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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
WHAT “fraudulent birth certificate stuff from a Hawaiian Hospital”? Do you have some more information of which I am unaware?
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 10:39 AM
—–
Yes, apparently that’s what Obama went and got for himself, or his mother got for him. It’s so obvious they did that.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 10:41 AM
You do realize this could be applied to almost every single thread on HA? And the vast majority of those on every American political site?
(Not that Drywall’s always right, btw!)
Dark-Star on April 22, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Actually, I’ve always suspected he’s the love child of Kathleen Soliah and Eldridge Cleaver. All of the birth record confusion is a ruse to conceal this.
Doorgunner on April 22, 2010 at 10:42 AM
The only problem with this is that Obama has never pretended his father was anyone else, and yet, Justice Roberts swore him into office. It would seem the Chief Justice has a different interpretation than you do.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 10:43 AM
God, I hope you never sit in judgment of someone on a jury. You have comprehension issues. The birth announcements prove that someone placed birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers. It doesn’t prove he was born there. Considering there is a document showing Stanley Ann Dunham in Washington State 15 days later, The odds are more likely he was born in Washington State.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM
…and Dave Rywall is the love child of Betty Friedan and Larry King.
Doorgunner on April 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM
My wedding was announced in the newspaper in a city I did not get married in. It was announced there because we had family there. Does that prove I was married in that city?
t.ferg on April 22, 2010 at 10:34 AM
——
OMG OMG THE NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENTS DO NOT SAY WHICH HOSPITAL
But the announcements do have a residential address, so obviously Barack’s parents were pregnant with him, then booked a flight to Kenya or Indonesia or something, had him, then flew back to Hawaii, and then obtained a fraudulent birth certificate for him.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 10:46 AM
What are you talking about?
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Do a google search on “fallacy”. You are referring to the fallacy of the “Authority.”
Your fallacy also presupposes that Judge Roberts even looked into the issue.
The two possible explanations are:
1. Judge Roberts Made a Mistake.
2. Judge Roberts did not consider the question.
In any case, argue your own points. Don’t rely on the Authority Fallacy.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 10:50 AM
This is ridiculous. Everyone knows He was born in Jerusalem.
Pablo on April 22, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Bethlehem… and he’s the love child of Arafat and Angela Davis.
Doorgunner on April 22, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Let me say, I am not a birther because I’ve seen no credible evidence he was born anywhere other than the United States. Most of the “facts” the birthers rely on are thin at best. However, I’ve studied the facts enough to know that the newspaper announcement defense, which has been spouted by many people, including Ed Morrissey, is also thin. At best it’s another piece of evidence that supports the notion he was born in Hawaii, but it’s far from conclusive proof. Most attorneys could shred it in a courtroom in mere minutes.
People who don’t think it through, and don’t have possession of all the facts, keep using a scoffing line that goes something like that: “So you birthers believe that his family put an ad in the newspaper in 1961 just in case he ran for President some day.” That’s utter nonsense because a newspaper announcement was automatically printed when a COLB was filed with the state, much the same way a newspaper announcement is printed when deeds are filed when you buy a house. The Register of Deeds does not verify the information in the document to be true. The information in the document is presumed true and accepted for the public record. And it will continue to be presumed true unless and until someone comes along and challenges it. I know–I have had two cases where the contents of a deed were in dispute.
Also, a COLB could be filed by anyone at anytime. It would have been perfectly reasonable, even expected, for Obama’s American family to file a COLB in Hawaii to ensure he had all the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship. They certainly would have done so if he were born in Honolulu, but if they were smart, they would also have done it if he happened to have been born in Mombasa. The address used in the birth announcement in the paper was Obama’s grandparent’s address–the Dunhams. Did they file the form for his mother? Who knows?
Bottom line: I have no way of knowing who filed that COLB in 1961–and neither do you. At best it’s prima facie evidence that created a presumption that he was born in the United States. It in no way proves it–not in a conclusive evidentiary manner.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM
It’s amazing how Orly Tatiz has gotten to these people.
And who said he was born at home?? In 1960??
It’s doubtful.
AprilOrit on April 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM
I’m sorry, I guess I’m missing how a bill passed in 2010 would force a president elected in 2008 to present a birth certificate to a state legislature. Failing that, it seems absurd to label this a “Birther Bill.”
That’s the problem with coining a term like “birther,” then applying it to such a broad spectrum of people. The label takes on a life of its own.
On the contrary, the fact that no private citizen is allowed to question whether a candidate is a natural born citizen is very strange, given that it is an actual constitutional requirement. Given that, more states need to pass laws that preemptively make it hard to fudge the issue.
