Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sibre Fan
...I think that should be sufficient so long as (a) the candidate has to provide an "original" stamped version (not a copy or electronic image)

Agreed.

...and (b) there is nothing on the COLB to indicate that info was altered from the original long form.

That's where it gets sticky. For clarity, let's refer to the original birth certificate as "the long form," and the now routinely-issued certification as "the short form." As far as I know, no one has established that there would be any indication of an altered or amended original on the short form. The statutes, IIRC, refer to the new original being marked "amended," but I don't think there's any reference to the short form being marked that way, and I haven't seen any examples of a short form so marked.

Similarly, none of the birther lawyers have ever established that Hawaii statute §338-17.8 - Certificates for children born out of State" - would necessarily indicate that the child was born in Hawaii. The statute doesn't say.

OTOH, Hawaii statute §338-20.5 - Adoption; foreign born person - does say that "The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.  This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth".

I'm not sure how other states handle adoptee birth certificates, but I do know that in Georgia, the adopted parents can opt to use their home address as the place of birth on the new certificate, irregardless of where the child was born.

What I'm getting at is the fact that the short form may not tell the whole story, since, if there's more than one version of the long form, it would simply reflect the information on the most recent long form.

The significance of that would only come into play, of course, in the case of a candidate for President.

198 posted on 09/25/2009 2:09:12 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: browardchad
Similarly, none of the birther lawyers have ever established that Hawaii statute §338-17.8 - Certificates for children born out of State" - would necessarily indicate that the child was born in Hawaii. The statute doesn't say.

I agree. Additionally, they have failed to explain how 338-17.8 is relevant in any regard and, given that it was enacted in 1982, they would have an uphill battle trying to make that argument.

The significance of that would only come into play, of course, in the case of a candidate for President.

? I disagree. People can become US citizens by virtue of birth in the US or by virtue of the naturalization laws. If someone is not born in the US, then that child, to become a US citizen, must be naturalized as a US citizen. So, this "rule" has significance for hundreds - thousands - of people other than those who run to be President. If they weren't really born here, and they weren't naturalized, then THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS. That "rule" has an impact far beyond the presidency.
199 posted on 09/28/2009 7:55:52 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson