Jan Brewer vetoes Arizona’s “Birther bill”

posted at 10:02 pm on April 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not the only veto she issued tonight, either. She also rejected a bill that would have allowed people to carry guns on state college campuses on grounds that it was “poorly written.” Not a total surprise given the political climate in the state after Gabby Giffords’s shooting, but a mild surprise given the grassroots conservative cred Brewer built for herself by championing Arizona’s immigration law.

This one’s a genuine surprise, though.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill to require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot…

“I do not support designating one person [i.e. the secretary of state] as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

“In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.”

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing. Any Arizonans willing and able to explain? She just started her new term so electoral politics is immaterial. Is there some core agenda item that she needs Democratic help to pass? Or is she trying to build goodwill with Obama for better cooperation on immigration? Or, just maybe, did she genuinely believe that the bill was stupid and embarrassing to Arizona? All theories welcome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

That is up to Obama.

sharrukin on April 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM

And that’s the point, as he is the POTUS, that boat seems to have sailed, with him on board. You might not like that he has met the legal requirements, you may have questions, heck you could make a legitimate argument that as a citizen you deserve to know more about the chief executive…but none of that changes reality.

Reality is his documentation has been established and deemed worthy in a national election already so this story really is old news. Unless birthers can produce some evidence to the contrary they are no different than “truthers”, tossing around theories without a a shred of evidence.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM

kit9 on April 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM

You sound like a “concern” troll. I for one don’t believe you.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I’m not buying what that person is selling, either, as I am an actual Arizonan, as well, but even if he/she has “25 Republican friends who agree” that doesn’t make them right. Brewer’s excuse for vetoing this is lame, and she makes false claims about it in the process. Is she taking advice from Obama’s speechwriters?

:)

JannyMae on April 19, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Unless birthers can produce some evidence to the contrary they are no different than “truthers”, tossing around theories without a a shred of evidence.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM

The theory that’s being tossed around without a shred of legitimate evidence, is the theory that Obama has proven his “Natural Born Citizenship.” The burden of proof in providing the ‘evidence’ rests with Obama, not anyone who is questioning his citizenship status. Nice try, though.

JannyMae on April 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Reality is his documentation has been established and deemed worthy in a national election already so this story really is old news.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM

No it hasn’t any more than Roger Calero’s was.

Roger Calero wasn’t an American citizen and he ran for president. He was a Nicaraguan citizen and was in no way eligible under the constitution. He ran in 2004 for president, he ran in 2006 for the senate, and he ran again in 2008 for president.

Your claim that the candidates documentation is being checked is a load of crap.

Roger Calero’s eligibility wasn’t checked any more than Obama’s was.

sharrukin on April 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Full faith and credit? Just try using an occupational license in a different state than where you got it. My brother is a pharmacist. He can’t. I had a private investigators license. I can’t. A friend who’s a hairdresser can’t. No other state will accept them unless there’s a reciprocity agreement. So why should any state accept another state’s assertion that their golden politician is qualified for the job?

NNtrancer on April 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM

My proof is the fact that he won’t release HIS proof.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Ah, good times.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 5:34 PM

The burden of proof in providing the ‘evidence’ rests with Obama, not anyone who is questioning his citizenship status. Nice try, though.

JannyMae on April 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Janny,

Even if you ignore all of the other evidence (newspaper announcements, statements by state officials etc) Obama has met his burden by publicly releasing a certified copy of his birth certificate. In fact, the document itself says that it shall serve as prima facie evidence of the birth in any court proceeding

This means the burden has been shifted to you to provide credible contrary proof sufficient to overcome the certified copy provided by Obama. Can you do so?

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Obama has met his burden by publicly releasing a certified copy of his birth certificate.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

To my knowledge, not one single state official ever requested, obtained or reviewed a single piece of paper proving 0bama’s eligibility.

Releasing something to a privately-owned website most certainly does NOT meet any burden of proof!

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM

kit9 on April 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM

The fact that the Arizona legislature passed it overwelmingly, and most likely will overrride that veto, says otherwise.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 5:00 PM

As Soetoro’s running for reelection, he has to reprove his eligibility, just the same as any other candidate. Encumbency is not a free pass.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Incorrect. A COLB does not meet the eligibility requirements, if those requirements specify a long form birth certificate.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM

To be specific as far as state officials reviewing Obama’s proof of eligibility, I do NOT count Hawaii Dept. of Health Director Dr. Fukino’s various unofficial news conferences as proving anything. She’s not in charge of elections, and she’s not a judge of natural-born citizenship, either.

