Arizona House passes “Birther” bill

posted at 7:35 pm on April 21, 2010 by Allahpundit

Lay aside the legal issues, of which there are many, that this raises vis-a-vis whether states can set their own standards for enforcing federal constitutional requirements. There’s another question that’s much more basic. Namely, what would this possibly accomplish?

B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.

If you’re going to push a law as contentious as a Birther bill, knowing full well the type of beating you’ll take for it in the media, wouldn’t you want to at least make sure it achieves what you want it to achieve? Dave Weigel’s right: If this law passes and somehow holds up, The One will comply with it by providing the same Certification of Live Birth he produced two years ago. There’s no demand here for anything more specific than that — no request for an “original birth certificate” or attending obstetrician’s affidavit, etc., just “documents” that prove to a “reasonable” degree that the candidate was born in the good ol’ U.S. of A. And since the COLB is an official state document endorsed by Hawaii, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t meet a reasonableness test. Which makes me think this bill is even more purely political than it seems, designed to pander to Arizona Birthers while slyly doing nothing to advance the ball on their behalf.

But there’s an even more basic question. Let’s say the statute did demand “original” documents and that, for argument’s sake, the only thing in Hawaii’s files is an affidavit signed by Obama’s now-dead mother attesting that she gave birth to him at home. (Hawaii’s director of health has said publicly that she’s personally seen The One’s “original vital records.”) Why wouldn’t that be proof enough for Arizona if it’s proof enough for Hawaii? It’s a sworn statement and you can’t cross-examine the person who gave it, so barring any conflicting evidence, you’d have no reason to doubt that it’s true. Is Arizona going to kick a sitting president off the ballot because his mother gave birth to him at home, on American soil, with only family in attendance as witnesses? The only hope Birtherism has, apart from the emergence of bombshell evidence that eliminates the possibility of a Hawaiian birth, is that there are no vital records whatsoever in Hawaii’s files and that the entire department of health is engaged in some sort of grand conspiracy. Which, I’m sure, some people will eventually believe.

What I will say in the Birthers’ semi-defense is that I think there are actually two camps inside the movement. One is the group that simply wants Obama out of office as soon as possible and has latched onto this thin, exceedingly lame reed as a way of making it happen. The other is a group that’s grown curious about the fact that … no official enforcement mechanism for the Constitution’s natural-born requirement seems to exist, even though it’s a baseline requisite for the presidency. To them, it’s not an Obama issue so much as a “shouldn’t someone somewhere be authorized to check this sort of thing?” thing. In which case, there’s an easy way to depoliticize this while creating a legislative fix: Simply have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016. That way The One is exempt and this problem doesn’t recur in the future. Easy peasy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Why don’t states just pass a regulation that says a candidate must show his/her eligibility as expressed by the Constitution to the state in order to be put on the state ballot?

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Obama has never done anything the American way, why should he start pandering to Americans?

mobydutch on April 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I believe Obama was born in Hawai’i and that should make Hawaiians cringe in shame.

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Simply have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016.

I don’t agree the legislative branch should have that authority, or the founders would have given it them. It should be on the states to verify the candidates, in my opinion.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Its just part of a media war… planting further doubt about Barack Hussein Obama.

Personally, I dont care if he was born here or is another country…but anything that makes people not trust him… as long as it isnt dishonest, I am all for… since he is ruining the country.

FlickeringFlame on April 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM

this could also be seen as an anti-birther law by making sure this BS is nipped in the bud at the start. I think the only thing that has allowed this insanity to continue for as long as it has is the unwillingness to disclose the birth certificate

Defector01 on April 21, 2010 at 7:44 PM

facepalm

El_Terrible on April 21, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Showing the independent voters that Republicans are serious about focusing on the issues that matter, and not pandering and media stunts like we did last time around!

Oh, wait…

Inkblots on April 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Idiots.

Realist on April 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Of all the things to nail Obama on, why would people go after his birth? This is SO idiotic.

portlandon on April 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM

OT: Geico voice-over guy fired for blasting tea party.

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Truther: during Bush administration.
Birther: during Obama administration.

This labeling phenomenom is fun.
Wonder what will be the next label for the next administration?

Just coin a catchy little label and people discount you right away as being a kook!

I like the term Crapper for Obama. As in those who believe out country is turning into c r a p.

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM

JD Hayworth smiles with pride.

portlandon on April 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM

I don’t think calling this a brither bill is appropriate, its legislation.

In my opinion, this is where this question belongs, states should verify if an individual is qualified to be President.

