First, was the the statute in effect at or around the year that Obama was born?
I would venture a guess that it was, since the statute references "Territory" as well as "State," and Hawaii became a state in ... what, 1959? Or was that Alaska?
Secondly, in Hawaii, is there any difference whatsoever between a "birth certificate" and a "certificate of live birth"?
That I do not know. I've been under the impression that "Certificate Of Live Birth" was the specific legalese under Hawaiian law for a birth certificate, but the wording of the statute does throw that into question.
I'd love to see some sort of resolution to this question, and it really is a genuine point of concern, prior to the election. It appears to me that the far left is angling to create a Constitutional crisis.
Actually, both. Alaska in January and Hawaii in August or September, I believe.
"That I do not know. I've been under the impression that "Certificate Of Live Birth" was the specific legalese under Hawaiian law for a birth certificate, but the wording of the statute does throw that into question."
To me, both terms mean the same thing. However, many of the folks on these threads have made a distinction between the two things, and that may just be misinformation. Lots of that around.
I actually pulled out my "birth certificate" a few minutes ago and it is not identified or titled as either of those things. It is signed by a registrar and sealed that it is a certified copy of an original document on file. Interesting.
"I'd love to see some sort of resolution to this question, and it really is a genuine point of concern, prior to the election."
I really think that there must be people somewhere that have seen all of the facts and know that there is no problem with Obama's candidacy. It is difficult to imagine that he has come as far as he has without being bombed out of the water by an ideological opponent.