This is what I mean by “unreasonable.” Under U.S. rules of evidence — civil or criminal — the document is valid; the seal is more than adequately demonstrated. You say not– why? On what basis do you reject the Seal of the State of Hawaii? What makes you say the embossed-and-therefore-better-than-printed seal is inadequate?

Steve

No, I’m not joking. The Constitution does not provide any mechanism by which a candidate must “prove” eligibility. As I noted, that’s been an issue since at least Chester Alan Arthur (but then, history doesn’t seem to be anything y’all want to be concerned with, no matter how much light it might shed on the issue). If you disbelieve me, please go to Findlaw.com or some similar site, check out the U.S. Constitution, and tell us in what article we can find the procedure by which a candidate for president proves citizenship. It’s simply not there. Congress has enacted no laws on the issue (save for that resolution y’all don’t like, which says Obama’s eligible).

The Certificate of Live Birth is, legally, sufficient. It verifies all the critical details for the Department of State. It’s legal for visas to other nations. It’s sufficient for a security clearance with the FBI, or the CIA. It’s legal for all legal purposes including establishing “natural born citizen” of the U.S. — absent a showing of other, contradicting information, of which the anti-Obamaniacs have none.

“Admitted forgery?” Don’t insult us. Obama has made no such admission. The State of Hawaii, who, I hate to tell you, has more authority than you do in the matter, says it’s legitimate. The contemporary business records of the time published in the Hawaii newspapers corroborate the document exactly.

We have the document, available on the web, verified as authentic by the State of Hawaii and every reporter who bothered to ask to see it — that’s not “admitted forgery.”

You guys are getting delerious.

Obama didn’t post his birth certificate….he posted his “certification of live birth” which is different and an admitted forgery.

This is my last comment on this subject ….this is going nowhere.

Generally these issues fall into a realm that the Court avoids, called “political issues.” I would not be surprised to see the Court avoid this case on those grounds once again. The Court has been particularly hard on standing, and frankly, I can’t see how any of the cases pending can establish any serious injury to claim standing. Especially after 8 years of Bush, the virtual looting of our treasury, our involvement in two wars with no apparent end, the decimation of our armed services and the collapse of much of our economy — what’s left to injure? If Americans want Obama — the popular and electoral college votes both indicate that to be the case, clearly — on what grounds could the Court say different?

Obama is avoiding no inquiries. He posted his birth certificate in June, months ago. Some people refuse to recognize U.S. law and the Constitution, and they use their denial of the Constitution to claim something might be wrong with the documents already in evidence.

Courts don’t work that way. A showing of actual error must be made. This is called “fair play,” in other terms. Courts look at actual cases and controversies. Without significantly greater evidence of error somewhere, I don’t think this case rises to that level.

We should also consider that the courts may take this case, give summary judgment in favor of Obama, or dismiss it with prejudice, because these qualify very nicely as nuisance suits, which the courts and federal law hold in dim view.

Steve

The Honolulu newspapers, using the official birth records of the State of Hawaii, noted Obama’s birth in Honolulu, way back in August of 1961. That can’t be hoaxed up, now. It corroborates all the other evidence. Obama was not adopted at birth, and there is no reason to think the official records from 1961 are wrong. The birth certificate available on-line is the document you claim to seek. It is only “not proof” to you — it’s legal in court, it satisfies all U.S. laws on citizenship. Do you have any court admissible evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health is lying? Get to a judge, and present it.

If you don’t have that evidence, that’s a clue.

More discussion here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/6-ways-challenges-to-obamas-citizenship-fail/

FBI checks place of birth, and residencies from birth. Your allegation that they didn’t check it is wholly ungrounded in procedure or any statement from anyone.

If it’s that positive that Obama was born in a Hospital in Hawaii all he has to do is present his “Certificate of live birth” not the “registry of live birth” which doesn’t prove he was born in Hawii.

According to the Hawaii Dept. of Health,Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children).

The certificate of live birth lists the place of birth, which in this case means Obama is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. This is the legal document that meets the Constitutional requirement.

There’s not a shred of evidence Obama did not travel on a U.S. passport. Obama’s already been investigated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the Illinois State Bar, the Rules Committee of the U.S. Senate, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, for other issues including security clearances — and has been passed as exactly what he says he is, a Hawaii-born U.S. citizen.

What do you have they didn’t?