Speakup on April 21, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Showing the independent voters that Republicans are serious about focusing on the issues

The RNC runs state political bodies? Wow. Federalism until, you know, it hurts the brand.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Okay little brats.

Man, the younger generation are stupid little idiots.

I apologize to any of our stupid little idiot readers, of course.

The kids are not alright.

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Simply have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016

Like they enforce other thing? Yeah, when unicorns fly!

upinak on April 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Oops, wrong thread.

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Why don’t states just pass a regulation that says a candidate must show his/her eligibility as expressed by the Constitution to the state in order to be put on the state ballot?

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Arizona just did that.

I’m sort of distract from state politics now that we are moving but this are sort of poping down there at the legislature.

I’m not liking what I hear about the immigration bill. There is such a thing as too much government power folks and the police are part of the government.

Big government is big government.

Why can’t we just close the borders?

petunia on April 21, 2010 at 7:50 PM

A congressional fix should also include a definition of ‘natural born citizen’.

From what I’ve read, a natural born citizen is the child of two citizens. Obama is the child of one US citizen and one British subject…

Vatican Watcher on April 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Adding -gate to every little political issue is so 1990′s.
Just add an -er and you have a winner!

carbon_footprint on April 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Forget the BC. Let’s have a look at those college admission and financial aid forms. Are those still Top Secret documents too?

Hog Wild on April 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Simply have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016. That way The One is exempt and this problem doesn’t recur in the future. Easy peasy.

This would create more problems then it solves and you know that.

clement on April 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

If we’re going to have an honest discussion about this, let us first admit that “birthers” is not a group/club that people join.

It is a label that OTHER people put on anyone who even obliquely asks questions about Obama’s birth certificate and place of birth.

(And let’s put off to later a discussion about using the term “birther” which attempts to draw an equal comparison between people who believe that fire can’t melt steel and people who have questions about Obama’s birth certificate).

I would also posit that there are THREE “camps” of thought that get lumped into the “birther” category.

The first two are as AP stated.

The third is where I would put myself – a person:
1) who wonders why it is so difficult for Obama to provide an actual Birth Certificate; and
2) who sees a connection between the lack of details and secrecy regarding Obama’s birth and the lack of details and secrecy about so much else of Obama’s life – his connections to Ayers, his grades in college, the papers he published, the lectures he taught, etc.

I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.

But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama.

Religious_Zealot on April 21, 2010 at 7:53 PM

petunia on April 21, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Yeah, I mean, all the states should do that. Should be a universal situation where the states confirm Constitutional requirements to get on the ballot.

I’m sympathetic that people have anxiety b/c of the ‘Birther’ issue, but I like moving toward Constitutional requirements, so all the states should do that.

It should not be Congress.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Crap

Amadeus on April 21, 2010 at 7:54 PM

“In which case, there’s an easy way to depoliticize this while creating a legislative fix: Simply have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016. That way The One is exempt and this problem doesn’t recur in the future.”

That would actually be the ULTIMATE in politicizing it. To pass a law and make current office holders immune from it is the most politicizing manner in which to do it.

I sit on the side of those who think that there needs to be a transparent, verifiable and thus credible method to ensure that those who are placed on the ballot are eligible for the office for which they aspire. I think having Obama as president is a godsend for waking American’s up to the perils of progressive liberal policies and I am hopeful that by the middle of 2013 we will have in place a group of legislators and a president that will do the right thing and start getting rid of the new deal and great society along with everything Obama got passed.

astonerii on April 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Wanna be the Prez?

Show your bona fides.

||||||||

In other news, lawyers tasked with sealing away records hardest hit.

And the commenters thus far: this is for everybody in the future.

No more candidates with ‘minimalist backgrounds’.

CPT. Charles on April 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM

But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama.

Religious_Zealot on April 21, 2010 at 7:53 PM

I’m with you. It is also strange that there were hearings about John McCain’s eligibility and no one batted an eye. Why is it okay to question one presidential candidate’s eligibility and not the other?

NTWR on April 21, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Wanna be the Prez?

Show your bona fides.
CPT. Charles on April 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM

He did. Just not to you. boo freaking hoo.

ernesto on April 21, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Just produce the long form!!

Obama and Michelle do not have a Lawyer licence!

Obama was not a Professor,only a Lecturer!!

And,nobody can document his past!

