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

There is a Constitutional provision that trumps (heh) the entire argument:
Art. I, Sec. 1, Paragraph 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Nothing in the XII or XX Amendments has modified this portion of the Constitution. The AZ legislature has carte blanche to appoint as Electors anyone other than the class of government officials already excluded. If they wanted to appoint me, despite the fact that I’ve never set foot in AZ (I may have flown over it once or twice), much less established residence there, I don’t see a damned word in the Constitution to prevent it.

If the AZ legislature directs that part of the Manner of appointing Electors is that those Electors certify their intent to cast their ballots for President and Vice President for people who have proven their eligibility to the office to some standard incorporated in that legislative “directive”, then that’s it. End of story.
The AZ Legislature may direct the Secretary of State to evaluate the other-state laws governing issuance of various documents against some standard, to determine whether those documents adequately prove natural-born citizenship. For instance, Hawai’ian law provides for a HI birth certificate to be issued even if the child was not born in HI:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

So, if Barack H. Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama had declared their legal residence to be in HI for at least a year before his birth, BHO II is eligible to have a HI birth certificate regardless of his actual place of birth.
The preceding section of the Hawai’i statutes provides for issuance of an amended birth certificate in certain cases, including adoption. I believe that President Obama’s stepfather adopted him under Indonesian law. That suggests that his birth certificate may have been amended once or even twice (the second time to undo some change made by the first.)
The following section restricts who can obtain what information about births from the state. President Obama has used this law to fend off requests to see his long-form records, but if AZ demands to see them as a condition of the election, it looks like they can have them:

§338-18 (g) … (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

Anyone “seeking employment” as POTUS, or “seeking the services” of Electors to get him that job, would seem to fall under this category.

Interestingly, HI itself distinguishes between a “long form” Certificate of Live Birth and a “short form” Certification of Live Birth, when it comes to establishing eligibility under the Hawai’ian Home Lands program. It’s almost as if they don’t give full faith and credit to their own state documents.

The Monster on April 17, 2011 at 6:01 PM

So what stops a state from giving Justin Beiber a COLB stating he both an American citizen and 36 years of age?

Does the the Full Faith and Credit clause apply regardless of sanity?

sharrukin on April 17, 2011 at 6:06 PM

I have a hard time imagining this happening. It seems states can’t be allowed to require proof of identity and citizenship to vote for president, how they be allowed to require it to run for the office?

Stephen Macklin on April 17, 2011 at 6:13 PM

The AZ legislature has carte blanche to appoint as Electors anyone other than the class of government officials already excluded.

Eh, sounds sorta similar to the argument made by the losing side in Powell v. McCormack, no? The House argued that since: “Each house shall be the judge of the . . . qualifications of its own members,” they had carte blanche to exclude someone from the House, even if they’re duly elected and meet the Constitutional requirements to hold office (25 yrs old, citizen for 7 yrs). Obviously that argument didn’t work out too well for them.

Anywayyyys, Larry Tribe thinks this can get DOJ-pwned pretty easily.

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Jazz, it’s the Natural Born Citizen clause, nothing else.

tim c on April 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Hawaii required its own long form birth certificate for the Hawaiian Home Lands program. It was only to cover for and protect Obama that they changed in July of 2009 to not offer the LFBC. There needs to be a serious investigation into why Hawaii is changing laws to protect releasing Obama’s LFBC. I don’t believe in coincidences.

mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:20 PM

But again, the Arizona law does not add a new requirement for presidential candidates, so I’m not sure it applies here.

It effectively does, though. Under the AZ law they up the requirement form “natural born citizen” to “natural born citizen from a state that issues long-form birth certificates.”

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Also, why isn’t more attention being given to Miki Booth? Her friend got her son’s Hawaiian LFBC after it was claimed that they weren’t available. Something stinks.

mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

If you think Obama is bad for the country why wouldn’t you do everything possible to try and disqualify him.

If you think there is even a 1 in 100 chance that Obama wasn’t born here, more power to you if you want to try and find evidence supporting that.

Now, asserting it without evidence or making stuff up is a different matter.

Remember the media looking under every rock to try and find evidence that Bush was AWOL during Vietnam?

commodore on April 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

They still haven’t define what a natural born citizen is.

1. Do both parents need to be US citizens?
2. If you have split allegiances during your lifetime, ie. obtain Indonesian citizenship, are you still considered natural born? What if you never lost US citizenship?
3. Do you need to be born on US soil, for example in the case of armed force personnel who are abroad and the child is born there, but raised in the US?

MrX on April 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

It effectively does, though. Under the AZ law they up the requirement form “natural born citizen” to “natural born citizen from a state that issues long-form birth certificates.”

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Utterly wrong. It sets an acceptable manner in which a candidate meets the requirement for proving natural born citizenship. Your statement is a gross distortion of reality. The requirement is natural born citizen. Period. The way that is established is what is controversial.

As usual, you are trying to make points by obfuscating. Fail.

JannyMae on April 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Interestingly, HI itself distinguishes between a “long form” Certificate of Live Birth and a “short form” Certification of Live Birth, when it comes to establishing eligibility under the Hawai’ian Home Lands program. It’s almost as if they don’t give full faith and credit to their own state documents.

The Monster on April 17, 2011 at 6:01 PM

I’ve been trying to tell people that for ages. I lived out there in the early 60s, moving there 2 years after O’bama was born in a manger in Honolulu. The State has been under 1 party rule for a half a century now, with the resultant corruption. And their State “Supreme Court” makes the Democrat Activist 2000 Florida Supreme Court look like a bunch of church goers. As a result of their failure to let their own law enforcement people use the exact same laws to catch drug smugglers as at least 30 of the other states use, they have had a World-Class ICE (meth) epidemic for years. Their liberal view is that the smugglers have more rights than the victims.

At the same time, their “State Laws” also require one to provide extensive documentation when applying for…a Library card. A 2 page form must be filled out, and you must provide a valid Photo ID. Then you sign your life away to them, and they give you your liberry card.

One of our other posters last week noted that they had called 3 different states to see if they would accept the “short form” birth certificate as being valid. 2 of the 3 states said no. We all know what the other state was.

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Eh, sounds sorta similar to the argument made by the losing side in Powell v. McCormack, no? The House argued that since: “Each house shall be the judge of the . . . qualifications of its own members,” they had carte blanche to exclude someone from the House, even if they’re duly elected and meet the Constitutional requirements to hold office (25 yrs old, citizen for 7 yrs). Obviously that argument didn’t work out too well for them.

The difference is that the Constitution sets forth the requirements to be a Representative in their entirety, and leave the choice to the People of the State (and District if applicable) while they leave the Manner of appointing Electors to the sole discretion of the Legislatures. The very word “appointment” indicates far more range of choice: When the President appoints someone to an office (whether the Advice and Consent of the Senate be required or not), he is free to apply his own criteria for selecting the person he believes is best suited to do the job. If confirmation is required, the Senate has no mechanism to inquire into or challenge those criteria. And it clearly has, in that A/C role, the authority to impose its own criteria, which need not be codified a priori.

The Monster on April 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Utterly wrong. It sets an acceptable manner in which a candidate meets the requirement for proving natural born citizenship. Your statement is a gross distortion of reality. The requirement is natural born citizen. Period. The way that is established is what is controversial.

JannyMae on April 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM

You’re not addressing my point. If the statute limits ballot access to those w/a long form birth certificate, then they’re disqualifying those who were born in states (like HI) that no longer issue long-form birth certificates, even if those people are in fact natural born citizens. How is that not imposing an additional requirement?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

MrX on April 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

4. If you come over on a birth-tourist visa does the kid you pop out here get NBC?
5. Are illegal anchor babies NBC?
6. If you are some foreign, radical, America-hating lunatic and you come over and visit and have a baby here then take the baby home to live in your country and raise the child to be a radical, America hating lunatic and then the child moves back to America when it turns 21 and lives here 14 years, is it a NBC?

mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Hawaii, by allowing non-Hawaiians to request and then receive a COLB, may have circumvented immigration law(s)…

Gohawgs on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

You’re not addressing my point. If the statute limits ballot access to those w/a long form birth certificate, then they’re disqualifying those who were born in states (like HI) that no longer issue long-form birth certificates, even if those people are in fact natural born citizens. How is that not imposing an additional requirement?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

I think we have all agreed that a COLB is a computer generated abstract of the information contained on a LFBC. So, Hawaii still has LFBC’s, they just choose to no longer issue it. Perhaps, in the future, if Hawaii would like to see one of it’s native sons or daughters run for Pres/VP then they would be behooved to release it.

mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Hawaii, by allowing non-Hawaiians to request and then receive a COLB, may have circumvented immigration law(s)…

Gohawgs on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Bingo! And anyone with even a hint of curiosity would be asking themselves:

1. WHY?
2. WHY NOW?

mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM

You can easily think of several scenarios whereby the country could be destroyed in a second using the ffc argument in regards to birth certificates. Hawaii already gives trannies a colb showing that the person was born with the changed-to gender. If they can do that, then a state could certainly issue colbs that indicate anything the individual “feels”. I feel older than 45, more like a 65 year old born in 1946. I get my amended colb and head straight to the Social Security office and retire. Sounds absurd, yes, but no more so than retroactive birth-gender switcharoo.

Buddahpundit on April 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

This includes accepting as genuine records from a sister state that have been officially certified under seal from the appropriate record keeper.

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. 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

Thanks for posting the OTB link. I’ve been searching legal blogs looking for material from real lawyers analyzing the AZ law. Looks like Homeland Security should take a look at Hawaii.

slickwillie2001 on April 17, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Anywayyyys, Larry Tribe thinks this can get DOJ-pwned pretty easily.

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Please don’t cite that laughable source Huff. After all, we get allergic smelling hay.