In fact, remove the “birther” label and this looks like a fairly mundane and unobjectionable piece of legislation.
tom on April 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM
I have noticed something that I don’t see being remarked on anywhere else. *IF* “a newspaper announcement was automatically printed when a COLB was filed with the state”, why are the Nordyke Twins not in the same two papers?
The Nordyke twins (http://www.biasedmediaboycott.com/index.php?topic=80.0 ) WERE born in Hawaii at almost exactly the same time and same hospital as Obama was supposed to have been born at, yet there is no newspaper announcement of them, though they share consecutive BC numbers with Obama.
If the State does this automatically, why are they not in that same newspaper?
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:05 AM
You skirted his main point that “nothing will ever shut the birthers up.”
As one who agrees with that statement (and one who as also sat on a few juries in the past 40 years – which, I’m sure makes you shudder) I’d like to hear from you, an individual who apparently views himself as a seeker of truth, what “truthful evidence” you will accept (and why you would accept it) that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Rod on April 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM
I have watched both debates available at c-span, and the closest thing to it is when Obama says at around the 46 min mark.
rslancer14 on April 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM
And the problem I’ve found is that I have been able to find statute or SCOTUS decision to support that definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. The latest precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which grants citizenship at birth to those who are born on US soil.
If you have a reference to a statutory authority for your definition of “Natural Born Citizen”, I’d love to see it.
JeffWeimer on April 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM
I found this article on The Standard’s site – a Kenyan newspaper. It somehow has now gone missing:
Big Issue | Financial Standard | Maddo | Pulse | Style | Society
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”
Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.
The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.
“I feel for him actually,” Obama told a Chicago TV station. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”
The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.
The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.
“Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state,” she said.
As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, “There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere.”
—AP
And there’s this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVDI0wpyb68&feature=related
You figure it.
LarryG on April 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM
I skirted his main point because it is nothing but an opinion used as mockery. No need to respond.
Juries often make mistakes. Perhaps it is because they impanel people with poor judgment?
Firstly, I don’t think his place of birth matters to the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement. For the longest time, *I* like everyone else believed natural born status was conferred by being born in the United States. After researching this, I find that not to be the case, and the cause of this fallacy is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
That being said, during the time when I believed American Birth was necessary, I thought it was outrageous for the States to allow someone on the ballot who hasn’t proven he was actually born here, especially with all the reports and insinuations from so many people that he was actually born in Kenya. (Even NPR reported this.)
When he tried to finesse the issue by presenting a computer printout, I (and a lot of other people) smelled a rat. I realized immediately that a computer printout says whatever the person printing it wants it to say, and therefore is inadequate proof of the truth.
I happen to know that State Government officials routinely lie about birth certificates, and nothing from them can be accepted without a witness signature of a person who was actually there during the birth.
How do I know this? *I* am adopted and *I* have TWO birth certificates. The “Official” one is the lie, but my original one tells the truth.
I Can prove it.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM
I thought Obama was born in a hospital?
WordsMatter on April 22, 2010 at 11:19 AM
Good for Arizona! In their hearts, every other Republican State legislature in the country would love to do the same thing—if only they had the guts. I like it anytime a State can rise up and take a swing at their totalitarian overlords in Washington.
I’m like most people I know, a closet “birther”. I don’t believe he was born in America, and although the evidence seems overwhelming that he wasn’t, I never bring it up. There is so much about Obama that disgusts me, his birthplace just doesn’t make it into my top ten.
However, I say go birthers, go. You have the right to ask and the right to demand. The more the media and those on the right condemn and ridicule you, the more I think you’re on to something. I hate bullies of every stripe.
Personally, I’d rather see people demand to see Obama’s school records than his birth certificate. Bush was forced by the media to cough up his school records. Why not Obama? If he’s SUCH a genius, why not show so to the world? You anti-birthers could at least agree that far, couldn’t you?
pupik on April 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I had compiled a great deal of reference material on this very issue. Suffice it to say that it is too lengthy to post in comments. I will however point you to Mario Apuzzo, who has compiled an amazing repertoire of pertinent references. (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/) If you are truly interested in finding out the truth, that’s a good place to start looking.
The Wong Kim Ark decision was never meant to address the question of “Natural Born Citizen.” It is constantly being brought up by those who wish to dismiss the issue. Mario Apuzzo refutes the argument against it quite well.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:25 AM
You and Pablo are the thread winners :)
Schadenfreude on April 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM
I don’t think this has anything to do with his actual birthplace or qualifications. There’s something embarrassing on the original 1961 certification that His Highness and his minions are anxious to keep covered up.