His real name is Barry Soetoro!!
———————————–

Now,the above facts doesn’t make one a “Birther”!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 7:57 PM

this could also be seen as an anti-birther law by making sure this BS is nipped in the bud at the start. I think the only thing that has allowed this insanity to continue for as long as it has is the unwillingness to disclose the birth certificate
Defector01 on April 21, 2010 at 7:44 PM

This was my first thought. Also, what better place for “experimental” legislation than at the state level?

RedRedRice on April 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

The RNC runs state political bodies? Wow. Federalism until, you know, it hurts the brand.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM

I don’t presume to have a say in running the Party in states other than my own – but I can certainly criticize them.

The actions of GOP legislators at the state level reflect on the national party, and, in this case, play into a negative media narrative – not to mention that it makes us look unserious. GOP legislators should consider the consequences for the national party before they shamelessly pander like this.

Inkblots on April 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Namely, what would this possibly accomplish?

Nothing. Other than providing fodder for the MSM to brand the entire GOP as radicals.

What were they thinking?

BacaDog on April 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

If the media had done it’s job on Barry like it does on the Balloon boy parents this would all be a mute point.

Personally, after what we’ve seen the last 15 months I don’t dismiss ANY explanation of why he does what he does. When you have someone that appears to be committed to the dismantling of the US as we know it…….what could be the motives?

Name your wildest kookiest theory and it could come true the next 2 1/2 years.

PappyD61 on April 21, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I think the COLB issue was resolved. I’d L.O.V.E. to see Teh Won’s college applications and transcripts. The entrance applications and everything else pertaining to his “ahem” attendance at Harvard and Columbia have been sealed. Why?

Why?

Key West Reader on April 21, 2010 at 8:00 PM

He did. Just not to you. boo freaking hoo.

ernesto on April 21, 2010 at 7:56 PM

ernesto: NO HE DID NOT!!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

What’s REALLY interesting is that the Obama Administration snarked and ridiculed Arizona BECAUSE of this legislation.

The Obama Administration, trying ever so hard daily to be ever so unpresidential, to prove just how catty and dubious they can be and still stand up (sometimes).

What I’d expect any President and Adminstration (and/or candidate for such) to do in response to Arizona’s legislation is say, politely, that they support any state’s right to pass it’s own legislation and that they will be eager and pleased to abide by that legislation if applicable at any time to their campaign.

Obama is so guilty he’s even ridiculing questions about who he is, AS IF.

I think the entire point of seeking information about this man in the White House at the present time is for purposes of asking a con artist to substantiate his grandiose assumptions he’s used to sell his “story”. Because he’s so far demanded no one ever KNOW anything about him as to substantiating information.

The issue is “natural born” or not. Whether he was born in the U.S. or elsewhere, his “natural born” status is not proven, and what proof does exist establishes that he is NOT natural born. He hasn’t and seems unable to (and unwilling to) prove that he is, making matters even worse.

This isn’t about politics, it’s about respect for our Constitution or not. Obama dubious presence in the White House says to me — loudly, clearly — that he and others who have put him there don’t respect our Constitution.

And it looks like that’s Obama’s entire point: to prove that he doesn’t respect our Constitution.

The issue of “natural born” is, indeed, defined and by several Supreme Court decisions in regards the Presidentail requirements to hold that office.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

And the commenters thus far: this is for everybody in the future.CPT. Charles on April 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Whew! That’s a relief, cuz I don’t think ol’ Abe Lincoln could have passed muster. I don’t think log cabins came equipped with blank COLB forms back in the day. ;-)

leilani on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

OT: Geico voice-over guy fired for blasting tea party.

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Yep. The liberals are going apes**t over it, but more voices of sanity than usual (IMO) for whatever reason.

/OT

No more candidates with ‘minimalist backgrounds’.

CPT. Charles on April 21, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Absolutely agreed. If you want to be elected to a position of legal power, We the People have every right to examine you, your past and your associates with a fine-toothed comb.

Dark-Star on April 21, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Inkblots on April 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Arizona is unserious. That works for me. They gave us McCain the maverick non-maverick of the Senate.

GOP legislators should consider the consequences for the national party before they shamelessly pander like this.

This isn’t going to bother the NJ voter that Christie needs to back him up. The GOP has bigger problems, I think, then this.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 8:02 PM

AP Im surprised at the framing here lol

the peeps of AZ would simply like it if the next POTUS in ’12 GOP or Dem, would demonstrate their eligibility to be said POTUS.

it is ridicuilous that there was basically nothing that said a Senator in IL had to prove their citizenship and there is apparently nothing on the Federal level, it is handled by the states

so to avoid future birtherism, it is right and proper that the winning candidate in 12 or whomever wants to run for POTUS in AZ demonstrate they are eligible

ginaswo on April 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Forget the BC. Let’s have a look at those college admission and financial aid forms. Are those still Top Secret documents too?

