A fresh look at Arizona’s “Birther bill”

posted at 6:00 pm on April 17, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

This past week saw old stories becoming new again as the state legislature of Arizona passed what has been commonly referred to as the “birther bill,” and sent it to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk for signature. This immediately raised many of the same hackles on both sides of the aisle regarding President Obama, a fight I have no interest in rehashing here today. However, it does bring up some important questions, both in terms of common sense and constitutionality, which merit a fresh look.

Before getting to the legal issues, I would first insert a brief note of what seems to be common sense. To get the politics out of the debate, let us assume for a moment that questions had never arisen over the circumstances of the president’s birth. (And to keep folks on both sides of the aisle happy, let us also say that John McCain had been born in Arizona and not Panama.) There are very few actual minimum qualifications to be president – in fact, there are really only two. Why would we find it so unreasonable that the states would expect proof that both of those qualifications were met by any candidate prior to having their name entered on the ballot? Perhaps a better question might be, why weren’t all of the states doing that already?

But common sense and the law intersect only rarely, so we should give the constitutional soundness of the law a fair look. To get started, I strongly suggest you take a look at attorney Doug Mataconis’ piece at Outside the Beltway on the subject where he has done the research and legwork already. Doug breaks the analysis down into three areas, two of which I take some exception with and one which passes the technical smell test while looking a bit sketchy in the court of common sense.

First he examines the 12th and 20th amendments, clarifying who controls the ability to define the qualifications for office. This part is clear enough and stands on its own, assuming Arizona was trying to change the requirements to hold the office of president. But this law doesn’t seek to do that.

This dovetails nicely into Mataconis’ second point, that of previous court decisions over the rights of states to determine ballot access requirements. He cites the case of U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, where Arkansas attempted to introduce congressional term limits by amending the state constitution. The Supreme Court shot that one down, and for good reason. The real effect of the amendment resulted in the state essentially adding a new requirement for holding office which did not exist in the United States constitution. (That being that the candidate must not have served more than “x” terms in the office previously.) But again, the Arizona law does not add a new requirement for presidential candidates, so I’m not sure it applies here. (See Doug’s article for the applicable excerpts from the court decision and decide for yourself.)

The final piece of the puzzle which Doug examines is much harder to get around, were one inclined to try, and invokes the Full Faith and Credit clause (FF&C) of the constitution.

Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution requires states to give full faith and credit to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. This includes accepting as genuine records from a sister state that have been officially certified under seal from the appropriate record keeper. Under Arizona’s law, the Hawaii Certification Of Live Birth, which is an official document from the State of Hawaii, and the only birth record that the state releases. By failing to accept this document, even for the limited purpose that this law is written for, Arizona would be failing to give full faith and credit to the records of not just Hawaii, but every other state that only issues COLB’s as birth records.

On the surface there is very little to argue here. The states are, indeed, constitutionally required to accept the legal records and documents of their sister states. But the question raised here is not so much to do with pending Arizona legislation as with modern interpretation of the FF&C clause. This is one which shares a great deal in common with its bastard cousin, the interstate commerce clause. Both were of pressing concern and importance to the founders at the time the constitution was written. And both gradually became irrelevant and little thought of for generations until being resurrected and re-purposed by both Congress and the courts in very dodgy ways a century or more later.

While the commerce clause is perhaps the most abused of any today – abducted by Congress to give themselves the power to make laws covering everything from murder to environmental protection – the FF&C clause has the potential to “evolve” nearly as much. The founders had a very different vision of the United States than what we eventually wound up with. They pictured a looser confederation of powerful, nearly autonomous states, each making many of their own rules and regulations, occasionally scrapping with each other and possibly getting involved in trade wars or other disputes. It was a rather different vision of the union than the nearly seamless tapestry of states we see today with virtually unrestricted borders and a very powerful central federal government.

These clauses were put in place to avoid those worst case scenarios. In Federalist 42, Madison wrote about this extensively, describing the FF&C clause as being “indeterminate and of little importance” except in the prevention of individual states from totally warping the justice system to their own ends.