Dollars to donuts it’s that the certification listed his race as “white.”
Glenside on April 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Personally, I’d rather see people demand to see Obama’s school records than his birth certificate. Bush was forced by the media to cough up his school records. Why not Obama? If he’s SUCH a genius, why not show so to the world? You anti-birthers could at least agree that far, couldn’t you?
pupik on April 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM
——-
Why do you need to see his transcripts?
The record shows he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard.
If you don’t believe that’s good enough to prove he got good grades, then even if Obama got Harvard to release his transcript showing As and Bs, you would say it was fake.
Bush was under no obligation to release his grades. That was his choice.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM
LOL @ AZ doing its best to disprove the Theory of Evolution. Regression with aggression, very nice. All you clowns need to do now is elect JD Hayworth.
***
@ all Birfers
Name one other POTUS about whom you have similarly postulated with such ugly-license.
I’m sure it’s just coincidence. But you should know your little discussions of pseudo-genealogy is archetypal racist-objectification.
You have no impetus or real evidence about his family. Yet you feel at ease making very damning presumptions and accusations. The fights you pick reveal much about you.
Like most good people, I presume that you probably don’t see yourself as even remotely prejudiced, racist or bigoted. That’s why I thought it important to mention this to you.
The Race Card on April 22, 2010 at 11:33 AM
After reading this, the birth certificate/certificate of live birth is NOT the issue. What is the issue, is that Barrak Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be president of the United States – there is no documentation that will prove otherwise.
By getting his records sealed, The One has deflected inspection and the determination of his eligibility onto a red herring – which most of us who care about the rules were focused on.
It would be interesting to see what a lawyer would say about a challenge to The One’s election under this information, but more importantly – how do we get him removed? Impeachment, SCOTUS, law suit? Does anyone have an idea?
jackal40 on April 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM
I have to agree with Dave on this one. Obama has no obligation to release his grades. He DOES have an obligation to release proof of his credentials. Apparently 50 states, (er excuse me, 49 states. The affidavit of qualifications sent to Hawaii was different from the other 50 states, probably because Hawaii could check their own files, while other states couldn’t.) election offices were run by incompetent bureaucrats who never bothered to check the candidates credentials.
Obama has an obligation to the people he leads both in the Armed services and the public to know whether or not he’s an usurper. The damage caused by wondering what the truth is is actual, not theoretical.
Military discipline has so far not been seriously damaged, but it would seem that many in the Military don’t know if their orders are lawful or not.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I tend to agree with you. He’s probably hiding something else, instead of his place of birth.
Even so, it’s an open question as to whether or not an American with a British father is a “natural born citizen.” I spent a lot of time in the fall of 2008 researching the natural born citizen issue and my legal conclusion was that he’s not natural born. I know the Framers of the Constitution would certainly have said Obama was NOT natural born. However, I am honest enough to say it’s still an open question that needs to be heard on the merits in front of the Supreme Court.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM
The biggest issue of all that is being ignored in all this birther bullsh*t:
You all have no problem whatsoever in a citizen born in America having more rights than a person who emigrated to America and became an American citizen.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Name one other POTUS that made such an issue of having a foreign born Father prior to an election, and who has been reported and insinuated as having been born in Kenya.
There are several sources claiming Kenyan Birth for Obama, (Way prior to the election) among them National Public Radio. (Just found that out the other day.)
There is (supposedly) a CSPAN debate between Alan Keyes and Barack Obama in which Keyes accuses him of being born in Kenya, and Obama responds “So what? I’m not running for President, I’m running for the US Senate seat from Illinois.”
For what it’s worth, I hated Bill Clinton worse than Barack Obama. At least so far.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM
It would be interesting to see what a lawyer would say about a challenge to The One’s election under this information, but more importantly – how do we get him removed? Impeachment, SCOTUS, law suit? Does anyone have an idea?
jackal40 on April 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM
We do exactly what Arizona is doing. When he refuses to provide the Document necessary to establish his credentials, (for the 2012 election) the Scandal will be big enough the media cannot cover it up.
Enough public/Media outcry will force that document out one way or the other.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Not at all. George Will recently wrote a column discussing how “anchor babies” constitute a misuse and misunderstanding of the requirements of citizenship under the 14th amendment. He cites the Civil rights act of 1866 as having been the document the 14th amendment was derived from, and how it makes the issue far more clear.
