HI lawmakers vote to limit Obama document requests

Hawaii legislators have passed a measure allowing a state agency to ignore repeated requests from a person or organization for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.

The measure approved Tuesday by the state Legislature would carve an exemption in the state's public records law and allow officials to ignore all kinds of duplicative requests, including those for Obama's birth certificate.

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

If one reads the two statements together it is impossible to believe (absent belief in a fraud which I discount) that she did not "see" the original birth certificate-unless one argues that such a birth certificate is not part of the "vital records."

Nonsense. She separates her two statements. She saw vital records that allegedly verify a place of birth. This doesn't presume that the vital record is the original birth certificate, because if it was, then she didn't need to mention any other vital records. The original birth certificate, if legit, should have been sufficient by itself to verify a place of birth. If it's not, then it means that Obama's alleged COLB is not legitimate. Plus she says she has nothing to add to this statement about the vital records OR her earlier statement that was only about the original birth certificate. IOW, it's an admission that her vital records statement was NOT about seeing the original birth certificate. Further, she said the original birth certificate was 'on record in accordance with state policies and procedures' but that the so-called vital records were 'maintained on file.' This means that these are not records held according to state policies and procedures. So the question is what records are they?? Affadavits?? Correspondence?? The DNC nomination form??Newspaper articles?? E-mails??

The question for me is, what is the provenance of the "original birth certificate" which I have no doubt shows birth in Hawaii and which I further do not doubt reposes among the "vital records." Is that original birth certificate the product of a fraudulent affidavit or application?

Not necessarily, but the alleged COLB probably so.

If so, were the newspaper announcements based upon and generated by the creation of this "original birth certificate?"

The newspaper announcements don't contain a child's name, file number, mother's name, place of birth, county of birth, time of birth, mother's race or father's race, so there are several details that it simply doesn't confirm. That leaves open the possibility that the original birth certificate contains information that doesn't match the information contained in Obama's alleged COLB.

I have no quarrel with your observations regarding her conclusion that Obama is a "natural born citizen" as they generally reprise my comments in my reply. When all of this is said and done it goes nowhere under this scenario absent extraneous proof of birth outside of the United States. That is quite a different subject from a definition of natural born citizen which excludes an individual who does not have two American citizens as parents.

The larger point is that Chiyome Fukino is a vital records adminstrator and not a Constitutional expert, lawyer or historian. She was under no compulsion to make a statement about Obama being natural born or not. Second, she has statutory and discretionary authority to do more than make vague statements. The DOH can release non-certified copies of birth records or release full index data, including the certificate number to confirm whether Obama's alleged COLB is authentic. She would be protected not only by her statutory authority, but by the Uniform Information Practices Act. There's no need to settle for less than full disclosure.

She separates her two statements.

Actually she does not, in fact, she does quite the opposite:

I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

She saw vital records that allegedly verify a place of birth.

That is quite true, she says:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i ...

This doesn't presume that the vital record is the original birth certificate, because if it was, then she didn't need to mention any other vital records.

This is true but not for the reason you suggest. It may have been merely a rhetorical path she took. Later we will see that she must be referring to the birth certificate which is "original."

The original birth certificate, if legit, should have been sufficient by itself to verify a place of birth. If it's not, then it means that Obama's alleged COLB is not legitimate.

Not true. If Obama were born at home in Hawaii the original birth certificate would have truthfully recited the venue of his birth to have been Hawaii. Such a birth certificate would have been "legit." You It was aare quite correct that if the original birth certificate is not "legit" the COLB is not legitimate but this tautology does not advance the state of our knowledge.

Plus she says she has nothing to add to this statement about the vital records OR her earlier statement that was only about the original birth certificate. IOW, it's an admission that her vital records statement was NOT about seeing the original birth certificate.

I've read these sentences several times and I confess I simply do not understand what you are saying. I do not understand what "iow" means. If you're trying to say that she's playing a word game and that she has seen nothing in the original birth certificate which recites the Place of birth, or that, she has not seen the original birth certificate but only the records reciting that there is an original certificate, that conclusion isn't supportable.

I say again, in the second statement she says she has examined the vital records. In the first statement she says that she has examined the records, further, she says that an original birth certificate is part of the records, finally, she says she has "seen" it.

More, in statement 1 she described herself as the person responsible for the "vital records," further she defines her role to "oversee and maintain" the vital records. She avers that Sen. Obama's original birth certificate is-where?-on record. How on record? In accordance with state policies and procedures obviously referring back to her job description which is to "oversee and maintain" the vital records. There can be no doubt, unless she's committing a fraud, that the intention is to incorporate an original birth certificate into the "vital records" which she has "seen."