The power of prescribing by general laws, the manner in which the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States, is an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the articles of Confederation. The meaning of the latter is extremely indeterminate, and can be of little importance under any interpretation which it will bear. The power here established may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous States, where the effects liable to justice may be suddenly and secretly translated, in any stage of the process, within a foreign jurisdiction.

It’s hard to believe that Madison would have imagined this clause of “little importance” eventually being used to settle a food fight between two states over which version of a birth certificate could be acceptable to get on the ballot. And generally, as I said, this is one of the ones which traditionally receives little attention. If you have a drivers license in Florida you can drive in Georgia, at least until you’ve stayed there long enough to put your state of residence in question. If your ID shows you are old enough to hold a full time job in your home state, it’s good enough for employers over the border in the next one.

Of course, today FF&C will continue to get more attention for political reasons than legal ones. If you get married in New York, you don’t have to get married again when you and your spouse move to California. But what if you happen to be two women who got married in Vermont and you move to Georgia? Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

In summary, I don’t have a technical grudge against the FF&C argument saying that Arizona should be forced to accept the state regulated certification of birth from Hawaii or other locations in the country. But as to the central question, should they be allowed to define what documents are required to prove eligibility to appear on the ballot, assuming they don’t add any new requirements for office not found in the constitution? There are already wide variations from state to state on requirements placed on office seekers in terms of forms to be filed, fees to be paid, signatures to be gathered, etc. Shouldn’t the states be able to determine what ID they will accept as proof of minimum age and status as a “natural born citizen?”

The current arguments over Obama’s circumstances of birth may have poisoned the well too much for us to have a reasoned, rationale debate on this for now.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

Soon Oklahoma will pass an even stricter bill, then Texas, then a bunch of other states. The fact is, once Soetoro challenges the law in court – he’ll automatically confirm that he doesn’t have a birth certificate, then everyone not a left wing troll shill will become a “birther”.

Either way, Soetoro loses.

Rebar on April 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM

My point exactly. The politics of challenging Arizona (or any other state) just don’t work. People will REALIZE that something stinks like a rotten corpse if he challenges that law.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I still want to pound the “beer” scenario. Buying beer is a transaction, regulated by the state. Certain documents are required, in order to buy beer.

In California, should one misplace one’s driver’s license, one must go to the DMV, where one receives a paper temporary license. This temporary license is considered sufficient documentation to DRIVE, but is NOT acceptable to buy beer.

This shows that the state can mandate that a specific document may be sufficient for one use but not for another.

Also, I have also seen more than once, in areas frequented by young folk, bars that would not accept a foreign passport or military ID. I was once also rejected with a passport, although it had required as much documentation to procure, as a driver’s license.

The point is that a state reserves the power to determine exactly WHICH proof of age it will accept to sell beer.

Ergo, just because Hawaii accepts 0bama’s COLB, does not mean that Arizona has to.

Also, didn’t I read that Arizona’s law is specifically asking for hospital info? They can do that if they want.

Just like the beer-sale issue, the issue never has been if I’m 21. All of us at one time or another have seen a gray-haired 65-year-old get carded, and laughed about it. As I very heatedly argued the time my passport was rejected, they don’t care whether you’re 21 – they care WHETHER YOUR “PAPERS” ARE IN ORDER!

And I certainly do care, and Arizona cares, and 0bama and his defenders can go to HELL on this issue.

Put up or shut up, Mr. President A–h-le, Sir!

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM

No, if the DOJ challenges the law in court it’ll confirm that Hawaii doesn’t release original copies of birth certificates. If Hawaii changes their policy, then Obama will just obtain a copy and present it to AZ to satisfy the requirements. Either way, you lose.

Why would the DOJ be involved? The only possible injured party is Obama. What would be DOJ’s argument for standing?

Even if they could make one, the publicity for Obama’s DOJ fighting to prevent him from showing people the truth will not go over well politically.

Who’s “Soetoro”?

Ah, I remember your little theory now. Have you found the legal documentation proving the name change yet?

LOL.

