Factcheck.org run by Brooks Jackson...OK...nothing biased about him and his crew. [/sarcasm off]
My main point about this is that no judge anywhere wants to actually address this "certification of birth". It's either thrown out because the plaintiff has "no standing" or it's simply not responded to at all. If this document is official why wouldn't the Judiciary Branch simply rule on it and make that the end of it?
BTW, it’s my understanding that Factcheck.org never saw the original document so how is it they can vouch for two different views—front and back—of it without having it physically in hand?
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
Factcheck.org run by Brooks Jackson...OK...nothing biased about him and his crew. [/sarcasm off]
My main point about this is that no judge anywhere wants to actually address this “certification of birth”. It’s either thrown out because the plaintiff has “no standing” or it’s simply not responded to at all. If this document is official why wouldn’t the Judiciary Branch simply rule on it and make that the end of it?
In the absence of that new law, current verification of natural born status has been accepted on a state by state basis in accordance with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Hawaii’s laws (HRS 338-18(b) and 338-19) say that the state issued short form Certification of Live Birth is good to prove place of birth in all court proceedings. Thus far, no state or federal court has ruled otherwise but there are more legal challenges to follow.
The denial of the Berg suit at the District Court level WAS the judiciary “settling it.” But every civil litigant has the right to appeal and that’s still what’s happening as Berg and various other litigants have tried to get the US Supreme Court to take the case on the appeal.