This is confirmed by her second statement in which she says again that she has "seen" the "vital records" and his not the vital records only but the "original" vital records. What do these records do, these records which are original? They "verify" Obama was born in Hawaii.

She expressly connects, not disconnects, her two statements and there can be no reasonable inferences drawn except that the original birth certificate verifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that she has seen it as part of the vital records she is responsible to maintain.

She does not say that the balance of the "vital records" might be affidavits of the mother or grandmother reciting that Obama was born in a private dwelling in Hawaii upon which the original birth certificate would have been properly issued in the ordinary course of business. That does not mean that the affidavits are not perjurious. But the officer is operating under the statutes of the state of Hawaii which restrict what you can reveal. She has revealed nothing that is not in the colb.

This means that these are not records held according to state policies and procedures. So the question is what records are they?? Affadavits?? Correspondence?? The DNC nomination form??Newspaper articles?? E-mails??

That is what I just said, and what I said in my original reply to which you seem to take exception even though you're rehashing my observations.

Again, I don't know what the argument is about; you are roughly restating what I had in my original reply:

"The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw."

In sum, my original reply was not "nonsense," indeed, a fair reading of my original reply and your responses will show that we are roughly in agreement. Both of us allow for the possibility that, whatever documents are in the file, the effect if not the form could be fraudulent because a valid original birth certificate could be regularly issued upon fraudulent application or affidavit reciting, for example, that Obama was born at home. Further, the quoted statements could be perfectly truthful and consistent with the documentary records and show that Obama was born in Hawaii when he was not.

The problem for those of us who want to see the Constitution vindicated is that merely hypothecating a path by which all of the documents could be in conformity with the law of Hawaii, and the statements of the presiding officers, and the newspaper adverts, yet still be fraudulent in their provenance does not as a practical legal matter advance the case. Possibility is not proof. No court would dare unseat an active president based on hypotheticals. Equally, pointing out the obstinance of Obama in declining to release the "vital records" is not proof, it is merely suspicious. If the entire file were opened to the public and it showed that the original birth certificate was issued only on the affidavit of the mother or grandmother, without more, we lose.

Explicit extraneous proof of birth elsewhere must be adduced or game over.

Actually she does not, in fact, she does quite the opposite: "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

You're making my argument for me. Thanks. If the original birth certificate proved the place of birth (remember, an original birth certificate would be prima facie, self-authenticating evidence), all she had to do was say so. She had no need to look at additional records ... and there shouldn't be any additional records. If there were, it would have been to amend the original birth certificate, thus the alleged COLB would have to include a statement that it was altered. His doesn't contain any such statements.

Not true. If Obama were born at home in Hawaii the original birth certificate would have truthfully recited the venue of his birth to have been Hawaii.

Born at home?? He claims he was born at the Kapiolani hospital.

I've read these sentences several times and I confess I simply do not understand what you are saying. I do not understand what "iow" means.

In other words

If you're trying to say that she's playing a word game and that she has seen nothing in the original birth certificate which recites the Place of birth, or that, she has not seen the original birth certificate but only the records reciting that there is an original certificate, that conclusion isn't supportable.

She's absolutely playing word games. It's why she talked about an original birth certificate in one statement and then changed it to 'original vital records' in the second. The crux is that for Obama's alleged COLB to be real, the original birth certificate would have to have the same information and verify the place of birth by itself. She has not stated in any direct language that she has examined the original birth certificate.

There can be no doubt, unless she's committing a fraud, that the intention is to incorporate an original birth certificate into the "vital records" which she has "seen."

Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago. The original statement was about the original birth certificate. She is not adding to that statement by claiming that document verifies the place of birth. Otherwise, she would have started her second statement by saying that she was adding on to the original statement. She obviously can't make a direct statement that Obama's original birth certificate proves his place of birth.

She expressly connects, not disconnects, her two statements and there can be no reasonable inferences drawn except that the original birth certificate verifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that she has seen it as part of the vital records she is responsible to maintain.

She doesn't connect the two statements in any factual capacity and doesn't mention the second statement until the end of the new statement. If she was adding to the original statement, it should have been mentioned directly at the beginning of the second statement.

That is what I just said, and what I said in my original reply to which you seem to take exception even though you're rehashing my observations.

You miss the point. You were assuming the 'original vital records' were affadavits. We shouldn't have to assume and we shouldn't have to question. If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact ... specifically if it's from the original birth certificate. She failed to do this.

"Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw."

This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.

If the entire file were opened to the public and it showed that the original birth certificate was issued only on the affidavit of the mother or grandmother, without more, we lose.

No, Obama loses. It becomes immediately clear that he lied about being born in two different hospitals .... oooops, one hospital (that story changed over time) and the claim of Hawaiian birth loses credibility. Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well. Pick your poison for taking out the trash.

I shouldn't be very much surprised to learn that Dr.Fukino defines her job as she has described it , to maintain the records and not to make life interesting or pleasant for conservatives like us. She is not motivated to advance the debate about whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, she is motivated to protect her job and reputation and especially to avoid being accused of breaking the privacy laws of Hawaii.

It is not persuasive to draw conclusions about what she should have said to put your mind at rest. She was very careful in what you said and it is in compliance as I understand it with her obligations to maintain the privacy of records.

To say that she had no need to look at additional records and this somehow proves a sinister motive on her part is frankly ridiculous. To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly. It could properly contain baptismal certificates, there could've been marriage certificates, immigration records of the father, passport or other documentary information of the mother. Heaven knows what might be in such a file that would be perfectly legitimate.

I don't really think that we're going to unseat a president who can't remember where he was born even though he was indisputably there, wherever there was. I think he might be forgiven for having gotten it wrong, or perhaps confusing what he was told in later life. This is hardly the level of proof which should preoccupy us or even occupy our time.

Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago

Actually she said that she did not have anything "further" to add to her original statement eight months ago. By omitting the word you go along way toward altering the entire sense of her statement.

If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact .

All she did was say what was in the colb. If you have other statutory authority to which you refer please cite it. My point is that she's free to tell us what's in the colb because of the public record. She is not in business to answer our musings. This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.

Come on. She's not a lawyer she assumes like 99% of the American people that you're born in America you are a natural born citizen. She says she saw his original birth certificate, contrary to what you say, which says he was born in Hawaii. It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.

Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well.

Slow down. Obama did prove his eligibility and he proved to the satisfaction of the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the Constitution. Along the way he proved it to the secretaries of our states. There is no constitutional requirement that the prove anything you demand, such as with "reliable documentation," to any judge or to any constitutionally designated body.

If he did commit such a fraud as you moot, he did it to become president but not while he was president. Are you going to impeach a president for peccadilloes committed before he was sworn in? Where does that end? First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president. The Constitution speaks of this. I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States. By what authority can you impose documentary requirements on secretaries of State who certify elections?

It is easy to let our indignation carry us away but I'm not sure it advances the case against the mountebank in the White House.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation?? If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation ... which would not break any privacy laws. She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

To say that she had no need to look at additional records and this somehow proves a sinister motive on her part is frankly ridiculous.

Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people, evidently like yourself. I think what she really wanted to do was stay out of this issue and let Obama answer for himself. Instead he left her and her department hanging out to dry.

To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly.

I didn't say there couldn't be. I said a legitimate COLB and the original birth certificate it would be based on are self-authenticating. The only reason to look at any other records is if the original birth certificate was lacking enough information to be accepted, which would result in a delayed or amended certificate. In that situation, the COLB is marked as delayed or amended, which Obama's alleged COLB lacks. If Fukino knows this, then she may be trying to avoid exposing Obama for fraud, which would explain her cryptic statements.

It could properly contain baptismal certificates, there could've been marriage certificates, immigration records of the father, passport or other documentary information of the mother. Heaven knows what might be in such a file that would be perfectly legitimate.

Are you even thinking this through?? You think Obama would have a baptismal certificate?? And a marriage certificate, immigration record or passport wouldn't be needed to confirm a hospital birth. You're making excuses where none are needed.

I don't really think that we're going to unseat a president who can't remember where he was born even though he was indisputably there, wherever there was. I think he might be forgiven for having gotten it wrong, or perhaps confusing what he was told in later life. This is hardly the level of proof which should preoccupy us or even occupy our time.

The candidate doesn't have to rely on faulty memory when he can simply present a legitimate, original birth certificate, which Hawaii claims they have. The problem is when this person knowingly lies and misrepresents himself with forged or illegally altered documents. Then we're talking about criminal fraud.

Actually she said that she did not have anything "further" to add to her original statement eight months ago. By omitting the word you go along way toward altering the entire sense of her statement.

Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.

All she did was say what was in the colb. If you have other statutory authority to which you refer please cite it. My point is that she's free to tell us what's in the colb because of the public record. She is not in business to answer our musings.

Your argument is drifiting. First you said she has to maintain the privacy of records and now you're claiming she's free to tell us what's on the alleged COLB because it's in the public record. She's already claimed it's not public record. The spokesbabe at the HI DOH, Janice Okubo, has gone further and claimed they can't disclose ANY information from a COLB or original birth certificate. And ... she IS in the business of answering requests from the public for information. Part of the responsibility is how birth announcements get published in the newspaper. But assuming the alleged COLB IS in the public record, then the only statement Fukino needs to make is that she verified that all the information contained on the COLB is genuine and accurate. She has refused to do this despite direct requests.