Hog Wild on April 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM

+7%…

Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

WOW! Look at what is going on in New Hampshire

I guess his demise has been greatly exaggerated. Maybe another liberal attack is backfiring on them…

dnlchisholm on April 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Like Gabe said at the ‘ole AOSHQ:

Seems like an eminently reasonable law to me.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

I can’t believe we’re still talking about this. There is no defense of birthers. You birthers are all bat-sh^& crazy. It’s OK to sip the Kool-Aid — I do it myself occasionally — but you guys drink it by the keg-full.

Scranton on April 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

You can’t get sworn in without the clerk of the senate giving the thumbs up. And unless you’ve ALWAYS doubted the testimony of the clerk of the senate, he’s fulfilled his obligation. End of story. It may make you uneasy, but you’re simply not entitled to anything else from Obama. He can thumb his nose at all of you forever, and he’s absolutely entitled to.

ernesto on April 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

What they accomplished in Arizona is absolutely nothing–same thing that’s between their ears.

RBMN on April 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM

It is as if,POOF,Barry Soetoro disappeared
and POOF,Barack Hussien Obama materialized!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM

WOW! Look at what is going on in New Hampshire

I guess his demise has been greatly exaggerated. Maybe another liberal attack is backfiring on them…

dnlchisholm on April 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Find a new hobby, Mitt is toast.

Knucklehead on April 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM

I think the COLB issue was resolved. I’d L.O.V.E. to see Teh Won’s college applications and transcripts. The entrance applications and everything else pertaining to his “ahem” attendance at Harvard and Columbia have been sealed. Why?

Why?

Key West Reader on April 21, 2010 at 8:00 PM

The only “resolution” Obama has ever put forward was a graphic file. That’s it, that’s all, a graphic file.

And two books of fiction, or, fantasy.

The female physician employed by the state of Hawaii who made the bodacious, irregular and unsupportable statement that (so she declared) “(Obama) is natural born”…

…DOES NOT KNOW WHAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT.

She clearly does NOT understand the distinction between a physical birth on U.S. soil versus a birthee’s circumstances when born on U.S. soil.

Born on U.S. soil means NATURAL BORN — and that’s how Obama went to pains to describe himself during his Presidential campaign, his websites emphasizing that peculiar term (have you ever actually HEARD that term before or heard it ever be some requirement for much of anything — I haven’t).

A “natural born” citizen is distinct and apart from U.S. citizen.

Citizen can be a person born on U.S. soil (“native born”) and/or a person who has been naturalized.

A citizen who wants to qualify for the President must be (of course) citizen AND ALSO a “natural born” citizen…accepted to mean BORN TO PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS (also).

The parents can be naturalized or native but they must be citizens, their child then, born in the U.S., would qualify for the Presidency if they were 35 years or more and had resided in the U.S. for (something like) fourteen years prior to candidacy.

But a “native born” citizen ISN’T THE EQUIVALENT OF “natural born”….

Natural born is the significant situation that Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro has never established about himself and it doesn’t look like he qualifies.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

OT: Obama just preempted American Idol.

Joe Caps on April 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

What’s to keep an opposing Sec State in future years from rejecting the opposite party’s candidate for any nitpicky thing they want to make up? I’m no fan of Teh One, but this is sheer idiocy.

Scott P on April 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Argh…typo in above:

Born on U.S. soil means NATURAL BORN — and that’s how Obama went to pains to describe himself during his Presidential campaign, his websites emphasizing that peculiar term (have you ever actually HEARD that term before or heard it ever be some requirement for much of anything — I haven’t).

A “natural born” citizen is distinct and apart from U.S. citizen.

THAT SHOULD READ…

Born on U.S. soil means NATIVE BORN — and that’s how Obama went to pains to describe himself during his Presidential campaign, his websites emphasizing that peculiar term (have you ever actually HEARD that term before or heard it ever be some requirement for much of anything — I haven’t).

A “natural born” citizen is distinct and apart from U.S. citizen.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM

The third is where I would put myself – a person:
1) who wonders why it is so difficult for Obama to provide an actual Birth Certificate; and
2) who sees a connection between the lack of details and secrecy regarding Obama’s birth and the lack of details and secrecy about so much else of Obama’s life – his connections to Ayers, his grades in college, the papers he published, the lectures he taught, etc.

I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.

But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama.