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Funny, when you don’t want to acknowledge adoption laws (such as the Amending of birth certificates) you pretend to be completely unaware of them. But when you DO want to invoke adoption laws (Adoptions are secret and Sealed.) you demand proof that you fully well know cannot be produced, even though it is quite evident from a preponderance of the available evidence that Obama WAS adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

You are apparently a dishonest Law student, and i’m sure you’ll make a wonderful dishonest lawyer.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I wish everyone would state what it is they wish from 0. He actually has submitted a certified copy of his birth certificate. What we want is the LONG FORM birth certificate, not the short form he has submitted. If everyone would use that statement, they wouldn’t be subject to the rebuttal of “He has shown his birth certificate”. True, but not the LONG FORM which tells who gave the information and also gives info on his parents, which could be enough to prove he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen of the US. That is not saying he was not born in HI, but that he doesn’t meet the requirements of NATURAL BORN.

Oleta on April 17, 2011 at 9:36 PM

On the other hand it could prove that he is. If it says his father is “Frank Davis” (an American Citizen) then his birth certificate could establish that he was born to TWO American Citizens, and is therefore a “Natural Born Citizen.”

Of course, it might cost him the election if the public discovered the truth, but what is wrong with the voting public knowing the truth?

That begs the question. Rukiddingme, cn6, New_Jersey_Buckey, et al…

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PUBLIC KNOWING THE TRUTH?

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Oleta on April 17, 2011 at 9:36 PM

If one is convinced he is ‘not natural born’ because his father was not a US citizen, it seems peculiar to want more evidence than what has already been provided.

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Why do you INSIST on being DISHONEST?

You have adopted children yourself, you KNOW that birth records get amended, yet you INSIST on trying to make us believe that that computer print-out is completely true and unassailable proof, even when you KNOW that it is not.

You are effectively LYING to us.

Why do you INSIST on being DISHONEST?

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM

You Kos kiddies need to get new talking points. Nobody believes it any more.

sharrukin on April 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Ha! He doesn’t even believe it himself! He has ADMITTED that he has two (or more) adopted children. He has at least TWO birth certificates in his possession listing himself as the FATHER of those children he adopted.

He knows fully well that the State will pass off false information as the truth on birth certificates because he has at least TWO examples in his possession!

He is being INTENTIONALLY dishonest when he claims that computer print-out is “evidence.” It’s not evidence, it’s just a print-out of whatever is currently in the record. It gives little hint of what was originally IN the record.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM

From RedState.com: Newspaper Publishers in the Black Community Think Barack Obama is Foreign Born

tetriskid on April 17, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I thought Erick Erickson’s website was not going to permit ANY discussion of any “birther” topics? I’ve always considered him to be a sort of Fascist worm since he made that announcement, and I have little use for his opinion or his website.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I voted against 0bama, as much or more than for McCain, but still hoped he would surprise me and do well.

But his arrogant refusal at the very outset to humor concerned Americans like me and release his birth certificate made me turn against him irrevocably, and for this reason alone.

I am a registered independent, and 0bama lost my supporrt over this one issue, before he turned out to be such an awful president.

For those who sometimes still float the idea that 0bama did this to somehow make those who want to verify his eligibility look bad, I say:

What does it profit him to throw away the support of independents like me, just to toy with me?

No intellectually honest American can any longer, at this juncture doubt that there is something in his paperwork that calls his eligibility into question. I don’t even think it’s just something embarrassing anymore. He’s got to feel that there’s chance he’ll be found ineligible. No other reason to throw away so many votes. And, more and more, Pelosi’s signature under a certification that removed the constitutional verbiage, looks like a trail of smoke leading right back to the barrel of a very long gun.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I wonder if Pelosi actually read the text she signed, after she signed the Hawaii nomination certification a second time, or whether a staffer shoved it in front of her and she wasn’t paying enough attention to the language?

If she goes to trial over this, you gotta bet she’ll claim she didn’t read it.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM

A trail would be good… the sooner the better…

Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM

And PLEASE let crr6 work on the case… pro bono of course…

Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 12:40 PM

And PLEASE let crr6 work on the case… pro bono of course…

Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I would not wish crr6′s legal council on my worst enemy.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Who would have “Standing”?

Birthers.

The political ramifications of his filing suit to prevent Arizona from seeing his REAL birth certificate would absolutely destroy his chances of winning.

He may not have to file suit. If not, birthers will.

