Well, see, here is where we differ. I see the notion of putting process above truth as a "foolish consistency which is a hobgoblin of little minds". If a process yields incorrect results, the process should be dispensed with.
1) Forgery and document tampering are crimes, you don’t attempt redress of alleged crimes via civil lawsuits. There are no issues of standing in a criminal court.
Except when a State does it regarding birth certificates. I have tried and tried and tried to get people to understand that a state can forge a birth certificate and it is not a crime. You and others simply ignore the point. No one ever grasps the point to the extent that it deserves.
Obama has a state produced fake birth certificate. It is not a "forgery" in the normal understanding of the term, it is a legal fake.
I have been consistent in pointing out that the United States should not allow for this sort of dodge when it affects an office as important as the presidency, and that implicit in the requirement that the president be a natural citizen is the authority to require REAL and ACTUAL proof of eligibility.
In my opinion, Constitutional law trumps all state laws that could possibly interfere with confirmation.
Your position is that "procedure" and State law should be allowed to interfere with Constitutional requirements, and in my mind this is just wrong and incorrect.
Every state law should burn and whither like grass if it stands as an obstacle to constitutional law. We have put the cart before the horse with this horses' ass Obama, and the world will pay the consequences of it.
If it’s a “legal” fake, why would Hawaii copy and paste the nine points?
Just type in what you want. No need to lift stuff to make it look ancient.
No he doesn't have a State produced document, he would not have received a computerized document, he would have received a printed document that included embossed stamps to prove it was an original.
If he did receive a printed document it was not presented, instead he presented an electronic document that was obviously fraudulent.
Put that lamp away because for you it is a waste of time, you are not looking for truth.
What you have is a theory with no evidence to back it up. That will go nowhere.
Who 55 years later can confirm that a fake was created? The procedures that I have mentioned are 100% consistent with operationalizing Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The investigative powers of Congress and Article III courts are still being utilized. A lawsuit is not the way to compel the state of Hawaii to reveal its birth certificate creation procedures under oath. A congressional subpoena could accomplish that.
Those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility have used legal procedural methods in every single instance: civil courts and state election boards. They filed more than 200 civil lawsuits.
I hoped for the issue to be resolved one way or the other, by Congress or by a Grand Jury issuing indictments or refusing to indict. At least a Grand Jury might have uncovered real evidence of the issuing of a “legal fake.”
Hawaii Health Bureau statistical data for the Obama birth was published on August 13, 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. If that 1961 data was fake, I can’t imagine anyone holding anyone from 2007 to 2017 responsible for it.