In a nutshell, the Writers of the 14th amendment never intended to allow citizenship for non legal immigrant children.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM
On another controversial bill – about allowing police to enforce immigration- Arizona should secure its borders and then -send the bill to DC, for the explicit job required by constituion to be done by federal gvoernment and which it is failing to do. If they are not paid back in full, auction government property in the state of Arizona.
anikol on April 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM
We were promised transparency. The truth will out one way or another.
BHO Jonestown on April 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Not at all. George Will recently wrote a column discussing how “anchor babies” constitute a misuse and misunderstanding of the requirements of citizenship under the 14th amendment. He cites the Civil rights act of 1866 as having been the document the 14th amendment was derived from, and how it makes the issue far more clear.
In a nutshell, the Writers of the 14th amendment never intended to allow citizenship for non legal immigrant children.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM
—–
My point is: A person who moves to America and follows the legal path to full citizenship is not eligible to run for president. He/she therefore has less rights than someone who was born in America. And that is bullsh*t.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 12:00 PM
First of all, from my research, (actually research done by others that i’ve learned about.) being “born” in America isn’t good enough. BOTH parents must be American Citizens.
Second, that is a constitutional issue. It can only be addressed by a constitutional Amendment. If you think that’s unfair, consider that Slaves were only considered to be 3/5ths of a person in the Original US Constitution. (Until the 14th Amendment.)
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Obama’s a fraud, BC or no.
Christien on April 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Says the Canadian.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Going to lunch. Back in an hour or so. Anyone know an Email Address of Allahpundit?
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Says the Canadian.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:19 PM
—–
How’s your petition to stop Hotair from commenting about things happening outside the US going?
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 12:23 PM
It must have hit a snag when someone realized that they could no longer talk about Israel.
Dark-Star on April 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Rywall,
You are totally clueless about our laws and constitution. Comment all you want, but you should know that most of us know you just spew ignorant and uninformed tripe. I went to a U.S. law school with three Canadians who would certainly differ with your understanding of our laws and country. Get an education and then come back and debate. No one cares if you think our laws are b.s.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Almost every single thread, but Obama’s birth by far takes the cake considering every Hot Air blogger has also been trying to convince its readers that Obama was indeed born here, and the facts of his birth and eligibility have been all over the Internet.
Trying to reason with someone on this issue is no easier than trying to reason with a Truther and just as pointless.
I too went to high school and learned basic debate terms.
The problem though is that our Chief Justice and the other eight justices he leads are the interpreters of our law, the people given the final say. Even if he’s made a mistake, he’s still right, legally.
The only way to prove you are correct is if you can get at least five justices to agree with you. And considering Obama satisfied Roberts the rest of our ruling bodies, the onus is on you.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Why are we talking about a mysterious document that only the Governor of Hawaii has seen? Just release that and end it. Why won’t he do it? The Arizona law will be useful as that you cannot get a U.S. passport with that abstract of live birth. Real Hawaiian birth certificates have alot more information on them and the Secretary of State can legally reject the abstract that Obama put on his website.
federale86 on April 22, 2010 at 12:36 PM
There’s a third camp. I figure if nothing else the “Birther” thing is just payback for the unhinged “where was Bush” BS.
Then again, if you hire someone for a job that requires a degree and they can only produce a copy of a diploma and refuse to give HR a signed transcript request form an employer is entitled to wonder.
Speaking of transcripts I’ll bet the reason he refuses to disclose his as Bush, Kerry, and Gore have done is that like Kerry and Gore he had a significantly and embarassingly lower GPA than dummy Bush.
kd6rxl on April 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM
That’s a bit of an overreaction.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 12:39 PM
You are totally clueless about our laws and constitution. Comment all you want, but you should know that most of us know you just spew ignorant and uninformed tripe. I went to a U.S. law school with three Canadians who would certainly differ with your understanding of our laws and country. Get an education and then come back and debate. No one cares if you think our laws are b.s.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM
—–
I must point out to you that you’re commenting on something (my comment) that happened outside your borders.
According to you, that is not allowed here.
Regardless of your huffpuffery about claiming to have gone to law school on an anonymous web board, the 35 age minimum to run for president is a ludicrously arbitrary number, as is the 14 year residency requirement. The born in the USA requirement makes a mockery of the whole idea of citizenship.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Obama was able to do just that. Hawaiians need nothing else to get their passport.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 12:41 PM
How do we even know that Obama was born?
He might be the result of some sort of twisted Russian experiment to mix Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and militant Black Panther in one person. I have it on good authority that Obama was created from a petri dish in a KGB lab. That is why he gets along so well with Medvedev. He was created in the same lab.
That is why people like Glenn Beck mix Communism and Socialism into one giant ball of Leftist pie when doing his daily ridicule of Obama.
Somebody call the FBI and CIA now and give them this information!