Can a Judge Amend a Birth Certificate?
DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Of course.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Why do you INSIST on being DISHONEST?

Thank you for pointing out that Barack Obama Sr. was not a US citizen is being dishonest.

You have adopted children yourself, you KNOW that birth records get amended, yet you INSIST on trying to make us believe that that computer print-out is completely true and unassailable proof, even when you KNOW that it is not.

Ah, the return of the specious argument that I am not the father of my children because they are adopted.

You are effectively LYING to us.

Why do you INSIST on being DISHONEST?

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I don’t. Birthers have that market cornered.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

He has at least TWO birth certificates in his possession listing himself as the FATHER of those children he adopted.

I do. I am their father.

He knows fully well that the State will pass off false information as the truth on birth certificates because he has at least TWO examples in his possession!

There is no false information of the birth certificates of my children. I am their father.

He is being INTENTIONALLY dishonest when he claims that computer print-out is “evidence.” It’s not evidence, it’s just a print-out of whatever is currently in the record.

It is evidence accepted by courts, schools, doctors, little league baseball, etc..

That you refuse to accept that is of no concern to me.

It gives little hint of what was originally IN the record.
DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM

What is in their original record is irrelevant.

What is relevant is I am their father and they are my sons.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I voted against 0bama, as much or more than for McCain, but still hoped he would surprise me and do well.

But his arrogant refusal at the very outset to humor concerned Americans like me and release his birth certificate made me turn against him irrevocably, and for this reason alone.

I am a registered independent, and 0bama lost my supporrt over this one issue, before he turned out to be such an awful president.

For those who sometimes still float the idea that 0bama did this to somehow make those who want to verify his eligibility look bad, I say:

What does it profit him to throw away the support of independents like me, just to toy with me?

No intellectually honest American can any longer, at this juncture doubt that there is something in his paperwork that calls his eligibility into question. I don’t even think it’s just something embarrassing anymore. He’s got to feel that there’s chance he’ll be found ineligible. No other reason to throw away so many votes. And, more and more, Pelosi’s signature under a certification that removed the constitutional verbiage, looks like a trail of smoke leading right back to the barrel of a very long gun.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM

A great, great post. Some people’s BS detectors are completely inactive.

The incurious, enabling suppressors among us don’t really care to understand/explain why that Constitutional verbiage you mentioned would have needed to be changed the way it was. They also don’t really care to understand/explain why 0bamessiah decided that it was more important to him to let Lt. Col. Lakin get court-martialed and go to jail than show Lakin proof of his eligibility. What kind of “man” would do that? Certainly not a presidential one. A normal, decent person with nothing to hide simply does not treat another human being that way – normal, decent people would rather go to jail themselves than have the other person go in that kind of situation. I can’t fathom how someone could be that callous and selfish, nor can I fathom how someone could choose 0bamessiah’s side over Lakin’s – some people are plain heartless.

0bamessiah’s useful-idiot enablers also dont care to understand/explain why Hawaiian state officials would bother telling the laughable lie about LFBCs not being being available to the end-public since 2001 – not only did the state of Hawaii explicitly explain how to get LFBCs on its official website up until June 2009, person after person has shown LFBCs they’ve received from the Hawaii in the last 2 years after that time even.

Just how stupid and blind are all of these people?

Bizarro No. 1 on April 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Can a Judge Amend a Birth Certificate?
DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Of course.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Finally! So what evidence do you have that Barack’s “short form” birth certificate is not amended? Blogger “butterzillion” says that Hawaiian nomenclature on the certificate says that it was.

Other circumstantial evidence is the Indonesian school record, comments by his friends and contemporaries and the missing document in Stanley Ann Dunham’s divorce decree from Lolo Soetoro. (Thought to be his Amended birth certificate because this is normal practice in dealing with an adopted minor child during a divorce.)

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Ah, the return of the specious argument that I am not the father of my children because they are adopted.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

You are not the “BIRTH” father (Which is what a “BIRTH” certificate alleges) or you would have no need to ADOPT them.

Do not try to hide behind legally condoned lies. You are only exposing your dishonesty.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

It is evidence accepted by courts, schools, doctors, little league baseball, etc..

