The problem in this thread is that no one seems to understand what the issue really is with Obama's birth certificate.
On either side. Obama supporters chalk it up to racism or an unrelenting hatred for the man, and the Anti-Obama crowd do often miss the whole point
and just don't like to think that he is a -real- American.
The problem rests in how Hawaii did birth certificates back in the days when Obama was born. Hawaii didn't actually require the birth certificate to
be issued on the date of birth, merely that someone had seen the person pregnant on one occasion, and then not pregnant while in possession of the
child. For normal people - they are on an island - where else are they gong to have the child, but on the island?
But the Obama family wasn't exactly what one would call normal, and during the later stages of pregnancy, his family did take trips overseas to
countries most sane people would avoid all together. The circumstances of the entire fiasco has drawn suspicion as to whether or not Obama was
actually born in Hawaii, or not.
The reason the current birth certificate is not considered adequate is because it is a 'short form' certificate. Hawaii's birth certificates come
in two flavors - the short-form is simply saying that the state recognizes this person as a citizen. The long-form lists more details about the birth
in question - whether doctors were present, who bore witness, etc. Which is why the long-form is being requested by the groups that do not believe
Obama was legitimately in the country or qualifies for citizenship.
I can understand, perfectly, why people would be demanding to see the long-form certificate.
At the same time, I'm not quite sure it would be the silver-bullet against Obama that many seem to hope it would be. For starters, there would need
to be a hearing. While I may have to eat my words, I do believe the Constitution merely says that someone must be a born citizen of the united
states. It seems as though, at the time, states were expected to be fairly autonomous, and if a state considered someone to be a citizen, so did the
There is also the fact that the hearings on this will not be very speedy. The best that the 'birther' crowd could hope for is to shut Obama down
should he be re-elected. He would complete this term before the hearings could even start, most likely.
And it would be a messy trial. Establishing burden of proof will be a completely insane and convoluted process.
For starters, Obama would technically be the defense/accused, and the burden of proof then falls upon the prosecution - the 'birthers.'
However, because this questions Obama's eligibility to be president - an office with defined eligibility requirements - he, in a sense, must prove
But, again - on to the requirements - it must first be established whether or not someone must be born on our soil, or if a birth certificate, alone,
makes them eligible. That determines whether or not there is a case.
- This is a good little piece about it.
A few excerpts:
While the first problem can be written off to legalistic obstinacy, the second is, to put it gently, curious. Why does a Harvard lawyer let such a
claim continue to fester in public without taking the simple steps necessary to quash it?
The state has produced what might be called a certificate of the certificate, giving the basics of what the original document purportedly says. CNN
has suggested that the original certificate no longer exists since all such records were discarded in 2001 but the state denies it. Hawaii is, in
effect, denying the absence of something it can't or won't produce.
There are other reasons not to get too worked up about all this, a key one being that even if Obama's birth was contrary to the Constitution, it
would rank of one of the mildest violations of said document over the past few decades under both Republican and Democratic presidents (including
Obama). Far better to tend to things like the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments that are in serious trouble.
Driving this cause appears to be much of the same myopic miasma that allows the right to fixate on the sanctity of life still in the womb and then to
become ideologically indifferent to it forever thereafter. Given their obsession, we should be grateful that they are not demanding videographic proof
that Obama was conceived in Hawaii.
Finally, perhaps the best reason not to worry about this issue is that the definition of a "natural born citizen" has been a topic of a heated
debate throughout our history. It wasn't well defined at the time of the Constitution was drafted and it hasn't been since.
I find the videographic proof of Obama's conception in Hawaii comment to be a fair and humorous observation.