I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this on both counts. You may not want to believe it, but that doesn't make it untrue. It is a birth certificate and it is legal proof.
"Prima facie evidence is not enough to settle a constitutional dispute when the source document exists and would be required."
Who says that? You're just pulling that out of thin air. Prima facie evidence is enough to settle the matter unless someone can prove otherwise.
"There is nothing to debunk. The example I used showed where the short form does not carry the same legal weight as the actual birth certificate, for those purposes."
No, that's not what it show at all. You need to read and understand the cites, not just use them as ammunition. What I'm telling you is what that web page says itself.
They will accept a birth certificate, but it's not enough to qualify for the program. You also have to prove ancestry. They need *additional* data. It's not that there's something wrong with a birth certificate.
"Huh? That made no sense."
You're right, I could have phrased it better.
What I was saying is, you haven't shown that any of these out of state birth certificates apply to Obama, in either time frame or circumstances. But even if they did apply, you are just assuming that the certificate would lie.
The poster lies in bold fashion, Best to just refer the scum to other threads at FR or elsewhere on the Net which expose the liar rather than give the scum a forum on which to continue lying. It is now SOP for the Obama fops to stated that soemone offering the truth is ‘just wrong’. And Jim nor the moderators care to clean up any of the messes on the various aisle being worked by the obamanoid trolls. Your points, BTW, were well presented and readers can discern the truth regardless of the continuous spittle from obamanoids.
Your ignorance of the basic facts was suspect to begin with. I’ve shown you the law so you are educated on the issue now. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.
The document provided by Obama is a NOT A BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE. It is only a certification, or verification in lieu of a birth certificate, which is a short form computer generated print-out which lacks detailed information that can be cross checked and does not detail any prior amendments that were made to the actual long form birth certificate. It does not verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate or the detailed information contained in it. Hawaiian law clearly distinguishes between a certification and a certified copy of a certificate.
Who says that? You're just pulling that out of thin air. Prima facie evidence is enough to settle the matter unless someone can prove otherwise.
Prima facie evidence is not sufficient to settle cases rising from either of the two instances that I pointed out; the DHHL and the US Passport office. Both require the original long form certificate. It is the source document that would be the deciding document in a court case.
No, that's not what it show at all. You need to read and understand the cites, not just use them as ammunition. What I'm telling you is what that web page says itself.
They will accept a birth certificate, but it's not enough to qualify for the program. You also have to prove ancestry. They need *additional* data. It's not that there's something wrong with a birth certificate.
You need to comprehend the cited sources provided and my comments regarding them. The point of the DHHL’s requirement is that the short form is not sufficient for their process, regardless of whether more documentation is needed. It would not be sufficient in a court case arising from a dispute with the DHHL. The bigger point is that the two documents do not carry the same weight, this was merely one example.
You're right, I could have phrased it better.
What I was saying is, you haven't shown that any of these out of state birth certificates apply to Obama, in either time frame or circumstances. But even if they did apply, you are just assuming that the certificate would lie.
This is a typical Bot dodge. Their whole argument is based on a flawed premise. The source document is the ultimate proof and will clear up the issue. Obama refuses to release it, knowing that privacy laws protect him, and his surrogates claim that no proof has been given. He controls the source document/evidence and prevents its release yet claims there is not sufficient evidence. There are conflicting accounts of his birth location. A $10 certified copy of his original birth certificate would resolve the issue. Obama refuses to release it, instead he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent its release.
Suggestion: Take the red pill.