Religious_Zealot on April 21, 2010 at 7:53 PM

ditto

Colorado Anne on April 21, 2010 at 8:11 PM

And there are more states that have similar legislation in the works to what Arizona has passed. I think South Carolina, Texas, Florida and a few others are working on similar legislation.

You’d think anyone who qualifies Constitutionally for the Presidency would be eager and very happy to provide abundant documentation and witness to clarify who they are, what their qualifications are, for such an Office.

But not Obama. He thinks the questions merit being ridiculed.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:11 PM

if us little people must produce an assload of documentation just to get things done on the state and county levels, it’s not absurd to think that presidential candidates should have to produce proof of citizenship.

Metro on April 21, 2010 at 8:11 PM

…have Congress pass enforcement guidelines and provide that they don’t take effect until 2016…

I’m in the group that believes candidates should be required to prove by competent evidence their eligibility to run. I realize the point of Allah’s proposal is to “de-politicize” the issue, but why not make the requirement effective 2012? Obama gets a pass for his first run, but that is no reason he should get a pass again. If he can’t, or won’t, produce the original birth certificate, too bad. He can always give the usual excuse and say he isn’t going to run again so he can “spend more time with the family”.

novaculus on April 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM

OT: Obama just preempted American Idol.

Joe Caps on April 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

I’m on the West Coast…

… Thanks for the ‘Heads Up’!

Seven Percent Solution on April 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM

At least Allah gets the language right: “natural born citizen” instead of the wrong “native born citizen” (Ed, I’m looking at you!).

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

OT: Well, will people buy Government Motors cars now that they are finally General Motors again? (Repaid money with interest.)

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM
—————————————–
You can’t get sworn in without the clerk of the senate giving the thumbs up. And unless you’ve ALWAYS doubted the testimony of the clerk of the senate, he’s fulfilled his obligation. End of story. It may make you uneasy, but you’re simply not entitled to anything else from Obama. He can thumb his nose at all of you forever, and he’s absolutely entitled to.

ernesto on April 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

ernesto:There is a zero paper trail of Obama,nobody knows
what schools he went to,there are no grades,no
school transcripts,he claimed to be a lawyer and a
Law Professor,and he is neither,he claimed to be
well known at the Law school,and over 500 people
were interviewed,and nobody has ever heard of him
and the list goes on and on!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

What’s to keep an opposing Sec State in future years from rejecting the opposite party’s candidate for any nitpicky thing they want to make up? I’m no fan of Teh One, but this is sheer idiocy.

Scott P on April 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM

The Constitution outlines the specific requirements. A candidate can’t be “rejected” for any reason other than those.

BacaDog on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

haha. Love it!

Decider on April 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

And if Obama has nothing to hide, why does he hide nearly all identifying records about who he is?

That alone bears questioning. Especially, most especially, for a guy with access to nuclear weapons and so much more.

It is UNCONSCIONABLE that anyone in the Presidency should remain and maintain such blanket silence about so little as his academic records. Medical records I can understand to a degree but for the Presidency, given the access and administration of such issues of great proportions, I think these records should be required to be released to the public PRIOR to any election.

Obama’s only released a one-page statement by one physician that says he’s “of good health” or something like that. Nothing as to his records for any part of his life, past or present.

No academic records. No financial records. Not even so much as any records from his brief stint in the Illinois state senate. Total blackout.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Scranton on April 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM

OFA in da house!

Key West Reader on April 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Allah, I think you’re reading this in the wrong way. The law is designed to eliminate the BS that’s been going on. Barry’s people were playing hide the soap in order to play off his detractors (the birthers). This law puts everyone on the same footing. Show you’re bonafides and you’re good to go. No playing games. Simple, direct. End of story.

GarandFan on April 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Well, maybe some financial records, we know he paid taxes this year, we were told what his income was this year and in a few years (or was it one or two) past.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM

There are a few people at any particular time for which the Constitution requires job qualifications, but it is every one except for these few who are required to show their birth certificates to be qualified to work in the US.

Buddahpundit on April 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Allah, I think you’re reading this in the wrong way. The law is designed to eliminate the BS that’s been going on. Barry’s people were playing hide the soap in order to play off his detractors (the birthers). This law puts everyone on the same footing. Show you’re bonafides and you’re good to go. No playing games. Simple, direct. End of story.

GarandFan on April 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

AND, what’s telling about Obama’s bad character, is that he responded so negatively in bashing this Arizona legislation.

It’s not about HIM. It’s legislation that will affect any and all candidates. Doesn’t name Obama nor any other specific candidate.

