GAK, each state has their own policies on records such as this. Per an article I read Hawaii laws do not allow even the person named on the birth record to physically see the original document but they can ask for copies of it, which Obozo did, then presented to the media.

While I am sure this sounds like more conspiracy minded stuff, with such a rule in place by Hawaii it effectively prevents any real verification by forensic specialists of the original document, therefore essentially nothing can be proven nor disproven by a digital reproduction of the document .... so doubt still remains regarding the validity of the actual document itself.

With a matter as complex and of national importance as this the US Justice Dept. could also overrule Hawaiis policy and require presentation and forensic examination of the original document, though with that departments head as an Obozo appointee, this will not happen either. This is unfortunate since absolute clarity of this issue is what's needed to finally put the whole thing to bed, and all efforts to do so, not only could be, but should be done if Obozo is genuine in his desires once and for all end this controversy.

In the US our major issues at this juncture are myriad and certainly deserving of attention, but when the question is asked if the sitting prez. is actually legally capable of holding that office relative to Constitutional rules, that too is a very reasonable question and deserves every effort possible to assure the public of such a right.

Having read in many places that his 1st act as prez was to seal his birth, passport and educational records that indeed gives rise to at least a reasonable suspicion as to why this was done. One can couch that however one chooses, but when it revolves around a prez who campaigned on "absolute transparency" it sure looks decidedly odd to do so and the constant derision of anyone seeking clarity of these issues by the press and the administration itself only adds more fuel to the fire, not less