Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Loss Leader]

See, in my state over a hundred years ago, only a government official signed a birth certificate. There's no mention of a doctor or nurse. Here's a Michigan birth certificate from 1876 with no doctor or nurse.

But here's a Michigan hospital birth record signed by a doctor.

See the difference?

 

[Sabrina]

To be fair to Robert, some states do have the doctor sign the original.

I happen to possess the certified copy of my birth certificate in two forms; one from 2007, which I requested when I thought I had lost the older copy, and one that was issued in October of 1978 when I was born. The attending doctor's signature is reproduced on the older version, but not the younger. I was born in Ohio.

Doesn't make any of his specious arguments any truer, mind you, but at least he does have some evidence to back up the possibility that doctors do sign original birth certificates, or did at least (I WAS born in 1978 after all). Now it's up to him to prove that Hawaii requires a doctor's signature on the certificate, or did when President Obama was born.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Since most states have now moved to a totally digital record system, how do you know that the the electrons are the original electrons?

 

[Upchurch]

Having been through the process twice in the last four years in the state of Missouri, I can tell you that parents are provided with what is essentially a novelty birth certificate before they leave the hospital. You may then apply for a certified copy of the birth certificate, if you want one, after a couple of weeks, giving it time to be filed.

At no time have we ever had any access to our kids "original" birth certificates. Even the copy was an independent document produced at the time of the request.

Robert, what you are asking for is a fantasy. If you think you have your original birth certificate and not, which is more likely, a novelty birth certificate, then you have to concede that the state of your birth does not have any actual documentation of your birth.

 

[LashL]

I happen to possess the certified copy of my birth certificate in two forms; one from 2007, which I requested when I thought I had lost the older copy, and one that was issued in October of 1978 when I was born. The attending doctor's signature is reproduced on the older version, but not the younger. I was born in Ohio.

The earlier one sounds like a copy of a doctor's certification that a birth occurred, rather than a birth certificate. There are vast differences between the two. Particularly since at the time of birth, the doctor is simply saying that a birth occurred at a particular time and place, and specifying that the baby is either male or female, and that as far he's been told, the parents are A and (sometimes) B, but the baby doesn't usually have a name at that point, for starters.

An actual birth certificate for purposes of legal niceties will have the child's name on it as well as the date and place of birth, and generally comes later and does not have a doctor's signature on it but a governmental representative's signature on it.

To explain further: when my daughter was born, the attending OB/GYN completed a form and signed it saying that a female child had been born to me at a particular place and time. That is not a birth certificate.

Following on from that certification by the doctor of my daughter's birth, however, I would - of course - later obtain a birth certificate for my daughter in the name that she was subsequently given. At the moment of her birth, she didn't have a name, of course, because until she was born, her father and I did not know whether she was male or female, and even after her birth, it took a week or so for us to decide upon her name, and following that, the forms were sent in and all of that, and after a few more weeks, she was officially acknowledged by the government in the name that she was given by her father and I in the form of a birth certificate.

 

[Mojo]

Like most people, I do not lose important documents like Birth Certificates. Upon a recent re-examination, my birth certificate appears to be an original, not a copy, signed in pen and ink by doctor and nurse.

If the document you have is the original, then the state archives do not have the original of your birth certificate.

You had better hope you never have to run for President.

 

[jargon buster]

A birth certificate is simply a copy of the entry on the birth register, it isnt all that important.
If you lose it, its no big deal you can get another very easily.

I happen to possess the certified copy of my birth certificate in two forms; one from 2007, which I requested when I thought I had lost the older copy, and one that was issued in October of 1978 when I was born. The attending doctor's signature is reproduced on the older version, but not the younger. I was born in Ohio.

That can be simply explained by the fact that the original certificate doesnt contain the doctors details because the admin didnt add it.
When you got the one in 2007 it was added to your certificate from the original register entry.

 

[Sabrina]

The earlier one sounds like a copy of a doctor's certification that a birth occurred, rather than a birth certificate. There are vast differences between the two. Particularly since at the time of birth, the doctor is simply saying that a birth occurred at a particular time and place, and specifying that the baby is either male or female, and that as far he's been told, the parents are A and (sometimes) B, but the baby doesn't usually have a name at that point, for starters.