Yet Obama gets all defensive…

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM

OT: Well, will people buy Government Motors cars now that they are finally General Motors again? (Repaid money with interest.)

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

andy85719: Yup,heard that!:)
==============================
GM pays back loans to Cdn. US governments; CEO says carmaker recovering

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b201074917

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I think the only thing that has allowed this insanity to continue for as long as it has is the unwillingness to disclose the birth certificate

Defector01 on April 21, 2010 at 7:44 PM

He did.

http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.

harry on April 21, 2010 at 8:18 PM

WOW! Look at what is going on in New Hampshire

I guess his demise has been greatly exaggerated. Maybe another liberal attack is backfiring on them…

dnlchisholm on April 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM

At this point – Fred Flintstone could be sailing high in the polls and it would mean nothing.

And … when the brass tacks start flying in the primary … you will that Fred Flintstone will be able to beat Mittens. :D

HondaV65 on April 21, 2010 at 8:18 PM

All you who thought nothing would come of asking for 0bama’s documentation…

You were wrong.

Rebar on April 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM

The birth certificate that Obama produced wheather phony or not holds the key. His father was not an American citizen. He never applied for citizenship and promptly left the country as soon as he could. That alone is enough to cause the problem of Obama not being a natural born citizen. Then you add the “adoption” of Obama by Soetero and you have a legal mess that was never straightened out. Where he was born is not the problem. Who his parents are is the problem. Obama has spent almost a million dollars hiding his BC. If you think it is to trick Republicans and make them look bad–well I suppose you are just as stupid as you think “birthers” are.
After he won at the convention his election was certified by Nancy Pelosi and every secretary of state in the US was to sign and affirm this paper. Nancy should have checked then and then every state should have also. Someone should have caught it, but they all signed off on it and here we are. Having Nancy Pelosi’s signature on that document ought to give you pause. Once any election is certified there is no going back. It is what it is. Cheating or illegal, it stands and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The natural-born clause was put in the Constitution for a reason and it is patently obvious now why it is there. Damn! Those Founding Fathers were pretty darn smart. It’s too bad that the people that like to throw around perjoratives don’t understand that.

BetseyRoss on April 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM

I’ll say this,it might distract the Obama Administration
on the “Birther” thing!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM

OT: Well, will people buy Government Motors cars now that they are finally General Motors again? (Repaid money with interest.)

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 8:13 PM

What % is owned by the union?

(I doubt it.)

Colorado Anne on April 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I’ll say this,it might distract the Obama Administration
on the “Birther” thing!!

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Let’s hope so.

Key West Reader on April 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM

~ Ring ~ Ring ~

Man of the house picks up the phone, says:

“Hello?”

Voice on the phone, a younger male of unknown name, says,

“Uhh, hi. I’m going to be by in about a half-hour to pick up Jean. Tell her.”

Man of house says,

“Jean? My daughter, Jean? Who is this?”

Voice says,

“Uhhh, just tell her it’s Barry. We have plans. Let her know I’ll be by in about a half-hour.”

Man says,

“Who ARE you? What’s your name? Have we met?”

Voice says,

“Uhh, ha, that’s cute. Look, I’ll be clear here, let me be clear, I, uhh, you’re posing a lot of distractions to what I need you to do for me, so, uhh, just tell Jean I’ll be by in a half-hour.”

Man says,

“WHO the heck ARE you? What’s YOUR NAME?”

Voice says,

“Jean knows my name, it’s Barry. That should be enough for you. Tell her I’ll be outside.”

Man says,

“No, Jean’s not going anywhere until I’ve met you. If you want to keep ‘plans’ with my daughter, you’ll park outside, come to the front door, knock and then meet me eye to eye. I’ll decide from there if there’ll be ‘plans’ tonight or not with Jean.”

Voice says,

“What’s with your negativity? Is there some reason you’re smearing our plans? What’s with all these distractions?”

Man says,

“So long, Barry, don’t call here again.”

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Anyone else would have to show their proof of birth in this country, and would show it. The Unicorn King doesn’t have to show anything, and if this nation has become so weak to accept that….legislation to insure that it won’t happen again isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Hening on April 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Lay aside the legal issues, of which there are many, that this raises vis-a-vis whether states can set their own standards for enforcing federal constitutional requirements.

I don’t see this as a “setting of their own standards” any more than it is an enforcing of the current constitutional requirements. If the state doesn’t believe they’ve been met (and the people are the natural defenders of the Constitution) then, have at it. Somebody has to stand up and do it.

ted c on April 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Hang in there, Canopfor. You are right as usual. You know what I am talking about.

mobydutch on April 21, 2010 at 8:26 PM

OT: Obama just preempted American Idol.

