Star,
The good Hawaii doctor has no training in Constitutional Law, and is therefore completely unqualified to render such a judgment.
The only certainty we can take from her statement is that she has seen some record of Obamas on file.
The Hospital’s attorneys would never certify as to his “natural born” status, except possibly under duress.
The typical MO for this issue has been to obfuscate with native-born, naturalized and native citizen.
By his own admission, his father was not a citizen; therefore, Obama being a natural born citizen is an impossibility.
Unfortunately here, the facts are not clear, and all documents that would sort the issue out have been under lock and key.
Finding out if Obama has “clear title” to the Presidency is necessary, as much as some would like for this issue to just go away.
Two outcomes from a possible quo warranto:
1. He is found not to have been born in HI, then case closed easily. He is ineligble and removed from office.
2. If found to have been born in HI, then legal question is much more complex. The DC District Court would have to opine on the definition of a natural born citizen.
Through separation of powers the judicial brach can make such a determination, but cannot remove a sitting President. Only Congress can remove a sitting President.
The good Hawaii doctor has no training in Constitutional Law, and is therefore completely unqualified to render such a judgment.
You're making an assumption that the State of Hawaii would make an official pronouncement like that, affecting the nation -- without running it through qualified lawyers that the State of Hawaii has to look at those very issues... :-)
I'm not making that assumption...
Two outcomes from a possible quo warranto:
1. He is found not to have been born in HI, then case closed easily. He is ineligble and removed from office.
2. If found to have been born in HI, then legal question is much more complex. The DC District Court would have to opine on the definition of a natural born citizen.
The #1 point wouldn't be the case, since the State of Hawaii has already said he was born there. That presumes (and it's a good presumption, I think) that the records indicate that and that the State of Hawaii is not going to lie about where he was born.
The #2 point is the only one that is relevant, as far as I can see now and the only place it's going to be decided, once and for all and finally -- is with the Supreme Court.
When we get a Supreme Court decision on the matter, then we'll know it's "settled law" and there's not more discussion on the matter.
1. He is found not to have been born in HI, then case closed easily. He is ineligble and removed from office.
2. If found to have been born in HI, then legal question is much more complex. The DC District Court would have to opine on the definition of a natural born citizen.
Don't forget the third possibility: Obama might actually have been born to two American citizens, and quo warranto discovery of the BC could reveal that his bio-father was someone other than BHO Sr. (which is certainly a compelling reason for hiding the long-form...)
Such a scenario would mean that we no longer have a case to remove Obama as ineligible, but at least we would know that Dr. Fukino's statement was accurate :-) Then, we just hammer Obama for lying (I seem to recall that Rep. Wilson (R-SC) has already mentioned this aspect of Obama's personality ;-)