Decider on April 22, 2010 at 12:43 PM
It’s really super-awesome when HA posts a hella obvious glue-trap for trolls… and they just can’t help themselves.
Doorgunner on April 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Rywall,
Whatever. I don’t have to prove anything to you. But let me say this, if asked it would take me no more than one minute–the maximum time it would take to go to my filing cabinet upstairs–to produce my diploma college transcript, and bar card. It would take about two minutes to come up with my birth certificate and social security card because I have to spin the dials on my safe to produce those.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Are you sure about that? I don’t have any way to know. But according to an interview Gordon Liddy conducted with the attorney for Lt. Col. Lakin, your assertion is untrue.
Based on my own research, the COLB was at one time (and perhaps still is) insufficient under Hawaiian law for Homestead purposes.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Whatever. I don’t have to prove anything to you. But let me say this, if asked it would take me no more than one minute–the maximum time it would take to go to my filing cabinet upstairs–to produce my diploma college transcript, and bar card. It would take about two minutes to come up with my birth certificate and social security card because I have to spin the dials on my safe to produce those.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM
——
Ah, so your transcripts, that are nobody’s business except your own, are available for public viewing? That’s so awesome.
Dave Rywall on April 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Esthier,
That was an honest question. You may well be correct, but I really want to know how you know that to be true.
flyfisher on April 22, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I have recently looked at my own Certificate of Birth. It lists the hospital, the doctor’s name with signature, a nurse’s name with signature and an administrator’s name with signature.
The best Obama’s sheeple and zombies can point to has none of these. None of them. No hospital. No doctor. No nurse. No administrator.
As Lyndon Johnson would say, “It ain’t worth a warm bucket of spit”.
That anyone can not see this is simply astounding.
MB4 on April 22, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Thing is, you don’t even need a birth certificate to get one.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100004.pdf
1) If the birth certificate was filed more than 1 year after the birth: It must be supported by evidence described in the next paragraph.
2) If no birth record exists: Submit a registrar’s notice to that effect. Also submit a combination of the following: an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, early census, school, or family Bible records, or newspapers or insurance files. Notarized affidavits of persons having knowledge of your birth may be submitted in addition to at least one record listed above. Evidence should include your given name and surname, date and place of birth, and the seal or other certification of the office (if customary) and the signature of the issuing official. Visit travel.state.gov for details.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM
If sometimes wonder if being an Obama sheeple or and Obama zombie is determined more by nature or nurture. Frankly I think it’s probably more by nature.
MB4 on April 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM
I took it as one.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM
I’m inclined to agree. A lot of otherwise ‘normal’ people were suckered in the election, but anyone who still supports him to any real degree is an idiot or fool by birth.
Dark-Star on April 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM
The Unicorn King? That’s pretty good. Dare I say, skittlicious?!
tom on April 22, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Legal rulings can be reversed once the next judge comes along with a different opinion. The fact of legality carries no weight in a debate about actual facts and truth.
Many have made the point that it makes no practical difference. No, but it makes a philosophical difference. The first thing we need to do is not lie to ourselves about what the facts actually are, regardless of what the Legal system (which has no trouble throwing out annoying facts. i.e. the “exclusionary rule.” ) says.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 1:27 PM
How many presidents have been born to a foreign national who was a British subject, then spent the early years of their lives living in a foreign country?
It’s not exactly hard to understand why Obama might get a little extra skepticism on the “natural born” requirement. Unless you’re just stooopid.
tom on April 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM
BWAHAHAHAH….hey squidly, you just made my point. An exception had to be made then because there were NO natural born citizens at that point because no 35 yr old had one parent let alone two parents born in the United states….kind of like Obama, who does NOT meet that definition or the only constitutional exception allowed.
Fighton03 on April 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM
They can be, but until they are, they are the law.
Of course it does, because until someone can resurrect the Founders, these are the people we’ve selected as official interpreters of the Constitution. Them, not you or me or anyone else.
It only does if you are correct. And you still have to prove that you are the only legal way possible, by appealing to the interpreters of the Constitution or raising the dead.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM
I completely agree on this point. People who don’t understand the extra skepticism are either trying to paint the opposition as racist or are intentionally ignorant.
However, that doesn’t mean Obama should be forced to do something that no other president has had to do.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Could be. But perhaps it’s also because they weren’t blessed with having you on the jury so you could guide them with your superior intellect and judgment?
*I* too am adopted as are *Both* of my children and *We All* have TWO birth certificates. Big deal and so what.