Come on. She's not a lawyer she assumes like 99% of the American people that you're born in America you are a natural born citizen. She says she saw his original birth certificate, contrary to what you say, which says he was born in Hawaii.

Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.

It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.

It may not be surprising, but it's not part of her job nor is it supported by documentation or a good understanding of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Better for her to have remained silent.

Slow down. Obama did prove his eligibility and he proved to the satisfaction of the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the Constitution.

More assumption not based in fact.

There is no constitutional requirement that the prove anything you demand, such as with "reliable documentation," to any judge or to any constitutionally designated body.

No, but the Constitution gives the people the right and responsibility to petition the government for redress of grievances. Obama may not have had a requirement to present a COLB, but he did anyway and it has failed the smell test. Now it's time to get rid of the source of the stink.

If he did commit such a fraud as you moot, he did it to become president but not while he was president. Are you going to impeach a president for peccadilloes committed before he was sworn in? Where does that end?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??

First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president. The Constitution speaks of this. I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States. By what authority can you impose documentary requirements on secretaries of State who certify elections?

They already have documentary requirements, except that they failed to fully verify the truth in Obama's case. Arizona is close to passing a bill that will make it easier to catch questionable candidates. Hopefully other states will follow their lead.

It is easy to let our indignation carry us away but I'm not sure it advances the case against the mountebank in the White House.

This issue isn't simply about 'indignation.' If you recall, the Senate (along with then Senator Obama) passed a resolution to declare John McCain to be eligible for president prior to the election. Was that motivated by indignation?? Was it in response to a peccadillo?? Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??

How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation??

By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.

If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation

She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.

which would not break any privacy laws.

Rubbish. See above.

She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

More rubbish. I've asked you before for statutory authority for your assertions along this line. You do not provide anything, you merely continue to reassert that which is manifestly untrue.

Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people,

Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.

evidently like yourself.

I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.

Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.

When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader. When the doctor said she had nothing "further" to add it indicates that she has already added something, thus connecting the two statements. When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.

Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.

Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii. Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.

More assumption not based in fact.

Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??

In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language. You may assume, as Ann Coulter said to Matt Lauer on the Today Show, "you can always assume that I believe what I write." Such patronizing does not advance your arguments with the reader although I have no doubt that provides you with some fleeting gratification.

Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??

There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility. They did so in the case of Barack Obama but they did so in a faulty manner.

I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.

By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.

There's no privacy law that prohibits the release of the information. It prohibits the release of certified copies of vital records to people who don't have a tangible and direct interest. The information on the vital records is at the discretion of the direct of the health department ... stated clearly in HRS 338-18(d), "Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public."

She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.

There is no public document.

Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.

Any reader with a basic understanding of the word 'sinister' will have not trouble judging that misleading statements don't have to have sinister motivations. Good luck pushing the high drama angle.

I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.

You have put faith in Fukino's statements which I have proved are misleading and inaccurate. Your response to her statements is an excellent example of my point, so in this case, the shoe fits, and is an appropriate response to your comment. Second, you need to show where there's an circular logic. Tossing an allegation like that is cheap when you do nothing to support it.

When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader.

Sorry, but this is still a desperate stretch on semantics.I can do that too by noting that you ignored the word 'or' which means she kept the statement SEPARATE. If they were connected, then she would have said 'I have nothing further to add to this statement and my original statement ..."

When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.

Your accusation that I misquoted Fukino is simply wrong. And of course, you fail to acknowledge that such an accusation itself was what you call a 'quasi-ad hominem.'

Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii.

This is factually wrong in at least two ways. Nothing has been confirmed by the alleged COLB because the COLB itself has never been confirmed. Fukino has never said an underlying birth certificate confirms birth in Hawaii. Funny that you bemoan about misquoting, yet have no qualms in doing the same.

Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.

Only to someone who is overly sensitive.

Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.

Wrong. You claimed he "proved his eligibility." Ratifying electoral votes doesn't indicate that anyone proved, examined, approved or acknowledged anything having to do with eligibility. Unless you can show that members of Congress looked at Obama's eligibility, then you stated an assumption.

In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language.

There's no word game here (look who's using another ad hominem, by the way). I asked you a question based on YOUR word choice, which in the context, appeared to be purposely chosen so as to trivialize the allegation of fraud. So, the question remains, since you dodged it.

There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility.

Yes, actually there was. First you suggested a proposition that shows no acknowledgment of Congress as having any Constitutional duty to determine eligbility.

"First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president."

Then you followed with a statement expressing incredulity that such a responsibility would be place on Congress.

"I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States."

Nothing here about Congress already doing this function or how such a function can be viewed by the public.

I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.

You certainly failed to advance your assumptions, so it should be obvious now that your posts have indeed been nonsense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.