As for Tribe, what did you expect an O’bama suckup to say? After all, he called O’bama “the best student he ever had”.

Tribe later also admitted to plagiarism, but got a pass from future O’bama SCOTUS “Justice” Elena Kagan. At the time, the Dean from another law school called Tribe’s non punishment a joke. And in 2000 he expressed sadness at SCOTUS not siding with Algore’s attempted theft of the 2000 Presidential election. He in fact testified before SCOTUS on Gore’e behalf. Tribe is nothing but an elite Leftist Academic joke.

The only two things I agree with Tribe on are

1. What he said about O’bama’s other SCOTUS pick:

Bluntly put, she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is

and 2. What he wrote in the NY Fishwrap after Rehnquist died:

“it is not too soon to reflect on why so many who served with him as colleagues, worked for him as law clerks or appeared before him as advocates are already prepared to render a verdict of greatness and to tell the world how deeply his passing is mourned.”

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Doug Mataconis is not someone I would ever quote as a source for reasonable analysis. For a supposed libertarian, he leans far left. That and he agrees with two who post there named Mantis and Anjin-san. Anjin is not John Blackthorn.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 17, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Uh, hello…in our day and time, a Presidential nominee DOES NOT have to PROVE their Constitutional eligibility?

Look for Judge Jackwagon to issue a TRO and the 9th Circuit to overturn it.

Maybe we should change the language of the debate and… call him a KENYAN until he PROVES otherwise?

PappyD61 on April 17, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Obama needs to put this to rest, and I bet he’s a citizen.

That said, the long form contains some embarrassing information that is inconsistent with “the Obama story.” Take your pick: he’s listed as caucasian; no father is listed; a different father is listed.

Cough it up, Obama.

BuckeyeSam on April 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Obama is unqualified to be President based on his deeds not his Bio.

Unfortunately Obama got to be President based on his bio and not his deeds.

The fault lies in ourselves and not our Stars.

William Amos on April 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM

If we don’t see the long form Certificate of Live Birth, how do we know Obama is 35 years old?

profitsbeard on April 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM

And I get the attraction of Trump vs Obama. Its one celebrity vs another to see who has the bigger ego.

Of course Trump cant stand Obama there isnt enough room in America for two egos that massive.

A Trump vs Obama presidentual race would be the biggest reality TV show to hit America ever.

William Amos on April 17, 2011 at 7:32 PM

One quibble – Hawaii does not limit its release of vital records to the COLB. It is the routine record provided. However, not only does HI law requires HI to release to a party with the requisite interest in the document, ANY certificate it holds in ANY kind of file, it has ACTUALLY released so-called “long form” birth certiicate copies on request- at least as late as 2010.

If Joe Schmo can get that copy, so can Obama, if his record is there, and Fukino is on record saying she eyeballed it.

SarahW on April 17, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Jazz

Two nights ago John King on CNN was interviewing this man. He came out and asked him is it because Barack Obama is a black man is this about his race is that the reason you are passing this bill in Arizona? There should be video of that interview on CNN. I believe it was Friday night not John King’s USA but later in the evening, he was filling in for someone? Anyway the guy was pretty insulted by the question. This is what it boils down to in the Liberal Media we can smear you by bring up the President’s race. Between Senator John McCain of Arizona, had to prove his natural born status for Constitutional requirement. John McCain was born in Panama his father was in military service at the time. I don’t remember the opposition (Democrats) Giving him a pass on proving his eligibility.

Dr Evil on April 17, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Wanted to re-post, as I posted this on the green-room thread:
—————————-

If I accept the “Full Faith and Credit” argument, then my concealed-carry permit from Louisiana allows me to pack heat in Hawaii.

Good to know.

Also, I will be open carrying, next time I visit New York city, as Arizona law allows it.

cane_loader on April 17, 2011 at 1:38 PM

cane_loader on April 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Let’s not forget that the NY Times ran a “just wondering” story about McCain’s citizenship in Feb 2008 (not long after several Liberal sites, including the Democratic Underground) brought the issue up. There was no doubt McCain was born in the Panama canal zone to two eligible parents, in a zone that made him a natural born citizen per law, and, the media demanded McCain show his ACTUAL birth certificate. They did not demand the same of Obama (much like they demanded more and more of McCain’s medical records, but, felt Obama’s 1 pager was spiffy!)

A COLB is not a BC, and Obama could get a BC for $10. Of course, the media never demanded any other of Obama’s records for anything else, either. FF&C is nice, but, without lawfully seeing the BC, Arizona has no constitutional requirement to accept a record that is not available for public viewing. The FF&C law wouldn’t apply to documents that cannot be viewed.

And let’s not forget, the purpose of the FF&C clause is to allow said documents to be used in court, per the language of the court, so, those documents must be made available. So, that makes Doug’s 3rd point a complete pantload. If you can’t show the doc in court in the state, there is NO need to give it FF&C.