Bottom line is, for whatever reason, you’ve skirted the statement and my question again. Perhaps you’re unable to answer it? Or maybe it’s elsewhere in the thread and I’ve missed it?
In any case, here it is again: Seeing that you’ve have set yourself up in both name and comments as the definitive arbitrator of truth, what “truth” would you accept as evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth?
It’s a simple question that you can answer with one simple word: “Nothing.”
However, if there is something that you would accept and would lead you to say, “I’m convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, what is it and why would you accept it?
Rod on April 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM
This is another appeal to the “Authority fallacy.” The law does not govern whether something is factual or not. They govern whether it is Declared “Factual.” (by the Authorities.)
This only means they have the ability to enforce their opinion. It does not mean their opinion is correct.
This is an example of another type of fallacy. I forget what it is called, but it is of the form, “If A=B, and C=D, then A=D.”
Raising the Dead is not required, and the meaning of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause can be easily discerned by reading the available information from the founding era.
Mario Apuzzo has an abundance of information available on what the founders meant. Here’s one example of a very clear explanation by a founder and Historian.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM
“DiogenesLamp casts ‘Raise Dead’.”
*rolls dice*
“As DiogenesLamp uttrs the final incantation, a ghoulish skeletal figure wielding a scythe appears in a cloud of purple smoke. Terror turns to bewilderment as the fiend goes into hysterics, his eerie laughter echoing throughout the room. After a few minutes the Reaper vanishes. He leaves behind a skull with “this time I laugh, next time you cry” carved into it.”
“DiogenesLamp must now roll against his Will stat to see if he soiled his undergarments upon seeing the Grim Reaper.”
Dark-Star on April 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM
:)
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 1:52 PM
That’s right, give dems more ammo of GOP wackiness for their campaign ads. Arizona goes birther, Georgia bans chips being implanted in booties and bartering with chickens. Maybe next week one of our Senators will announce he is really an alien from another planet and announce it on CSPAN.
fastestslug on April 22, 2010 at 1:55 PM
You’re arguing that he wasn’t eligible according to the Constitution. Our Supreme Court is what actually determines whether or not something is Constitutional. So, again, it’s not an appeal, it’s a rebuttal.
For all intents and purposes, it does. That’s why we have nine unelected men and women in robes interpreting the Constitution and why we’ve agreed to go with whatever they say as the ultimate referees.
Except I didn’t do that, and you have it wrong anyway. It’s: if A=B and B=C, then A=C, i.e., if all women carry purses, and a man is carrying a purse, then he’s a woman.
Of course people can read this information and form their own opinions, ones completely counter to yours. That’s why we have the Supreme Court, and that’s why it’s acceptable that even among them, there are 5-4 rulings.
If everything was so cut and dry, these people wouldn’t be needed or would always issue unanimous decisions.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM
With his hidden background and questionable associates, Obama could no way in hell get a security clearance to read the briefings they hand him every day.
Who is John Galt on April 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Never assume that the Supreme Court didn’t address this issue because of “authority.”
It could be laziness or politicians not wanting to rock the boat (DC riots) in which they enjoy the good life ruling on the peons, or because they can get away with it.
Any one aware of Buzzy Ginsburg’s routine naps (face down, out cold) during proceedings or the whacked out bases claimed for deciding Roe and Kelo will know of what I speak.
viking01 on April 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM
You are making an “Ex Cathedra” argument concerning the Supreme Court. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln can explain this to you more clearly.
In court one day, Lincoln asked a witness “Suppose you call a tail a leg. How many legs would a sheep have?” The man answered “five”. Lincoln said “No. Four. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn’t make it so. ”
Yeah, that worked out really well in the Worcester v. Georgia case, and the Dred Scott Vs. Sanford case. Take away their enforcement powers, and nobody cares about their opinion.
Ha ha ha ha… Reminds me of a joke. A doctor once asked a very old lady if she had ever been bedridden. She replied, “Oh yes, lots of times. I’ve even had a roll in the hay. ”
The woman’s response indicated she didn’t understand. So does yours.
I thought you said they could read? :)
One would think that was the case, but after having seen the example of the birther issue, I no longer believe that what is obvious, is obvious to everyone else. The fact that a court decision would be split 5/4 proves there are at least 4 dumb asses in the mix. :)
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Coming from the high school debate captain, I couldn’t possibly care less. Be a condescending tool if you want, but you’re not proving your point and only look like an idiot who thinks he knows so much that just isn’t so (to paraphrase).
I’d assume you have better things to do, but I’m not as dumb as you think I am.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM
I’d assume you have better things to do, but I’m not as dumb as you think I am.
