they've looked over what they've got and this is the answer they have, for the public, from the results of looking over what they've got.
She would have said NOTHING about his natural born status since she has no authority whatsoever to declare anyone natural born.
The State of Hawaii hires lawyers too, you know... :-) You can bet that the State of Hawaii lawyers would not have the state make an official statement without having the legal backing to say so. I can be confident of that, with the fact that all the states have a team of lawyers for examining any subject that the state deal with.
What this means to me, is that there are lawyers who are going to examine "official pronouncements" of any state to the public and they're not going to let something in there that is a lie (from the state records) and is legally unsupportable.
And speaking from the position of non-lawyers, there are conservatives who do not think that this is relevant to the Constitutional issue of Obama being qualified, i.e., that natural born status, per the parents citizenship, and it affecting Obama, having been born in Hawaii.
That's obviousl since we've got all the Republicans and the Republican candidate, plus the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States (Bush and Cheney) -- none of them raising this issue as relevant in Obama's qualifications under the Constitution.
If it ever does come out that Obama is not a natural born citizen, I hope this woman is forever shamed in society for being a traitor.
That wouldn't happen, because the only way it would "come out" would be by a Supreme Court decision, since all the facts pertaining to the parents citizenship are known now. It's not a matter of facts not being known -- it's a matter of a different understanding for being a natural born American citizen.
And if a Supreme Court decision does come down and says that the legal understanding of being a natural born American citizen requires U.S. citizenship for both parents (or however they construe it in the Supreme Court) -- then you're not going to put someone in jail or be shamed for being on the "other side" of the "issue being decided" in a court of law.
In other words, when cases are taken to the Supreme Court, the other side who loses (in some Supreme Court decision) is not "shamed" -- but they merely lost in the legal understanding of the issue.
In fact, there are Supreme Court decisions right now that conservatives object to -- and I don't see that these conservatives, being on the "losing side" of the Supreme Court decision are "shamed" for it.
How many conservatives who oppose the decision of the Supreme Court in regards to abortion do you see are currently "shamed" for being on the losing side of that decision? None, I would say...