[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
tedro wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Looking at the provided document ( http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg )
Second, as you mentioned, Aug. 4th may not be his real birthday. Since the requirements for the certificate are merely an affidavit from the parents, there is really no way to know without a long-form birth certificate when (or where) he really was born.
Your “since” is a presumption. You don’t know, other than reading on websites, that only an affidavit from the parents was involved.
If you say you do know, other than from pointing out evidence that some certificates can exist that way which would not prove that this one does or that any bearing the statement of being evidence for courts of law need nothing but unsupported affidavit, please show how.
[/quote]
Of course it’s a presumption. All I have as basis for the statement is Hawaii Revised Statue 338-17.8. Of which part (a) says:
Certificates for children born out of State
Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
According to that the only proof required is proof that the parents were legal residents for the year proceeding birth. But part (b) says:
Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
So some other documents may have been shown, but the only facts surrounding this case are that proof of residency by the parents must have been shown, and that an application must have been filled out. Nowhere in the statute does it suggest Obama must have been born in the state to receive the COLB. In other words, neither one of us knows. Hence the demand for a long-form birth certificate.
[quote]
Finally, both dates could very well be accurate. I do not know who needs to be present to request the COLB. One parent? Both parents? Child? Even if all three must be present, it would not be entirely unheard of for a mother in the 60’s to board a plane with a one-day old and fly back to Hawaii (while picking up 13 hours) and then go to the registrars office immediately from the airport.
There’s such a thing as straining a gnat while swallowing an elephant.
Prima facie evidence of his birth. That’s it. Not evidence of where or when he was born, simply evidence that he was indeed born and born alive. Only the long-form can give us evidence of the details.
You didn’t even bother looking at the certificate did you?
You must be relying on websites or whatever.[/quote]
Of course I looked at the certificate. Let’s examine it a little more closely. First, we must assume that it is real, which it may not be. To start we have a COLB, the requirements for which have already been discussed. We then have Obama’s purported birth information, some of it at least. Finally we have this statement:
This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
We should probably look up the mentioned statutes before proceeding.
338-13(b):
Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
338-16 deals with late certificates. This is not an issue and need not be discussed. 338-17 deals with altered certificates. This may be an issue but we will assume for the sake of this argument that the COLB is real. 338-18 simply discusses disclosure of the records.
338-19 discusses copies prepared by the state, again this is not relevant right now.
So, it would appear that by 338-13 that Obama’s COLB proves his natural citizen requirement. But wait, there is a little qualifier in there. Prima Facie. At first glance. Hey, at first glance, like I said, this whole thing sounds like a stupid conspiracy. But we come to find out by 338-17 that a COLB can be issued to a foreign born child, the only mentioned requirement being proof of residency of the parents. We also know that somehow he enrolled in an Indonesian school open only to Indonesian citizens at a time when Indonesia did not allow dual-citinzenship. Finally, we know he traveled to Pakistan at a time when the borders of which were closed to U.S. citizens. At first glance no longer cuts it in this case, given the circumstances.