Esthier on April 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM
My apologies. I think I have wasted too much of your time already.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Arizona is beginning to show the country why John appears to be “flip-flopping.”
Jeesh*
Well, once Arkansas passed a bill to round off the value of PI.
Factoid.
AnninCA on April 22, 2010 at 3:35 PM
“Simply have Congress” pass what the public demands, given ObamaCare, is obviously NOT “easy peasy”.
More to the point, however, is Allahpundit’s rude stipulation that only the Federal authoritarians decide what may or may not be done about anything at all: State Rights and the Constitution be damned. Neoconservative weasel wouldn’t want to do anything uncomfortable.
maverick muse on April 22, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Why wouldn’t Arizona’s standard of proof be what Hawaii would also require?
Dumb@ss Allahp. So why doesn’t every state govern the same as California or Massachusetts?
The fact that Obama OR ANYONE broke/breaks from the Constitution so easy peasy suits Allahp and neoconservatives just fine and dandy. Wouldn’t want to have law enforcement, such an uncomfortable task. It’s a good thing NOT that government employees feel so strongly about fulfilling their Constitutional duties in office. Easy peasy pudding and pie in your eye.
maverick muse on April 22, 2010 at 4:11 PM
The genuine COLB has 2 things Obama wants nobody to see:
1) note of an amendment made in 2006, almost certainly to the medical portion – which means that neither Obama nor his mama were available to be seen by a Hawaii doctor within 30 days after the birth; and
2) a certificate number beginning with 151-2006-xxxxxx.
The HDOH has indirectly confirmed, through official communications, that Obama’s BC is amended and that either the date filed or the certificate number (or both) have been forged on the Factcheck COLB.
The DOH administrative rules – which were illegally hidden until November of 2009 – say that any birth certificate (including the abbreviated form, or COLB) needs to have note of amendments made. Since the Factcheck COLB doesn’t note the amendment we know it is forged.
Janice Okubo has stated that birth certificates from Oahu have always been received at the state registrar’s office and given a number from the state registrar on the same day, the “date filed”. The Factcheck COLB has a “date filed” 3 days earlier than the Nordyke twins’ BC’s but a certificate number 2 later than theirs. In the past people have tried to explain that away by saying there were stacks of BC’s lying around for 3 days. But Okubo’s statement shows that not to be the case. Because the date and number are incompatible the Factcheck COLB is known to be a forgery with at least one of those items altered.
I’ve posted this on Hot Air in the past. Allahpundit and Ed are steadfastly ignoring the available information which has caused them to lose almost all their credibility with me. But the documentation – including the communications from the HDOH and references to the statutes and rules which interpret the responses – are found at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/ .
The bill in Arizona would be poison to Obama because if the real COLB was seen it would show that the BC has been amended, and according to Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 an amended BC doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence. IOW the best that Hawaii has for documentation on Obama is mere legal hearsay.
THAT is a problem. Especially since what’s on that legal hearsay shows that Obama was not examined by a Hawaii doctor within 30 days of his birth – the only thing keeping him from being able to have kissed this issue good-bye a long, long time ago.
justincase on April 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM
TEst
justincase on April 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Sigh. I’ve got low blood sugar, I’m fighting to not have to be hospitalized with pneumonia, I’ve had to type the information twice already, and I have to type it again because the moderators here don’t want to hear what I have to say. It’s been the same routine at Fox, Salon, Star-Bulletin, and Politico. Sigh.
I’ll try the shortened version and see if it gets through.
The genuine COLB has note of an amendment made in 2006 which was required because Obama was not seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days after his birth. The certificate number begins with 151-2006-xxxxxx.
That’s why he showed a forged COLB on Factcheck instead of the genuine he has in his possession.
And yes, this is all corroborated by the Hawaii Department of Health. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
justincase on April 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Yeah that’s nice and all but I remember the clamor and claptrap about amending the US Constitution so that Arnold Schwarzenegger might run. Republicans en-masse discussed this as a possibility. The discrepancy may not be based upon but Obama’s ethnic lineage. But that just doesn’t seem realistic.
You must understand how it seems to many people. I suspect that very little effort has been put into researching the sex lives of POTUS-parents.
The Race Card on April 22, 2010 at 4:58 PM
The operative word is “AMEND”. Thank God that never happened! Considering how badly Schwarzenegger is running California, I dare say he is the only one I can imagine who might be worse than Obama.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 5:03 PM
I, too, often add a similar disclaimer but omitted to on this thread because it becomes tiresome but it’s notable that the issue seemingly cannot be discussed without a sizable faction resorting to leaps and bounds assumptions often couched in mockery. (Like, if one makes some points on the matter that deviates even a teensy bit from “you’re a nutty birther!” it is presumed they must espouse a certain position.)