An actual birth certificate for purposes of legal niceties will have the child's name on it as well as the date and place of birth, and generally comes later and does not have a doctor's signature on it but a governmental representative's signature on it.

To explain further: when my daughter was born, the attending OB/GYN completed a form and signed it saying that a female child had been born to me at a particular place and time. That is not a birth certificate.

Following on from that certification by the doctor of my daughter's birth, however, I would - of course - later obtain a birth certificate for my daughter in the name that she was subsequently given. At the moment of her birth, she didn't have a name, of course, because until she was born, her father and I did not know whether she was male or female, and even after her birth, it took a week or so for us to decide upon her name, and following that, the forms were sent in and all of that, and after a few more weeks, she was officially acknowledged by the government in the name that she was given by her father and I in the form of a birth certificate.

Under most circumstances you'd probably be right, Lash; but this one bears the registrar's signature and seal stating that it is an exact copy of the record which is registered and preserved in the department of vital statistics for Ohio. It may have been a peculiarity of Ohio at the time I was born that they did things this way; I don't believe they do any longer. But this is my certified birth certificate copy; it has been accepted in the past by such agencies that required proof of my birth as my birth certificate, so I think I can discount the idea of it being a "novelty" birth certificate that was only issued by the hospital. It contains all the details you outlined above as well; place of birth, date, my name, etc.

Again, that isn't to say that Robert's arguments are any truer than they were before I provided evidence to the effect that sometimes the attending doctor's do sign the actual birth certificate; rather that different states have different requirements at different times for what will suffice as an official record of birth. At the time I was born, apparently Ohio did things this way; however, the 2007 copy of my birth certificate bears virtually none of the details the earlier copy does; it's entirely typewritten, for one thing, with the only evidence of pen marks being the date it was signed by the registrar and the signature of the registrar himself. My inference is that, since 1978, Ohio no longer requires the signature of the attending physician on the certificate. Of course, that may also be due to the fact that I requested that copy electronically; perhaps if I had gone in person I'd get the other version.

Something I just noticed on the earlier certificate, incidentally; apparently my mother requested it in 1996, which I find interesting, since I had thought she had it for some time prior to that; that is the date the registrar signed it, if the date stamp is to be believed. All the other dates on it are in 1978 though; and apparently my mother signed it as well when I was born. Ohio certainly has changed the way they do things.

 

[Travis]

Well in California your Certificate of Live Birth does have a doctors signature on them. Mine does.

And mine is also a copy. I got it when I was 12, I forget why, because my parents lost the first one. It says right on it that it is a copy and it has satisfied every legal requirement I ever encountered. Why this would not be enough for Obama is something I would like explained.

 

[Loss Leader]

Included in all of the registration stuff when my wife went into labor was a blank hospital birth record. We filled it in. A day after the birth, a hospital administrator came around with a typed copy to make sure everything had been transcribed correctly. We signed that and, I assume, some doctor signed it as well. That went to the local village clerk. A few weeks later, we received an official NYS birth certificate.

I have no idea what is actually on file with the village or in what form.

Over the course of my life, I've had a couple occassions to go to the village clerk to get a new copy. I gave them my driver's license and ten bucks. They typed something on a computer, put in some fancy blue paper, printed a NY birth certificate and stamped it with the village seal.

 

[JayUtah]

Under most circumstances you'd probably be right, Lash; but this one bears the registrar's signature and seal stating that it is an exact copy of the record which is registered and preserved in the department of vital statistics for Ohio.

Indeed, and this goes back to the discussion where the vital information written in crayon on a placemat from a fast-food restaurant would be acceptable as a valid birth certificate if it bore the seal and signature of the birthplace state.

Going the other direction, nothing prevents elaborate calligraphy and cutesy baby footprints. And these may also be considered valid birth certificates if they are signed and sealed by the state registrar of vital records.

My official birth certificate is signed by the doctor and also by the registrar of my birthplace state. The one I used for many years is a photostatic copy, which bears the imprinted seal of the state and the signature of the registrar. However, when renewing my passport recently the passport office deemed that the copy had faded too much to be useful, since some of the information was thus rendered illegible. Hence I obtained a brand new certified copy from the state, which was a computer printout on safety paper with a frilly margin and an imprinted seal.