That you refuse to accept that is of no concern to me.

In most situations it makes little difference if you were the birth father or if someone else was. In considering eligibility for the office of the Presidency, it makes all the difference in the world. The laws justifying the fabrication of false birth documents is intended to benefit Adopted children. It was never intended to perpetrate a FRAUD on the American People, and to directly interfere with the ability to insure compliance to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

It has been bastardized into serving that purpose, and this attempted fraud is DEFENDED by people like you who absolutely know the truth yet persist in trying to convince others that a LIE is true.

What is in their original record is irrelevant.

What is relevant is I am their father and they are my sons.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I wasn’t referring to your son’s records, I was referring to Barack’s original records, and YES, it makes all the difference what is in those records.

What is wrong with letting the American People Know the truth?

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Good luck on your dealings with the conceited, tiresome rukiddingme, who ludicrously cries when perceiving to be pesonally attacked, while having no qualms about his own similar behavior towards others.

I myself have no patience for such whiny losers with double-standards, who would rather bicker than make honest attempts to resolve disputes! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

You have many questions, yet the only relevant question is born on US soil.

You are not the “BIRTH” father

Never said I was the ‘birth’ father’, I have repeatedly stated I am their father.

(Which is what a “BIRTH” certificate alleges) or you would have no need to ADOPT them.

Their birth certificates state I am their father. The law agrees, but more importantly, so do my children.

That you do not accept this is of no concern to me.

Do not try to hide behind legally condoned lies. You are only exposing your dishonesty.
DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Amusing that you believe it’s dishonest for me to assert I am their father. You seem to be stuck on only their ‘birth’ father can be their father.

Yet, this position is strikingly similar to your opinion that only one born to US citizens can possess allegiance to the USA. As was expected, you could not be more wrong.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I’m not a lawyer but a particular state requiring that a candidate provide the long form from the state in which he were born would have nothing to do with this only in that if a state requires a long form then it has to accept the long form from hawaii. If hawaii refuses to send the long form to that state it would seem they are the state violating the ff&c. If that state refused they would be taking an advocacy position.

Neither am I a lawyer, but that’s an excellent point. As I understand the Arizona law, it would be up to the person declaring an intention to run for President to produce the document, not the state. But the Hawaiian government has been running interference for Obama constantly, and if patterns persist, it might quickly decide on policy changes that would protect BHO from having to release the long-form. I don’t know of a legal principle that the State of Hawaii would be protecting by saying that a candidate for President should not have to produce a copy of a record required by another state in order to meet Constitutional muster, but if he still refuses to produce it, I am sure Hawaii will trot something out there anyway, eventually daring the Supreme Court to weigh in.

I would assume that anyone can request either thier personal long form or a credible and acceptable facsimile from hawaii, especially if they are already the potus. Don’t get me wrong, I think the slug was born in hawaii but the birth certificate gives caucasion as the race and unknown as the father. I think barry doesn’t want any records released because thier may be other incriminating stuff in there such as falsifying school and scholarship applications. This guy didn’t wake up and become a dirtbag on inauguration day, he was that way for a long time.

peacenprosperity on April 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

I think you’re on the right track, but it should be noted that the race of the infant is NOT a category listed on a 1961 long form, only that of the parents. Neither is there a category on the long-form for religion of either the parents or the child, which Trump has erroneously suggested in at least one interview (Meredith Vieira). Remember, if a 1961 long-form for Obama exists, we know it looks exactly like these from his former grade-school classmates, twin sisters Susan and Gretchen Nordyke. If you buy Obama’s account of having been born at Kapiolani Hospital on August 4, 1961, the Nordyke sisters arrived eighteen hours afterward in the same maternity ward.

With the passage of the Arizona measure (and hopefully the quick signing by Gov. Brewer), we are approaching a point of critical mass when the question must be asked: Why Obama would continue to spend a second more of his time or another nickel of his money to conceal a record he insists does indeed exist? As you subject yourself to MSM coverage of the controversy (as painful as it may be), take note of the fact that nearly all reporters (even those from Fox News) refuse to address the fact that it is Obama and his administration that keeps this issue going — instead, they pre-emptively suggest that the issue has already been settled and remaining questions are illegitimate, relieving him of any reason to address the topic at all (except in terms of how annoyed he is with it).

