Why is the us house and senate accepting a certification of live birth and not insisting on a birth certificate to prove Obama's eligibility to hold office of President?

Answer 1

Why, indeed. There are many things that our new president has chosen to do, that, viewed outside the partisan context, seem pretty suspicious. Nowhere is this more evident that his curiously evasive handling of his birthplace and eligibility. Not only has Obama (for whatever reason), refused to submit a long form birth certificate showing his attending physician in Hawaii, but he has also apparently spend several million to seal all records pertaining to his medical history, schooling, and other background data. Oddly enough, one of Obama's first orders of business on Day One of his presidency was to sign executive Order 13489, which gives him final OK on the release of documents from congressional archives. As to why Congress (and the courts) have refused to take the matter seriously, it probably has more to do with their following orders, rather than their conscience. They work, after all, not for 'we the people', but for the wealthy special interests who funded their campaigns. I believe the entire birth certificate matter is a red herring or distraction. The fact is, his father was born in Kenya, at that time a British protectorate. Its citizens were therefore British subjects, as was Obama's father, Barrack Sr. It's important to note-- under UK law, citizenship is passed down from the father, not mother, so Barack would have retained dual US/UK citizenship until he chose one or the other at age 18. It would have made no difference if he was born in Kenya, Hawaii, or on the White House lawn. So the question becomes whether a US president can hold dual-citzenship. According to the US Constitution, no. Of course, being a lawyer trained in Constitutional law, Obama would be very familiar with such legal standing. All the more reason to conceal any evidence of personal non-compliance.