I had occasion to ask my mother over the holiday if there was any sort of ceremonial birth certificate, and she said that she didn't remember, but if there was one it would be in my "baby book," which is our family tradition. Where's the baby book? Likely off in storage somewhere; all her possessions are in storage while she is doing volunteer work out of country. In other words, it was never used as any sort of official documentation of my birth circumstances. While it may exist -- and if it does exist, has been apparently carefully preserved -- then that still doesn't mean I have access to it, nor that I must present it as the only acceptable record of my birth.

Again, that isn't to say that Robert's arguments are any truer than they were before I provided evidence...

No, of course they are not. His contention, regardless of what countless courts and the state of record has said, is that unless Barack Obama can provide his ceremonial birth certificate -- an analogue to what Robert and perhaps others possess -- then his record of birth is somehow not valid. That's wrong for the reasons that have been belabored.

First, ceremonial certificates -- whether certified as also legally valid according to the state-- are not uniformly issued and not uniformly available, and thus not uniformly required.

Second, Mitt Romney was not required to present a ceremonial certificate. His official documentation of eligibility to President was a computer printout.

Third, Hawaii has already provided two different forms of Obama's birth certificate, both certified as valid, both permitted under DOH rules, and either or both accepted by the states that have expressed any interest in a more formal verification of Obama's eligibility.

This latter is the most important because there is no legal basis for Robert to demand that some particular paper expression of Obama's vital information (i.e., a frilly hand-signed document) must be legally valid as a state's record of birth. It is only valid as such (despite the frilliness of the presentation) when certified by the state.

 

[Mudcat]

Gentlemen

As we now have a perfect way to verify what Robert says is truth may I recommend that we suspended participation in this long thread with its multiple 'fringe resets' and wait for him to show proof that he can authorize someone else to gain access and view his original birth certificate held by state 'x'?

Unless of course you want to continue this 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' type of exchange ad nauseam

I agree, I would like to see Robert Prey try this as well. But I strongly suspect they will not.

Depends if you count a microfilm copy as an original? I am suspecting that word Original is being redefined...

That ship has already sailed, I believe.

Like most people, I do not lose important documents like Birth Certificates. Upon a recent re-examination, my birth certificate appears to be an original, not a copy, signed in pen and ink by doctor and nurse.

Apparently people losing their Birth Certificates is a common enough occurrence that the officials made it as streamlined as possible to obtain a new copy. A good thing for me, too, as I needed one made up in 2010 when I got myself an apartment.

 

[Robert Prey]

If the document you have is the original, then the state archives do not have the original of your birth certificate.

You had better hope you never have to run for President.

Nonsense. There could be two originals.

 

[Loss Leader]

Nonsense. There could be two originals.

I doubt it. The original should be the one filed with the state and used to create the state database. Everything else is a copy, even if it is a contemporaneous copy.

In any event, you should investigate exactly what records your state will let you see. Otherwise, you are making the somewhat alarming claim that a mother must keep first birth certificate she received, then given it to child, who may not lose it or let it fade or get wrinkled, and who then must somehow magically transport that document back into the state archives while also keeping it in order to run for President.

A simpler plan would probably be for the NWO to find some useful idiot to carry out its agenda from the 300,000,000 actual American-born people on the planet.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nonsense. There could be two originals.

I dont think you understand what the original birth certificate is, given you earlier claimed originals could include a microfilm copy.

Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Mojo]

Nonsense. There could be two originals.

I doubt it. The original should be the one filed with the state and used to create the state database. Everything else is a copy, even if it is a contemporaneous copy.

There could be two originals if Robert's birth had been registered twice. Maybe he was twins.

 

[Robert Prey]

There could be two originals if Robert's birth had been registered twice. Maybe he was twins.

Two copies -- each signed in pen and ink by doctor and nurse. Now which is the original? One or both?????

 

[Loss Leader]

Two copies -- each signed in pen and ink by doctor and nurse. Now which is the original? One or both?????

The one that goes into the official records of the government.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Two copies -- each signed in pen and ink by doctor and nurse. Now which is the original? One or both?????