Joe Caps on April 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM

he hates the competition…

ted c on April 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Really? Or is it a joke? Did he pre-empt American Idol? I’m in Arizona so Idol isn’t on for hours.

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 8:28 PM

She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.“

That’s the same “document” that Barry Soetoro’s sister has and she was born in Indonesia.

Many a person born world wide has one of those “documents” from the state of Hawaii.

And that “doctor” there has no idea as to what “natural born” even means. IT does NOT mean born on U.S. soil only, just being born in Hawaii does not inherently mean anyone is “natural born.”

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:28 PM

It is not a “Birther Bill” and using such insulting terminology speaks volumes.

Look, it’s really a very straightforward requirement of providing enough information (your own excerpt notes the SoS must be satisfied so a short form may well be deemed not enough) showing eligibility.

Here is a link I just found searching because I remembered the MSM being very intense on looking into the McCain eligibility issue. I know this source is WND but the piece is replete with all the links I was thinking of and more right to all the articles in the MSM on that subject and what they had to say about what was enough or not:


Meet McCain ‘birthers’: ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times, more

Many of the same news organizations and research groups today dismissing concerns about Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility were far more eager to cover the issue when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was the subject.

An archive search shows the question of McCain’s birth certificate and his eligibility to be president was actively pursued by Democratic Party activists and the mainstream media in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, despite the ridicule now heaped upon those questioning Obama’s qualifications under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

After the Republican and Democratic conventions, on, FactCheck.org weighed into the Obama eligibility debate Aug. 21, 2008,” claiming its “staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” The certificate in question, however, was a short-form Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, not a hospital-generated long-form birth certificate listing the hospital where Obama was born as well as other relevant birth information, including the name of the attending physician.

Almost coincident with the FactCheck.org article, a flurry of mainstream media news pieces popped up about McCain’s eligibility to be president.

NBC correspondent Pete Williams also published a piece Feb. 29, 2008, on the MSNBC website, “McCain’s citizenship called into question.”

“Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions – raised in the liberal blogosphere – about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president,” Williams wrote. “But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it’s a serious question with no clear answer.”

And before the cries of “But the Senate…!”:

In a Washington Post story May 2, 2008, reporter Michael Dobbs questioned whether the Senate’s unanimously passed resolution was sufficient to settle the matter of whether McCain was a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.

Dismissing the Senate resolution, Dobbs wrote that the Senate vote “is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.”

The piece goes on:

In addition to media scrutiny, McCain testified before a U.S. Senate committee and produced his long-form birth certificate for inspection.

On May 12, 2008, PolitiFact.com, a website that has dismissed questions about Obama’s eligibility, published an article authored by Robert Farley, “Was McCain born in the USA?”

Noting that the question of McCain’s eligibility is “rooted in legal opinions,” not in facts, PolitiFact.org begged off giving McCain’s eligibility question a truth rating, claiming its “customary True-False ratings don’t quite fit here.”

KittyLowrey on April 21, 2010 at 8:29 PM

I believe Obama was born in Hawai’i and that should make Hawaiians cringe in shame.andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM

You would think so but I was in Honolulu a month ago and every ABC store on Waikiki beach (which was every corner)had a bunch of Obama crap inside from T-shirts to bobble-heads.

Chrisin206 on April 21, 2010 at 8:29 PM

How many would be in favor of this if Obama was not president? I am guessing most of you. But now so many of you have been shell shocked by liberals that you are afraid to be in favor of such a bill. If that’s the case, why not just get rid of the requirement of U.S. citizenship all together? This should have been a law enacted by all states several years ago. But now some of you don’t want it cause you are too scared that the liberal media will hammer conservatives over it.

Also, someone mentioned they were bothered by the AZ immigration bill and said why not let the Federal government take care of the problem. AZ wouldn’t need this immigration bill if the U.S. government was taking care of the problem. AZ can’t wait around forever. The State is falling apart and crime committed by illegals has gone through the roof.

It is sad to see how many of you all have been beaten into submission by liberals.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 21, 2010 at 8:29 PM

The minutiae of citizenship law is futile. It doesn’t matter even if he is technically not a citizen.

andy85719 on April 21, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Obama has spent almost a million dollars hiding his BC

No he didn’t what he showed was his BC.

http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama’s own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship questions in the United States. Here’s how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explains the matter:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizen.htm

harry on April 21, 2010 at 8:30 PM

canopfor on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Thanks for responding.