William Teach on April 17, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Most states do have short form and long form B/C. I would think if a state knew one of their own people would be denied the presidential nomination, they would quickly change their laws. Failing that, the individual has the right to personally view the full original document. What would keep the individual from requesting to view his original B/C and bringing along his general election opponent to also view. That should keep everyone honest.

Oleta on April 17, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Øbama is becoming sooo yesterday. The only way he can escape being boring is by being inflammatory. And even his inflamatory rhetoric is getting so predictable it’s boring.

The shelf life on community organizers is known to be short. This little poseur is no exception to that rule.

petefrt on April 17, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And then there is the pesky issue of his fraudulent CT Social security card. Oh what tangled webs we weave….

Conservalicious on April 17, 2011 at 8:18 PM

I have a hard time imagining this happening. It seems states can’t be allowed to require proof of identity and citizenship to vote for president, how they be allowed to require it to run for the office?

Stephen Macklin on April 17, 2011 at 6:13 PM

States most certainly can, and do, as in the case of Illinois. I had to prove my identity to register (thus proving residency also) and I must show ID to vote. I would like the same courtesy (which happens to be a Constitutional requirement) of my President. It wouldn’t hurt for ALL of the states to make the same registration and voting ID requirements too.

Big John on April 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM

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?”

A state should be able to determine what acceptable identification is from its’ own residents. The real question here is should a state be able to determine what acceptable identification is from residents of another state?

Three points about Arizona’s law:

As of 1990, Arizona itself no longer provides the long form for its own residents (click on the record types explained tab).

Gov. Brewer hints she may veto this law.

Even if she doesn’t veto, provided Hawaii attaches a certification letter, AZ SOS Ken Bennett has already determined that what Obama has released is acceptable.

Seems like all the law will accomplish is to place a burden on its’ own residents that they will not be able to meet and to open the door for a landslide of lawsuits.

Such is the nature of unintended consequences.

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 8:20 PM

peacenprosperity on April 17, 2011 at 6:45 PM

This nails it. The Arizona law put the onus on Hawaii, not Arizona.

SouthernGent on April 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM

From His Own “People”…. a video.

Who is this man?

Key West Reader on April 17, 2011 at 8:28 PM

And then there is the pesky issue of his fraudulent CT Social security card. Oh what tangled webs we weave….

Conservalicious on April 17, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Would little Bammie even pass a simple federal SS number check, just as any lowly yard maintenance worker, framer or fruit-picker is expected to pass?

slickwillie2001 on April 17, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I have to take my child to get a State Identification card next week. To get a State Identification card, I must provide the following:

Birth Certificate
Proof of Residency
Social Security Card
Photograph of the Applicant
Parental Signage/Consent
Fingerprints

/but hey, that’s just for a State ID card for a minor who can’t even drive. But? Eh, we don’t need any of these items for the POTUS. Cuz he’s just so special.

That makes perfect sense to me.

Key West Reader on April 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM

First, Hawaii does in fact issue certified copies of long form birth certificates.

Second, it is the candidate’s burden to provide the proof they are eligible to be on a state’s ballot. If a state refuses to issue long form birth certificate, then the candidate’s quarrel is with their birth state, not the state requiring the document.

Rebar on April 17, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Also, why isn’t more attention being given to Miki Booth? Her friend got her son’s Hawaiian LFBC after it was claimed that they weren’t available. Something stinks.
mrsmwp on April 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

What stinks is this document originally looked like this and was presented as an example of a Certificate of Live Birth in an article dated Mar 17th, 2011.

The new and improved document presented in the article dated April 10, 2011 is now purported to be proof of a long form birth certificate issued by Hawaii.

Somewhere in between the two articles, the document obtained the odor you smell as well as some significant alterations.

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I see your world net daily link, and raise you a link to a Hawaiian state website.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

Second, it is the candidate’s burden to provide the proof they are eligible to be on a state’s ballot. If a state refuses to issue long form birth certificate, then the candidate’s quarrel is with their birth state, not the state requiring the document.

Rebar on April 17, 2011 at 8:35 PM

You know, even though virtually everything you’ve ever typed is ignorant, wrong or a flat-out lie, I have to admire you for the authoritative way in which you say it. I mean, if I didn’t know any better I’d think you were citing black-letter law from a long-lost Blackstone treatise on birther laws or something.

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM

India News?!
==============

Arizona passes “birther bill,” seeks Obama’s birth proof ahead of 2012 poll
From ANI
***********
************

Washington, Apr 17:

Arizona’s legislature has passed a “birther bill” asking US President Barack Obama to prove he was born in America before contesting the 2012 presidential elections.

If signed by Governor Jan Brewer, the state would be the first to pass such a requirement, the New York Daily News reports.

The Obama campaign had released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate during the 2008 election and officials in Hawaii had insisted he was born in that state. Newspapers in Hawaii had also announced Obama’s birth in 1961.

However, speculation still prevails in America that Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore demanded additional proof.

Under the bill, Obama would have to provide other birth records, like baptismal certificates and hospital records.

Republican Representative Carl Seel of Phoenix, wrote the bill and said the measure was meant to maintain the integrity of elections.

“Obama drew the question out, but it’s not about him,” Seel said, noting that candidates for state offices would have to provide the same level of proof.

The bill, however, has been criticised by many in the country.

“Arizona is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. We’ve cut school funding. And they pass a bill questioning Obama’s citizenship? For real?” Democratic Senetor Kyrsten Sinema

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/435184.php
=====================================

** On a side note,interesting that India News is carrying the Lib Talking Points!

(“Arizona is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. We’ve cut school funding.)

canopfor on April 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM

I believe the courts have ruled that a document from State A is entitled in State B to whatever effect it is given in State A. So whatever Hawaii deems a birth certificate to mean, that is what Arizona must emulate.

There may be public policy exceptions to the full faith and credit obligation but a birth is a birth is a birth.

Seth Halpern on April 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM

crr6, it it’s never going to back to bite me….

sandee on April 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM

crr6, it it’s never going to back to bite me….

sandee on April 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Sorry, I was laughing so much at your “truth” that I made an err in your words. “It will never come back to bite me.”…. ha,ha,ha,ha… So shall this!

sandee on April 17, 2011 at 8:51 PM

SOS….CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS??????????????
=============================================
**************************************
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Barack Obama: Presidential Candidate Nomination Paper, State of Arizona, 2007
***********************

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11107727/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Candidate-Nomination-Paper-State-of-Arizona-2007

canopfor on April 17, 2011 at 8:52 PM

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM

The only liar here is you.

People actually born in Hawaii have received certified copies of their long form birth certificates as recent as last month. And for only ten bucks, what a bargain!

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

S.B 1070-(PDF)
***************

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

canopfor on April 17, 2011 at 9:01 PM

crr6, it it’s never going to back to bite me….

sandee on April 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Sorry, I was laughing so much at your “truth” that I made an err in your words. “It will never come back to bite me.”…. ha,ha,ha,ha… So shall this!

sandee on April 17, 2011 at 8:51 PM

sandee:

“It never will come bite to back me back”!-crr6

*(I’m laughing with you Sandee,haha)——-:)

canopfor on April 17, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Presidential candidates for many years have shown their health and military records, transcripts of every school since kindergarten, IQ test results, statements from every person who’s ever known the candidate since birth, and even birth certificates. It’s become the norm to offer proof of one’s claims of education and experience as proof that the candidate is “worthy” of election.

But this person ran for and attained the office of President without showing a thing – and in fact, he has spent millions in attorney fees to hide these commonly-released documents and more.

So, somehow, that’s supposed to be OK?
How can any of us accept that without challenge? We don’t trust politicians in this country, yet we’re supposed to blindly accept whatever this man and his handlers tell us without the same verification we demand from others?

n0doz on April 17, 2011 at 9:06 PM

The Full Faith and Credit angle was totally discarded by Nancy Pelosi in 2008, when, as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, she sent two different Certificates of Nomination to the 50 states–one, filed with Hawaii, which attested that Obama fulfilled Constitutional requirements for the office of President, and one to the 49 other states, which left out that clause.

Emperor Norton on April 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM

I was born in Massachusetts. The town I was born in has a short-form birth certificate, similar to the certificate of live birth in Hawaii. However, it’s not good enough for me to get a passport, I had to obtain a full copy of my birth certificate. I’m only trying to get a passport, not trying to become the President of the United States. Why, or someone please come up with an intelligent answer, why doesn’t Obama have to show his birth certificate?

No one, to may knowledge, has seen Obama’s birth certificate. He has never presented it to the press for viewing, yet they fight for him not to show it. They do this and they wonder why they have no credibility. I hope the Arizona law prevails and Obama has to show this thing because it’s obvious our illustrious free press doesn’t want to publish this thing.

Two more small points, when Obama was running against Ryan for the Senate, his “sealed” divorce records were published by the press. When George Bush was running, his “sealed” DUI record from almost 30 years before, were published. Now, we can’t see Obama’s birth certificate???? Am I the only person in this country that sees the irony of this????

bflat879 on April 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

The only liar here is you.

Well, I guess that’s all you can say when someone posts a link from a state website debunking your claim. “Uh…no, you’re a liar!”

People actually born in Hawaii have received certified copies of their long form birth certificates as recent as last month.

Of course. And Obama has received (and released) a certified copy as well.

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”.

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.

By the way, what are your thoughts on Brewer’s possible veto of the AZ law? How about your thoughts on the AZ secretary of state all but saying he’ll accept Obama’s certified copy?

Either way, Soetoro loses.

Rebar on April 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM

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

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

Burden of proof fail.

tetriskid on April 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Burden of proof fail.

tetriskid on April 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM

haha, I know right?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

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

Am I the only person in this country that sees the irony of this????

bflat879 on April 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

No! That’s why the argument defending Obama’s sealed records is so ridicules, it wouldn’t fly for almost anyone else and certainly not a Republican.
Several years ago I had to get my son need to get his driver’s license in Florida and the short form issued by the State of SC was not good enough so we had to request the long form from the state. To verify that two my sons qualified as my dependants for my companies health insurance I had to produce the long form BC even though the state only issues the short form.
This is why what Trump is doing and saying is hitting home, people intuitively understand how absolutely stupid and insulting the argument against providing these documents is to anyone who has tried to conduct legitimate business in the country. For most people it isn’t even about where the heck he was born it’s about common sense.

whbates on April 17, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Several years ago I had to get my son need to get his driver’s license in Florida and the short form issued by the State of SC was not good enough so we had to request the long form from the state. To verify that two my sons qualified as my dependants for my companies health insurance I had to produce the long form BC even though the state only issues the short form.

Democrats don’t live in the real world.

They can pay people to do those things for them.

tetriskid on April 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Democrats don’t live in the real world.

They can pay people to do those things for them.

tetriskid on April 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM

More to the point, I guess, is that they pay people to look the other way.

whbates on April 17, 2011 at 10:01 PM

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

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

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

sharrukin on April 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM

haha, I know right?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Well, it looks like Kloppenburg won. I am absolutely confident in that fact, and there is a 0% chance that I will later be proven incorrect.

This post will never come back to bite me.

crr6 on April 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM

fossten on April 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM

This post will never come back to bite me.

crr6 on April 7, 2011 at 5:21 PM

You know what else won’t come back to bite you?

The fact that Hawaii now calls their long form birth certificates, “Genealogy records“.

Oh wait – it does bite you, hard. But Soetoro worse.

Rebar on April 17, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Just another small point on this, Barack, Sr. with the birth of his first child, could very well have wanted him to have Kenyan citizenship. Why is that so impossible to believe. A first born son is generally special in the world.

There are many questions about Obama that aren’t answered and many of us don’t know why. If he’s the smartest President we’ve ever had, why can’t we see his college transcripts? If he was born in Hawaii, why has he spent $2 million to prevent his birth certificate from being released? Trust me, if his name was George Bush, all of these questions would have been answered within a week of his announcing his intention to run.

bflat879 on April 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Am I the only person in this country that sees the irony of this????

bflat879 on April 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

That’s not irony. That’s corruption.

Kenosha Kid on April 17, 2011 at 11:21 PM

So… Full Faith and Credit apples to CCW permit also, right?

Kenosha Kid on April 17, 2011 at 11:24 PM

haha, I know right?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Hey, Perry Mason!

Here’s another wild-ass conspiracy theory for you.

There are certain circumstances where many States will lock up the original birth certificate and then issue a brand new one later. They will only let the original document be seen after that by Court Order or Consent.

Could it possible be that the Democrats who have been in total control of the State of Hawai’i “Government” since 1964 have locked up the original O’bama BC for another reason?

In case you’re still not getting it, could it be possible that the original BC shows that Stanley Ann Dunham was not O’bama’s actual birth mother, and that she and Barry Senior adopted him instead?

Of course, this has nothing to do with where he was born. But it might be why he would want to keep the original BC a secret. He could in fact very well have been born in the 50th State, just not to the birth parents (or grandparents) he claims.

Out of curiosity, I did a Google Image search using the keywords “stanley ann dunham 1961″.

The results?

From top to bottom

The first row of pictures, from Left to Right, shows the standard propaganda pic of her bouncing Baby Dear Leader on her knobby knee.

The next picture to the right of this shows what I assume to be Barry Senior and Ann posing in an Airport someplace in 1960 or 1961.

But guess what? Exactly 2 frames to the right of that picture, there is a capture of the exact same photo, showing Ann airbrushed out of the picture, and a young Barry Junior by Barry Senior’s side.

Go down one more row, to the second layer, and the first picture on the left is an enlarged photo of Barry Sr. and Ann at the airport-the exact same pic that just earlier showed O’bama Junior.

He is hiding something. If he wasn’t, you wouldn’t be showing up on every one of these threads.

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 11:25 PM

You Kos kiddies need to get new talking points. Nobody believes it any more.
sharrukin on April 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM

That’s a mighty fine ad hominem you have there. You may keep it.

Herman Cain, thanks for asking.

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Hey, Perry Mason!

Oops, My Bad.

Hey, Della Street!

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 11:29 PM

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM

See my 11:25 PM post

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 11:31 PM

A quibble, perhaps, but I submit it for consideration:

First, perhaps Hawaii does no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This in no way alters the fact that, if Obama were born in Hawaii in 1961, the state did in fact issue a long-form birth certificate for such birth at that time. If so, then there would be an archival document of that nature actually in the possession of the state of Hawaii. (A state-certified copy of which would be made available to the person named thereon upon request and payment of a nominal fee.)

Second, the requirement to provide the requisite proof (in this case a long-form birth certificate) does not fall upon the state of Hawaii. It is the responsibility of the candidate, not the state, to provide the documentation in question. This long-form birth certificate is legally requestable by the person named on the document, and would be made available to that person to enable the individual to provide a certified copy thereof to the requesting authority. AZ is not asking the candidate to supply something the state of Hawaii would not be able to provide to said candidate, therefore the FF&C argument as made above is weak at best.

LooseCannon on April 17, 2011 at 11:32 PM

LooseCannon on April 17, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Don’t confuse them with facts. Remember, before O’bama came along, no Presidential candidate in the history of the United States had ever won 70% of the high school dropout vote.

Del Dolemonte on April 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Just another small detail, but it is curious:

WND (yeah, I know… but hear me out) has a page up dated April 11 showing both Obama’s released short-form certificate, and an actual long-form birth certificate for a Susan Nordyke, born one day after Obama, on August 5, 1961. This does show, in detail, the differences between the long and short forms, and attests to the fact that the long form is made available to an entitled requestor.

Most interestingly, though is that the certificate dated one day AFTER Obama’s has a serial number (10637) that is four increments BEFORE the one released by Obama (10641 – visible on the non-redacted photos of the COLB available online). Dunno what this means, if anything, but it does make me go hmmmmm…

LooseCannon on April 18, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Loose Cannon, thanks, you got that part right

I see some of the dumbests comments written as regards this issue.

No state issues ORIGINAL birth certificates, only certified copies. Apparently Hawaii has both a short form and a long form, each serving a particular purpose. The short form to register unverified births to citizens (supposedly) of Hawaii, the long form to actually certify a live birth in the state of Hawaii. The short form certainly would only be accepted for a very short list of purposes, certainly not for a US passport. Obama has never released either of these in certified form. There was a forgery without a certified stamp on it published by fact check and shown on Obama’s site, but it certainly was useless.

and this ff issue. Yes, Az has to recognize Hawaii’s driver’s license, but if you can get a legal license in Ha at 16 and Az is 18 and you happen to be 16 and move to Az you will have to wait until you turn 18 to get a driver’s license. Also, if you can carry a shotgun openly in downtown Phoenix, that doesn’t mean that the state of NY has to allow you to do the same thing. It only means that Az will recognize laws from other states as long as it does not go against an AZ law.

and as Loose Cannon said, the state of Hawaii doesn’t have to supply proof of Obama’s eligibility, Obama does and it has to comply with what the state of Az requires as that proof.

The question is NOT whether Obama is a citizen, the question is ‘is obama a natural born US citizen’? It’s up to him to prove that he is.

Redteam on April 18, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Louisiana was one of the last states that would let one buy alcohol at age 18. 19-year-old relatives would come down to visit and be ecstatic that they could legally drink (their parents weren’t too happy!)

Because they were visiting Louisiana, and wanted to conduct a transaction, they were subject to its laws. They were not refused purchase because their IDs were from a state with a 21-and-over law. I also know that when visiting other states at age 18, I was not allowed to buy beer, though my license, SHOWING MY BIRTH DATE, was issued in an 18-and-over state.

If Obama wants to be on the Arizona ballot, thereby conducting a regulated transaction of sorts (getting on the ballot), he is subject to the laws of Arizona – NOT those of Hawaii!

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I find it quite ironic – the same trolls who mocked “birthers”, are now the very ones thinking that he doesn’t have a long form birth certificate, and will twist and turn to excuse Soetoro from producing his.

Who, then, are the REAL “birthers”?

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 1:15 AM

You can argue the finer points of law, but when the people are not allowed to assure the qualifications of their elected representatives, and even portrayed as conspiracy theorists for attempting to, then all is lost.

DFCtomm on April 18, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Obama is unqualified to be President based on his deeds not his Bio

Unfortunately, if enough people, dead or alive, don’t mind one of their own leftists being so unqualified, then he is president, qualified or not – er- providing he meets the proper qualifications to hold the office.

There’s a difference between qualifications to run/hold the office and qualifications to run it properly once you’re elected.

Some people think Obama is more than qualified to do what he is doing -taking the country down with a smile, a nine iron, while disbursing our money and waivers to those who are doing the dirty work for him.

The King we revolted against just wasn’t as interested in golf as he is.

Don L on April 18, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Face it -laws -in the hands of illicit DOJ characters and leftist folks in SC robes – are as useful as a Roman shield against an atomic bomb.

It’s all about power and who’s willing to abuse it and what the rest are willing to do to stop them. Everything else we’re discussing is like looking for a lost maggot in a garbage dump.

Don L on April 18, 2011 at 7:53 AM

Sorry, haven’t read the other comments, so this might have been addressed:

Wouldn’t another state have had to look at his birth certificate AND certified to Election Officials that he was a Natural Born citizen in order for the full faith a credit clause to apply?

mockmook on April 18, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Guess I should say, “in order for the full faith a credit clause to potentially apply”.

mockmook on April 18, 2011 at 8:06 AM

The Monster on April 17, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Excellent point. Game. Set. Match.

Except for one thing. It would be a peculiar interpretation of the newly passed law to achieve this result. Arizona COULD have passed a law regarding the electors, but they only passed a law instructing the Secretary of State. Hmmm….

They might need a “do-over.”

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM


It effectively does, though. Under the AZ law they up the requirement form “natural born citizen” to “natural born citizen from a state that issues long-form birth certificates.”

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Remember that issue of Standing? You know, why nobody could FORCE Obama to prove his qualifications?

Well, who has standing to sue Arizona? Certainly not anyone unaffected by the law. Who MIGHT be affected by the Law? Well, OBAMA MIGHT be affected by the law if he chooses not to comply with it.

I guess that means OBAMA must file the suit necessary to abrogate the law because HE ALONE will have standing to do so. What is the public to think of Obama SUING Arizona to prevent them from forcing him to show something he shouldn’t have been allowed to hide in the first place!

The headlines will read:

OBAMA SUES ARIZONA TO PREVENT SHOWING HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

But of course, all his qualifications are in order. :)

Tough sell to the public I think. The “legality” might work, but the politics won’t.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM

They still haven’t define what a natural born citizen is.

1. Do both parents need to be US citizens?
2. If you have split allegiances during your lifetime, ie. obtain Indonesian citizenship, are you still considered natural born? What if you never lost US citizenship?
3. Do you need to be born on US soil, for example in the case of armed force personnel who are abroad and the child is born there, but raised in the US?

MrX on April 17, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Something I’ve pointed out before. The way LIBERALS are trying to define “Natural Born Citizen” status, the ONLY people excluded would be foreign born people with TWO foreign born parents. Even if ONE of them is an American, the Liberals will say “That’s good enough!”

Common sense demands that this ridiculously low threshold be rejected. It effectively argues that Article II serves no purpose whatsoever.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:00 AM

You’re not addressing my point. If the statute limits ballot access to those w/a long form birth certificate, then they’re disqualifying those who were born in states (like HI) that no longer issue long-form birth certificates, even if those people are in fact natural born citizens. How is that not imposing an additional requirement?

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Let those with “Standing” sue. :)

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM

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. 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

Good point. Arizona could simply argue “WE DO Accept Hawaii’s documents. They just won’t send the correct one.”

:)

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Obama needs to put this to rest, and I bet he’s a citizen.

That said, the long form contains some embarrassing information that is inconsistent with “the Obama story.” Take your pick: he’s listed as caucasian; no father is listed; a different father is listed.

Cough it up, Obama.

BuckeyeSam on April 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM

You leave out what I regard as the MOST LIKELY scenario. Obama has an “At home birth” record (attested by his Grandmother Madelyn Dunham) rather than a REAL birth certificate.

This discovery would send shockwaves through the country because it then calls into question even his 14th amendment based citizenship. He might not be an American at all.

I point out that Obama even mentions in his book that there is something wrong with his birth certificate. (That it does not look like the other birth certificates he saw in his mother’s possession.)

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM

This guy has a documents problem. Both the birth certificate and social security card are questionable and no other documents are known. Isn’t this a bit odd?

Mason on April 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Seems like all the law will accomplish is to place a burden on its’ own residents that they will not be able to meet and to open the door for a landslide of lawsuits.

Such is the nature of unintended consequences.

rukiddingme on April 17, 2011 at 8:20 PM

As I said. Who would have “Standing”?

That would be OBAMA. The political ramifications of his filing suit to prevent Arizona from seeing his REAL birth certificate would absolutely destroy his chances of winning. Though lawyers may buy buillSh*t arguments, the public is simply not going to buy it.

Can a Judge Amend a Birth Certificate?

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 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 drtiver’s liucense, one must go to the DMV, where one receives a opaper temporary liucense. This temporary license is considered sufficientr documentation to DRIVE

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Darn, hit enter key by mistake -need to finish my comment

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

You know, even though virtually everything you’ve ever typed is ignorant, wrong or a flat-out lie, I have to admire you for the authoritative way in which you say it. I mean, if I didn’t know any better I’d think you were citing black-letter law from a long-lost Blackstone treatise on birther laws or something.

crr6 on April 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Ha! The pot calls the kettle “Black.”

I’m not going to dig for it, but I’ve seen a section of Hawaiian law that ORDERS the Hawaiian dept. of health to provide an original document if requested by any state election official. Did Hawaii happen to repeal that statute?

Another aspect of this is Obama has to sue. Who else has standing? You guys just don’t realize how boned you are. Even if you could win the legal argument, you can’t win the political argument! Obama SUING to stop the truth won’t go over well with the voting public.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM

There may be public policy exceptions to the full faith and credit obligation but a birth is a birth is a birth.

Seth Halpern on April 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Except when it is not. An Affidavit of “At Home Birth” does not prove an actual birth in Hawaii, especially if it is signed by the Grandmother. It does however create a “Birth Record” which up till now is all that we have proof exists.

DiogenesLamp on April 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2