Nope, one original and a copy. Not two copies. Not two originals.

Sheesh, this is getting tedious.

The one which remains in the state register, possibly as a page in a bound book, is the original. Any other is a copy. If it was written at the same time, if it was a perforated page taken from the register, if it was signed by a doctor, a nurse, God, or a smurf, it remains a copy.

That is which is the original now, it is which was the original when they were made, it is which will be the original at any point in the future.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

How many ORIGINALS do you think there can be, in any meaningful legal sense?

 

[JayUtah]

Nonsense. There could be two originals.

No, not for legal purposes. The original is the one filed with the state, that becomes the authority for any computerization or miniaturization measures taken by the registrar for convenience. You don't have it. I guarantee that. Nor are you likely to be able to see the original with your own eyes. While I can't guarantee that, because I don't know what state you live in and therefore what laws and regulations apply, I suspect that you agree the state's document is inaccessible to you since you steadfastly ignore requests that you prove you can access it. I know it is inaccessible under Hawaii law, so we can forestall that argument.

Now it is entirely possible that at the time of your birth, two identical paper copies of your certificate were prepared manually, and that whatever signatures and seals were required by your birthplace state were affixed manually, separately, in each case by the signatory. And it is entirely possible that your parents were given one of those copies, which was then given to you -- the other being deposited with the state registrar as the official, authoritative record of your birth.

There are a few points you need to keep in mind, however.

First, the seemingly authoritative copy that you say you have is legally admissible as a birth certificate only if it bears the state's seal. You don't say whether it does or not. But it's the seal, not the apparent manner of copying or apparent provenance, that makes it authentic and compels other states, under Full Faith and Credit, to accept it. It may have been typed or written manually. It may have original pen-and-ink signatures. It may appear on elegantly embossed or imprinted paper so as to make forgery difficult. But it is not the "original" as the law implementing Full Faith and Credit defines the term, nor is even a valid copy unless certified as such.

There is no obligation for the recipient to retain that document, as would be required for a legally authoritative original. There is no need for the registrant to present that -- and only that -- copy upon demand. The authoritative original is retained by the state, and the registrar of the state is legally obligated to safeguard it (physically) and control access to the information it contains (legally).

Second, not every state does what you imply has been done in your case, nor does every state, who may once have done that, do it now. Not everyone gets a hand-produced copy of their birth certificate. Not everyone is presented a certified copy gratis. Not everyone who is required to furnish a certified copy of a birth certificate is required to furnish that one particular copy, even when it is available.

In fact, I have time to write this post this morning because the entrepreneur and venture capitalist with whom I work frequently is presently at the state registrar's office getting a certified copy of his birth certificate, which he is required to furnish as part of a legal procedure, and which will not be returned to him. The recipient is required by his own regulations to maintain that authoritative certificate of my associate's birth in his files.

Imagine the chaos, Robert, if the only valid form of birth certificate is the manual copy that may have been issued possibly decades ago at your birth, which you would be required to maintain, store, and safeguard as the only legally admissible record of your birth through fire, flood, theft, or natural decay. And woe betide those whose states simply didn't do it that way; you seem to be singularly fortunate in having a state who gave you a "duplicate original." What are they to do who were born in, say, Hawaii where no such certificate issued, and who (by law) offer only certified copies of their singular original as proof of vital information?

You insinuate that everyone has, had, or should have what you have. You suggest that what you have is your "original" birth certificate, but you belie through your other language that you have only the vaguest concept of the difference between "original" and copy." And under questioning you admit you don't really know what you have in hand, and you won't let us see it to judge for ourselves. You simply insist that what you have is what Barack Obama should supply.

No, that's just as much special pleading now as it was weeks ago. You don't get to make up new rules that only Barack Obama must follow.

The elephant in the room of your argument is now, as it always has been, that Mitt Romney has ever only produce a crappy computer printout of his birth certificate. Certified by the state, of course, and therefore legally admissible. But not the "original" you suggest everyone possesses. If what you say about you is true, and if you believe it should be true for Barack Obama, then why aren't you enforcing the same homegrown rules on the candidate your party favors? How is your claim not just the dregs of partisan desperation?