Future note: gratuitous assertions can be rejected with minimal effort.

CPT. Charles on April 21, 2010 at 8:31 PM

The sense behind what the Founding Fathers did in writing the requirements for the Presidency is that they wanted a person WHO DID NOT CARRY EVEN A SUGGESTION OF DIVIDED LOYALTIES (U.S. versus any other nation), or, rather, to allow any foreign government by way of a leaking individual to bear influence in and on the Presidency.

A person with “divided loyalties” would pose a problem to representing an undivided loyalty to the U.S.

There other requirements were that the person be of an adult age AND that his citizenship be undubiously of and from the U.S. (born here, parents also citizens).

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Damn it people! Away from the foot, point the gun AWAY from the foot!

ThePrez on April 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama’s own citizenship.

Lies and political propaganda.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM

harry on April 21, 2010 at 8:30 PM

I guess if you read it on the internet from a website then it has to be so, right?

/sarc.

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM

What’s REALLY interesting is that the Obama Administration snarked and ridiculed Arizona BECAUSE of this legislation…

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM

If you look at Zero’s history, he uses the snark and ridicule card when he’s peaking on his liars chart; ie, paraphrase “rather than protesting higher taxes, you’d think they’d be thanking me.” See latest Drudge headline – Zero’s reconsidering the VAT tax!

The ONLY thing Zero and his minions have done well is deceive millions of voters. Now we can add deception and ridicule of those who are legitimately concerned about his background and are asking questions. They sent 50+ reporters to Alaska to dig up trash on Palin, but the MSM has managed to convince 25% or so of “rational” conservatives that anyone questioning Zero’s background is a nutcase and to disown them.

Well, consider me a nutcase cause something smells rotten and I say bravo to Arizonians. It will be interesting to see if Zero pulls a Johnson and says I will not run, nor will I accept the nomination to the 2012 election.

SoldiersMom on April 21, 2010 at 8:34 PM

It is all pretty simple: The Messiah has lied through his teeth about everything – he hasn’t said one thing yet that wasn’t a lie or soon would be a lie. Why would anyone believe him when he said he was born in Hawaii but just can’t produce a medical witness to that “fact”. The guy is a total liar and Commie fraud – end of story.

Cinday Blackburn on April 21, 2010 at 8:35 PM

What is UP with Arizona? They’re more sick of stuff that’s going on than Texas! Rick needs to get busy! Well, when the state legis finally meets again…

mimi1220 on April 21, 2010 at 8:35 PM

That’s the same “document” that Barry Soetoro’s sister has and she was born in Indonesia.

Many a person born world wide has one of those “documents” from the state of Hawaii.

And that “doctor” there has no idea as to what “natural born” even means. IT does NOT mean born on U.S. soil only, just being born in Hawaii does not inherently mean anyone is “natural born.”

Lourdes on April 21, 2010 at 8:28 PM

And there lies the “CRAZY”. It doesn’t matter what evidence he produces, even a document apporved by the Supreme Court, it’s never good enough.

You scream for a long form, that doesn’t even exist in the state of Hawaii. You ask for his BC and he produces what Hawaii gives to all it citizens and that’s not good enough.

If someone produced video you’d scream it was a fake.

It’s nuts.

Against all rational evidence you’ve convinced yourself otherwise.

There is no helping you.

harry on April 21, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Let’s say the statute did demand “original” documents and that, for argument’s sake, the only thing in Hawaii’s files is an affidavit signed by Obama’s now-dead mother attesting that she gave birth to him at home. (Hawaii’s director of health has said publicly that she’s personally seen The One’s “original vital records.”) Why wouldn’t that be proof enough for Arizona if it’s proof enough for Hawaii?

This has always been the case. Any vital record only creates a prima facie case — a rebuttable presumption. The COLB is not dispositive, it just creates the presumption — which can be rebutted by better, more persuasive evidence. [[I have not seen any persuasive evidence, but I am willing to allow someone an opportunity to convince me...]]

If the original BC is a late BC issued based upon a mother’s affidavit, that would still be prima facie evidence, but the presumption might be easier to overcome than if, say, the original BC was issued in a hospital and was signed by a delivering doctor that actually existed and worked at that hospital at that time. It just seems to me that some litigant with standing should have an opportunity to do discovery, subpoena vital records, subpoena parents’ passport records, take depositions and present a case. I doubt they will rebut the presumption, but it does not seem very American to pass judgment without due process and a day in court.

tommylotto on April 21, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5