Something few have seemed to consider…Obama has produced that COLB, what if the AZ SoS deems it enough? Is the bill still “stupid”? (Asked not to you but the presumers and assumers who don’t want to be bothered with something so mundane as a real thought.)
KittyLowrey on April 22, 2010 at 5:24 PM
It’s interesting, if not telling, that the only time this has ever been an issue is with Pres Obama.
The Race Card on April 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Your “BS” is today’s U.S. America’s law, which could legally be changed…what is your beef?
Schadenfreude on April 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM
None other spent this much, aside from dough, to hide so little.
You are way more clever than this argument. That huge brain mussle of yours sometimes goes on hold…due…to…emotions…bring it in, buddy.
Schadenfreude on April 22, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Apparently, “factoid” means something that makes for an interesting story without actually being true.
The bill in question was in Indiana (House Bill #246 in 1897), and it never made it past the Senate (though it did get past the House). It also did not attempt to “round off” the value of pi, but instead gave people a choice(!) of three different formulae to use, giving possible substitute values of 3.2, roughly 3.23, or 4.
Rounding from pi would give none of those results.
VekTor on April 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Are you not getting the fact that this is the first time this subject has been brought up in our lifetime?
The last two idiot Democrat Presidents did not claim to be born overseas, nor did they have a foreign born father.
What you keep insinuating is that people only bring this up because they are racist. That argument is old, and doesn’t scare anyone anymore.
I personally was happy that the country had become tolerant enough to elect a black man. I was horribly disgusted that they picked an idiot.
DiogenesLamp on April 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Can either of you point, in the Constitution, or other historical documents where it says becoming President of the U.S. is A RIGHT???
NightmareOnKStreet on April 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Pi is useful in politics.
It helps us to calculate the circumference of Zero’s B.S’ers Circle where r=Rahm and multiplied by so many Axelrods give one the B.S.’s area.
viking01 on April 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM
The mass (in kilos) of Zero’s B.S. can be calculated directly by dividing the number of times he says “I” or “me” on a topic by the number of times M.O. has been proud of her country.
viking01 on April 22, 2010 at 5:52 PM
~insert standard “I am not a birther” (or “Birfer” as some charmingly call it)~
But…
Many candidates have had to address the issue and they managed to do it in a serious and complete manner sans the mockery and ridicule. And while not being a “birther”, I must say, with much more documentation than that provided by Barack Obama. John McCain, for example, produced his short form and that was deemed not good enough. He produced the long form and off the reporters went cross-checking every last detail listed therein. As well they should and could. Then the endless debate about whether his birth outside of the U.S. presented an issue and when the Senate passed their declaration that was also presented as not the end of the matter.
So, the pretense that poor Barack is the one and only soul so persecuted is so much steaming B.S.
KittyLowrey on April 22, 2010 at 5:59 PM
What good are passing (AZ or other) state or federal laws in a country where our highest leaders ignore the constitution? If the press did their job, they’d be asking for the documents to contradict or confirm Obama’s OWN admission (please turn to page 26 of his AUTObiography, “Dreams of My Father”) that he was, at birth, a British Citizen, governed, as was his father, under the British Immigration Act of 1948.
.
Obama freely admitted to being born a British citizen. That disqualifies him under A2S1C5 of our Constitution.
.
“Was the President lying then or is he lying now?” should be the start of every daily WH press briefing. It would be if a Republican occupied the Oval Office..
.
One day soon that question will be answered & it will be the end of many careers, & likely the beginning of many jail sentences.
.
HotAir readers aren’t likely to read about the latest case calling for Obama to prove his eligibility: Lt. Col. Terry Lakin (see his own video here). He is refusing to re-deploy without proof Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be C-in-C. This patriot has a 22 year pension to lose, not to mention being court martialled & sentenced to years of hard labor. Before the trolling Obots start calling him an idiot or a coward, he’s a career Army SURGEON with plenty of battlefield experience, who is more than willing to go back into combat.
.
Clear thinking people will know that NO Commander-in-Chief would REPEATEDLY stress members of our brave military. Many of whom have courageously put their careers & their safety on line by seeking to uphold & defend our Constitution- even by filing a lawsuit when all ELSE failed. IF TOYING WITH THE CAREERS of brave men like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, whose service as A BATTLEFIELD SURGEON IS DESPERATELY NEEDED IN AFGHANISTAN isn’t TREASONIST (giving aid & comfort to the enemy), for God’s sake, what is?
NightmareOnKStreet on April 22, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »