If you go back to where I first offered by LawProf bet to Red Steel, I said that I'd bet that every Constitutional Law professor I could ask would tell me that there is no 'two citizen parent' requirement. I similarly maintain that any lawyer I ask would answer the same, regardless of political persuasion.
Why would any professor or lawyer need any particular documentation on anyone to answer that question?
And in the specific case of Obama, why should any professor or lawyer have any doubt as to his Hawaiian birth when Janice Okubo has clearly and concisely stated that she has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii." Neither I nor any other legal professional will ever hold a physical document that has any more authority on the matter than that statement conveys. Nor will you, or anyone else here.
You ask your professor for his two-cent opinion and he should tell you he's only a citizen, and Obama being a natural born US citizen (if he was born in the US of A) is doubtful at best, which we really know he's not .
Well, there are at least a few, including Kreep, Appuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, Floyd Brown, Phil Berg, Andy McCarthy, Ted Poe, John Culberson, to name a few, who have their doubts.
Why would any professor or lawyer need any particular documentation on anyone to answer that question?
If it's just "that" question - both parents need to be citizens - then they certainly are not going to know it off the top of their heads, even if they think they do. But when I see you waving around FactCheck crapola, I wasn't referring to just 'that' question.
And in the specific case of Obama, why should any professor or lawyer have any doubt as to his Hawaiian birth when Janice Okubo has clearly and concisely stated that she has "seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii."
I can think of a bunch of reasons. One, Janice Okubo didn't say that. Chiyome Fukino did. I know all asian women look can look similar. But try knowing something instead of botching a repeat of talking points. As for "clear and concise", that statement was written by the State AG to be purposely obfuscating. She did NOT say the ORIGINAL BC verified his birth in HI. She said "Vital Records". And the COLB will reflect amendments to those vital records. She ALSO DID NOT MENTION THE COLB at all. Never has, and won't.
Neither I nor any other legal professional will ever hold a physical document that has any more authority on the matter than that statement conveys. Nor will you, or anyone else here.
Pure, unadulterated BS. Find me a damn janitor to talk to, at least they have some common sense.
Be nice if you'd get the right name to go with that statment. Okubo is merely the press spokesman for the Hawaii DoH. That statement and an ealier one, were made by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Department of Health.
So then the lawyers who drew up the Senate Resolution SR511 didn't know what the words that they used meant???
Why don't you give that resolution to one of those professors you would like to bet on and ask them just what made John McCain a natural born citizen per that resolution: his two citizen parent birth or birth outside the U.S.???
What???? Physical documents and cross-examination of witness statements are the heart and soul of the legal profession. And you claim to be a lawyer??? LOL.
Your argument boils down to a claim that “a physical document” (the actual vital records, whatever they are)will not “ever” have “more authority” than the hearsay statement of Fukino (”seen the original vital records”).
Obviously, the actual vital records have infinitely more authority than any hearsay statement about the records.
Granted, under the FRE the COLB (if properly executed) is “self-authenticating” and both it and Fukino'statements are accorded a “hearsay exception” to the “best evidence” rule (the actual vital records being the “best evidence.” But that self-authentication and hearsay exception can be challenged if evidence of fraud, tampering or error can be introduced in discovery.
It is my sincere hope that contrary to your blanket assertion the public will hold the actual vital records in the near future that will be superior to Fukino’s statement.