The short form COLB says on it: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
Obama’s short form COLB says that he was born in Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961.
The short form is an abridged version of the vault copy.
According to Hawaii statutes, he need not present any further documentation of birth.
There is no existant federal statute which requires a citizen to produce the vault copy of their birth certificate as opposed to the short form in order to verify “natural born” status.
There's no existent federal statute which specifically requires a citizen to produce any copy of their birth certificate to qualify for President, unfortunately.
But that wasn't your original argument.
You stated that Hawaii officials had verified the validity of the COLB that he has thus far presented as a digitized image on the web, and to a few employees of FactCheck who aren't document experts.
The Hawaii DOH officials didn't verify that COLB.
I was incorrect in stating that the place of birth wouldn't appear on the COLB, but since no experts (including the officials of the Hawaii DOH) have examined the COLB he's presented, we don't know if it's authentic.
It would be very simple for Obama to let that happen, but he hasn't. Thus the lawsuits, and the controversy.
You did not address browardchad’s point at all. Merely repeating what he contradicted does nothing for your argument.
The short form COLB says on it: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
Obama’s short form COLB says that he was born in Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu at 7:24 PM on August 4, 1961.
The short form is an abridged version of the vault copy.
According to Hawaii statutes, he need not present any further documentation of birth.
There is no existant federal statute which requires a citizen to produce the vault copy of their birth certificate as opposed to the short form in order to verify “natural born” status.
OF COURSE NOT - SILLY GOOSE ...
The famous “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution allows Congress to exercise many powers NOT specifically granted to it in so many words by the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18:
“... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”.
BUT, THEY HAVE NOT MANDATED POTUS ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION, AS YET ...
HOWEVER:
9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
AND:
10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
These two (2) Amendments proclaim that there are rights held by the People that are NOT expressly stated in the Constitution and there are powers reserved to the People.
AND:
We ALSO have the Founding Father’s concept of “original intent” - they CLEARLY DID NOT want a non natural born citizen to be POTUS.
I assert that the People have a right to verify the eligibility of candidates for office and absent any authority by law of the United States Government or of the States, that power devolves to the People.
I also assert that by bestowing a vote on a candidate and his (or her) acceptance thereof, is an “contract”.
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing. Its essentials are competant parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.
In this case, I agree to give you my vote ... you agree that you are qualified.
Of course, it may be an “implied contract”.
An implied contract is an agreement which can legitimately be inferred from intention of parties as evidenced by circumstances and ordinary course of dealing and common understanding of men. It is not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice, from their acts or conduct, the circumstances surrounding the transaction making it a reasonable, or even a necessary, assumption that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding.
Or:
It might be an implied “conditional contract”.
An implied conditional contract would be one with the same attributes as an implied contract, above - but ALSO with the attributes of a conditional contract.
A conditional contract owes its very existance and performance (in this case, a vote) to dependence upon a contingency (POTUS eligibility).