Other reasonable fellows resident in Hawaii can absolutely tell you that it was common practice in Hawaii to register foreign born children as "born in Hawaii."
All that was required was the statement of witnesses affirming "Home Birth." It is well known that many children, particularly from the Philippines, China, and Japan were routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of relatives claiming "Home Birth." Google up some Hawaiian court clerks, attorneys, hospital officers, county registrars, etc. and ask them!
Whereas a Hawaiian car title, or dog license from the 1900s to the 60's has an excellent chance of being genuine, a Birth Certificate from that long period can offer no iron-clad guarantees!
Furthermore, birth in Hawaii, which is possible, would only make Obama (if that's his present legal name) a Native-Born Citizen, Not a Natural Born Citizen. It is the cases for clarification of this point (i.e., Does Native = Natural?) which the courts have refused to hear on the merits.
It is my feeling that this point will not be cleared up as long as Obama is in office. Of course, no matter what any court decided, the only way he could be removed is by Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate.
Of course there is also something very wrong here. You, and the GOP, insist that those who are asking the questions should put their time and energy elsewhere. What you are saying is that it is not worth the trouble, because he will be in office for the next two years anyway.
The Constitution is worth the trouble. That really has little to do with Obama. These questions must be answered, not avoided.
“It is well known that many children, particularly from the Philippines, China, and Japan were routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of relatives claiming “Home Birth.” Google up some Hawaiian court clerks, attorneys, hospital officers, county registrars, etc. and ask them!”
Better yet, check out the Wiki entry on Sun Yat Sen:
“In March 1904, he obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,[9] issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui.[10]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen
All it took was for a relative to be willing to lie on his behalf.
You seem a reasonable fellow. I am a reasonable fellow, too.
Other reasonable fellows resident in Hawaii can absolutely tell you that it was common practice in Hawaii to register foreign born children as “born in Hawaii.”
All that was required was the statement of witnesses affirming “Home Birth.” It is well known that many children, particularly from the Philippines, China, and Japan were routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of relatives claiming “Home Birth.” Google up some Hawaiian court clerks, attorneys, hospital officers, county registrars, etc. and ask them!
Whereas a Hawaiian car title, or dog license from the 1900s to the 60’s has an excellent chance of being genuine, a Birth Certificate from that long period can offer no iron-clad guarantees!
Furthermore, birth in Hawaii, which is possible, would only make Obama (if that’s his present legal name) a Native-Born Citizen, Not a Natural Born Citizen. It is the cases for clarification of this point (i.e., Does Native = Natural?) which the courts have refused to hear on the merits.
It is my feeling that this point will not be cleared up as long as Obama is in office. Of course, no matter what any court decided, the only way he could be removed is by Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate.
Of course there is also something very wrong here. You, and the GOP, insist that those who are asking the questions should put their time and energy elsewhere. What you are saying is that it is not worth the trouble, because he will be in office for the next two years anyway.
The Constitution is worth the trouble. That really has little to do with Obama. These questions must be answered, not avoided.
The state of Hawaii disagrees with the statements above. Once the state of Hawaii was created in 1959, children who were foreign born could get a Hawaiian birth document stating ONLY that they were foreign born.
“It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
However there is an actual court case specifically looking at the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to receive a state’s Electoral College votes due to his father not being an American citizen. That Court case is Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that “...a person born within the borders of the United States is a “natural born citizen” for Article II, Section 1 purposes.”
No higher court has reversed the decision in Ankeny with regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.
As you correctly point out and as a federal district court judge said in dismissing an Obama eligibility lawsuit: “The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”