L.N. Smithee on April 18, 2011 at 3:31 PM

You have many questions, yet the only relevant question is born on US soil.

I disagree completely. That is the only bit of information that makes absolutely no difference in my opinion. Being born in a Stable does not make you a horse, even though you ARE the rear half of a horse.

You are not the “BIRTH” father

Never said I was the ‘birth’ father’, I have repeatedly stated I am their father.

I am not disputing whether you are their “father” I am disputing that YOUR NAME should be on their “BIRTH” Certificate. It should not because it is not true.

(Which is what a “BIRTH” certificate alleges) or you would have no need to ADOPT them.

Their birth certificates state I am their father. The law agrees, but more importantly, so do my children.

If you had a legal document proclaiming you to be the rear part of a horse, no doubt you would agree with that. I know I would agree with such a document.

HOWEVER. That doesn’t make it true. You only ACT like the rear part of a horse.

That you do not accept this is of no concern to me.

Then why do you still argue about it? Hmmm?????

Do not try to hide behind legally condoned lies. You are only exposing your dishonesty.
DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Amusing that you believe it’s dishonest for me to assert I am their father. You seem to be stuck on only their ‘birth’ father can be their father.

No, i’m stuck on only their “birth” father can be their “birth” father. For someone who believes anything the state tells you, you might not be able to comprehend the distinction.

Yet, this position is strikingly similar to your opinion that only one born to US citizens can possess allegiance to the USA. As was expected, you could not be more wrong.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Amazing that I have some sort of admitted consistency isn’t it? Now if only YOU had some sort of consistency. Wait! You do! You are consistently wrong! :)

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

I am late to DiogenesLamp & rukiddingme’s argument, but if rukiddingme is defending false information being placed on a birth certificate, let me ask this: If unbeknownst to rukiddingme, his nephew had committed a horrendous crime, and his totally innocent adopted son had been picked up as a suspect based somehow on familial DNA testing indicating a relative of rukiddingme was the culprit, would he then continue the folly perpetrated by a birth certificate implying he was his adopted son’s birth father?

L.N. Smithee on April 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM

If you get married in New York, you don’t have to get married again when you and your spouse move to California. But what if you happen to be two women who got married in Vermont and you move to Georgia? Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

The Defense of Marriage Act is, and always has been unconstitutional. The only solution is a constitutional amendment as was proposed by President Bush.

As far as birth certificates, the qualification of being born in the United States has nearly become obsolete to any deceiver due to the stupidity of states creating very brief and easily forge-able certificates. (I believe even Arizona stopped issuing long form certificates after 1990) In 40 years it will be impossible to ask for a long form certificate from many states, because they simply won’t have issued one at birth!)

scotash on April 18, 2011 at 4:57 PM

I am not disputing whether you are their “father” I am disputing that YOUR NAME should be on their “BIRTH” Certificate. It should not because it is not true.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

It is true as both my children were adopted ‘at birth’ and that’s when I became their father. As such, their birth certificates were amended to reflect same.

You may keep the rear end of the horse.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM

It is true as both my children were adopted ‘at birth’ and that’s when I became their father. As such, their birth certificates were amended to reflect same.

You may keep the rear end of the horse.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM

I have to give you credit. You did a very good thing, and in spite of you’re being an @$$hole, I have to give you your proper degree of respect for what you did.

My own Adopted Father did not have to take me, but he did. I think the world is a better place for having people such as he and yourself.

But back on the topic. So your solution to Article II compliance is just to have an American couple adopt a foreign child?

Somehow I don’t think anyone would find this solution acceptable.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM

So your solution to Article II compliance is just to have an American couple adopt a foreign child?
Somehow I don’t think anyone would find this solution acceptable.
DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Nor would I, nor have I made such assertion.

One born with the protections of the Constitution is a natural born citizen. The Constitution will not declare some of those very same citizens ineligible for POTUS, no matter how hard you try to say it should.

Enjoy the rear end of the horse. You have earned it.

Good day.

rukiddingme on April 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2