It seems, from what I’ve managed to unearth on the net, that there is a difference between “Certification of Live Birth” and a “Certificate of Live Birth” or “Birth Certificate”.
A “Certificate of Live Birth” generally contains uniquely identifying information such as testaments from eyewitnesses, i.e. doctors, nurses, etc.., and the specific location so that it is now verifiable and traceable.
In addition, it should contain signatures of the relevant parties.
On the other hand, one can get a “Certification of Live Birth” with minimal documentation and no eyewitnesses. It appears, apparently, that the date of birth can be any date the person enters. This document can then be used to establish citizenship for the purpose of obtaining a passport, but its lack of physically identifying information, as found on the "Certificate Of Live Birth", precludes it from being useful in proving "Natural Born" status.
There has also been reference to newspaper ads placed about the birth of a son on August 1961 in Hawaii. Apparently Obama had 8 half-siblings by four other marriages or relationships between his parents. So there has been some query as to which son the ad was referring to.
It seems that Trump’s argument is that what Obama has produced is a “Certification of Live Birth” as compared to a “Certificate of Live Birth”, also known as a “Birth Certificate”.
Anyway, if US Law accepts “Certification of Live Birth” as being a sufficient requirement for someone to be inaugurated as the country’s President, then so be it. |