Obama has proved nothing to anyone official, and anyone who says he has is lying.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 6:52 PM

How many years did Obama mentor Bill Ayers use phoney identification to remain hidden underground?

To believe Obama learned nothing from this is either ludicrous, or liberal mind set.

Roy Rogers on April 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM

To my knowledge, not one single state official ever requested, obtained or reviewed a single piece of paper proving 0bama’s eligibility.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM

False.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Incorrect. A COLB does not meet the eligibility requirements, if those requirements specify a long form birth certificate.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Rebar,

I’m not sure which eligibility requirements you are referring to, since there is not a single statute in the US that requires a long-form birth certificate in order to be on the Presidential ballot.

As I stated before, Obama has provided a certified copy of his birth certificate. The burden of proof has now been shifted to you, to provide credible evidence showing that he was not, in fact born in Hawaii. Thus far, you have failed to provide a single piece of hard evidence to meet this burden.

If you feel the certified copy of his birth certificate is inadequate, your quarrel is with the state of Hawaii and the US State Department, not Barack Obama.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM

No, crr6, NOT FALSE.

Hawaii Dept. of Health Director Dr. Fukino’s various unofficial statements and her news release you linked to do not prove anything. She’s not in charge of elections, and she’s not a judge of natural-born citizenship, either.

You can beat that horse all you want but that news release you posted means nothing. The Hawaii Sec’y of State did NOT vet Obama.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

crr6 ignored my clarification at 6:52 pm.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM

The issue is not identification, the issue is natural born citizenship. The long form birth certificate contains the necessary data to determine natural born citizenship, while the COLB does not.

And you are most incorrect, the burden of eligibility weighs only on the candidate, not the state. If a state determines that only a long form birth certificate will be accepted for eligibility, for whatever reason, then that’s what a candidate will have to provide, or forfeit ballot access.

Once a state, perhaps it will still be Arizona if/when they override the veto, or Louisiana, or Oklahoma, or Texas, likely a combination of a bunch of states – Soetoro will have to produce his long form birth certificate, or forfeit.

It really is that simple.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM

The issue is not identification, the issue is natural born citizenship. The long form birth certificate contains the necessary data to determine natural born citizenship, while the COLB does not.

Rebar,

I’m afraid that’s incorrect. The certified copy which Obama provided states that he was born on American soil; that is sufficient to determine natural born citizenship. If you have a different, novel definition of natural born citizenship that is of no concern to the candidate. Your quarrel is with the Constitution or the Supreme Court, not the candidate.

And you are most incorrect, the burden of eligibility weighs only on the candidate, not the state.

Indeed that is correct. And Obama hath provided a certified copy of his birth certificate, which is of equal legal force in every respect to the original copy. Again, if you wish for a different document that cannot be provided under state law, and is not necessary to prove eligibility, your quarrel is with the US State Department or the State of Hawaii, not the candidate.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 9:37 PM

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Once again, you are plain wrong.

But that’s ok. In a month or so, there should be several states with enhanced eligibility requirements, then the ball will be in Soetoro’s court. He’ll have to produce his long form birth certificate, forfeit the ballot, or take the state to court.

Forfeit the ballot, he loses the election, takes a state to court, he loses the election. Heck, if he produces the document, he’ll look like a douchbag and just might lose enough votes to lose right there.

So, I am very content to wait. Soetoro has put himself in a no-win situation, and I’m going to enjoy every minute of it.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 9:52 PM

You sound like a “concern” troll. I for one don’t believe you

Don’t believe me till your head explodes. Do you freaking live here? I’m in Yuma, one of the most conservative cities in Arizona. Among my friends and family here-nearly uniformly conservative(only my mom’s a holdout)-the most common reaction when this came up was an eye roll and/or dismissive no head shake-like they could barely be bothered to discuss it. Sound like ringing endorsements to you? Some thought it plain stupid(like me), some thought it stupid because it was simply a waste of time and money that would be tied up in courts forever. Christ, even those who have questions about why Obama won’t release his BC, weren’t supporters for those reasons-some actually pissed that our state legislators have nothing better to do. Oh, and for those spouting nonsense about overturning her veto….from the Az. Republic…..”The House and Senate could override the governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, but on Monday, such a move appeared unlikely.

House Speaker Kirk Adams shook his head wearily when asked Monday evening if lawmakers would attempt to override the veto. “No,” he said. He added that legislative researchers found that the last time a governor’s veto was overridden was 50 years ago.”

kit9 on April 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

No it hasn’t any more than Roger Calero’s was.

Roger Calero wasn’t an American citizen and he ran for president. He was a Nicaraguan citizen and was in no way eligible under the constitution. He ran in 2004 for president, he ran in 2006 for the senate, and he ran again in 2008 for president.

The curious case of Roger Calero:

In 2004, nine states denied his ballot access so James Harris stood in for him, six states granted ballot access.

In 2008, five denied his ballot access so James Harris stood in for him, five states granted ballot access.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Your claim that the candidates documentation is being checked is a load of crap.

Not quite. See above.

Roger Calero’s eligibility wasn’t checked any more than Obama’s was.
sharrukin on April 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

It most certainly was checked by some. See above.

rukiddingme on April 19, 2011 at 10:06 PM

She’s not in charge of elections, and she’s not a judge of natural-born citizenship, either.
cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)

“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

rukiddingme on April 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM

The issue is not identification, the issue is natural born citizenship.

“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844),

State’s Rights!

Heh.

rukiddingme on April 19, 2011 at 10:13 PM

To my knowledge, not one single state official ever requested, obtained or reviewed a single piece of paper proving 0bama’s eligibility.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM

False.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Like she would know what “Natural born citizen” means. As I pointed out. Jan Brewer didn’t want ONE PERSON deciding if someone was qualified or not. Well guess what? That’s what we’ve got now. Some bureaucrat declares he’s qualified, and we’re all supposed to believe she knows what she’s talking about, but she won’t show the proof. We are supposed to take her word for it.

Yeah, you guys are SOOOOOO gullible.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Don’t believe me till your head explodes. Do you freaking live here? I’m in Yuma, one of the most conservative cities in Arizona. Among my friends and family here-nearly uniformly conservative(only my mom’s a holdout)-the most common reaction when this came up was an eye roll and/or dismissive no head shake-like they could barely be bothered to discuss it. Sound like ringing endorsements to you? Some thought it plain stupid(like me), some thought it stupid because it was simply a waste of time and money that would be tied up in courts forever. Christ, even those who have questions about why Obama won’t release his BC, weren’t supporters for those reasons-some actually pissed that our state legislators have nothing better to do. Oh, and for those spouting nonsense about overturning her veto….from the Az. Republic…..”The House and Senate could override the governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber, but on Monday, such a move appeared unlikely.

House Speaker Kirk Adams shook his head wearily when asked Monday evening if lawmakers would attempt to override the veto. “No,” he said. He added that legislative researchers found that the last time a governor’s veto was overridden was 50 years ago.”

kit9 on April 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM

This is simple. If you think it is a non issue than you don’t understand it. (or you are on the other side.)

There is a man rotting in prison right now because the LYING COWARD won’t produce his evidence of eligibility. There are troops in the field right now that think he’s illegitimate.

But do you know who I think is worse? It’s people like you who keep telling the rest of us to let him get away with it.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Once again, you are plain wrong.

Folks, this is what happens when you challenge Rebar on his bulls*** long enough. He just closes up and retreats.

But that’s ok. In a month or so, there should be several states with enhanced eligibility requirements, then the ball will be in Soetoro’s court. He’ll have to produce his long form birth certificate, forfeit the ballot, or take the state to court.

Well assuming another wingnut state does pass such a law (which seems increasingly unlikely) and that law will only accept a long form birth certificate (even more unlikely), that doesn’t mean one of the options you listed will happen.

Has it occurred to you that anyone will have standing to challenge the law, as long as they 1) are a natural born citizen/at least 35 years old, 2) meet the other ballot requirements, and 3) are from a state that doesn’t issue long form birth certificates? So Obama won’t even need to challenge the law, there’s a huge other class of potential plaintiffs who can.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM

It most certainly was checked by some. See above.

rukiddingme on April 19, 2011 at 10:06 PM

And as usual, you completely miss the point. ALL states should have denied him ballot access. The fact that they didn’t indicates something is seriously wrong with their vetting process.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Well assuming another wingnut state does pass such a law (which seems increasingly unlikely) and that law will only accept a long form birth certificate (even more unlikely), that doesn’t mean one of the options you listed will happen.

Has it occurred to you that anyone will have standing to challenge the law, as long as they 1) are a natural born citizen/at least 35 years old, 2) meet the other ballot requirements, and 3) are from a state that doesn’t issue long form birth certificates? So Obama won’t even need to challenge the law, there’s a huge other class of potential plaintiffs who can.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Uh, yeah, the little problem of meeting the OTHER requirements to getting on the ballot. You know, like being the nominated candidate of a major political party or having sufficient petition signatures to get you on the ballot.

Sure, you can find these people under every cabbage leaf. NOT!

Obama is the ONLY person that could meet the OTHER requirements for getting on a state wide ballot.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Hey folks. If you listen to cn6, rukiddingme, New_Jersey_Buckeye, NextGen, or others such as these, you will make yourself stupider than you were before.

They want you to believe that A Document, (which they will refuse to show you, and insist you cannot be allowed to see), can be substituted by another document, (which can be amended to contain false information and is presented by people who are legally obligated to lie to you about the false information on the document), from a State (which will give such false birth documents to people not born there), is sufficient to prove that Obama WAS absolutely born there, (only no one can remember exactly where), and that being born over the geographical air space above this state (of a foreign father), and then living most of his childhood in a foreign land (with ANOTHER foreign father), makes him the EXACT legal equivalent of an American born of Two American parents within an American community, all the while arguing that the privacy laws of this state take precedence over Article II of the U.S. Constitution, (and that any attempt to find out the ACTUAL truth is not only silly, but a violation of the law.)

Does that about sum it up, or did I leave out some of the absurd things they are trying to get people to believe?

Oh yeah. They argue this is what the founders meant all along!

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Oh, by the way. Hawaii’s own statute about Amended Hawaiian birth certificates.

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Folks, this is what happens when you challenge Rebar on his bulls*** long enough. He just closes up and retreats.

crr6 on April 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Pretty funny, coming from you. Considering I’ve proved you wrong on every point, and yet you continue to flat out lie, I’d pit my credibility against yours any day of the week. That I tire of proving you wrong and reading your lies, I guess that’s a failing of sorts – so you got me there, for what that’s worth.

As for the rest – Louisiana will certainly pass such a law, and Jindal has already stated he will sign it. That’s one. Oklahoma, Texas, and a bunch of others are right behind. I read all their bills, and they all require long form birth certificates. Your “increasing unlikely” scenario will turn into a wave, I figure between 6-8 states will pass their bills, best case ten or more. Arizona still might override the veto, or try again next year.

So, time is on my side, it is not on Soetoro’s side.

Tick tock, tick tock…

Rebar on April 20, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Arizona is not refusing to Accept Hawaii’s long form birth certificate.

Make sure you put the blame on the right foot.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:31 AM

If Hawaii claims that its short form birth certificate is an official birth certificate, and Arizona claims that its short form birth certificate is an official birth certificate, then Arizona will have a lot of explaining to do should they ever demand a long form certificate as a condition of candidacy. Remember, Arizona itself is no longer issuing long form birth certificates for its younger citizens — because said long form certificates do not exist.

I’m not putting the blame anywhere, for Arizona wisely decided not to go there.

unclesmrgol on April 20, 2011 at 12:30 AM

“Obama is holding this back for his October surprise in 2012.”
magsvt on April 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Will the forgery be properly aged by then?

theaddora on April 20, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Michelle Bachman disagrees with you Birthers, she says when presented with the Presidents COLB

“Well that should settle it” “I would have no problem presenting my Birth certificate and apparently the President wouldn’t either. Introduce that and we’re done.”

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

If Hawaii claims that its short form birth certificate is an official birth certificate, and Arizona claims that its short form birth certificate is an official birth certificate, then Arizona will have a lot of explaining to do should they ever demand a long form certificate as a condition of candidacy. Remember, Arizona itself is no longer issuing long form birth certificates for its younger citizens — because said long form certificates do not exist.

I’m not putting the blame anywhere, for Arizona wisely decided not to go there.

unclesmrgol on April 20, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Yeah, in 20 years Arizona is going to have a problem getting it’s citizens qualified to run for President.

Give me a break.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Michelle Bachman disagrees with you Birthers, she says when presented with the Presidents COLB

“Well that should settle it” “I would have no problem presenting my Birth certificate and apparently the President wouldn’t either. Introduce that and we’re done.”

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Look dude, i’m not sure you lawyerly types are aware of something called “First Principles”, but that is the methodology used by Scientists and Engineers in dealing with the REAL world.

Your “Precedent based” arguments which are built on false and phony assumptions coupled with spurious logic and fallacious appeals to OTHER authorities who don’t know what they are talking about, May be impressive to gullible, uneducated and simple minded folk, but to people with the ability to reason, they are just so much “noise interference.”

Now at some point we have to question whether you are just that stupid, or whether you are actively seeking to spread false information because you are a partisan operative.

Some of you I will grant are just THAT level of stupid, but most of you I simply regard as partisan hacks attempting to hold back the tide of doubt which is eventually going to overwhelm your candidate.

To sum it up, “the jig is up!”

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM

but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing

I listened to her on FOX last night and she double talked.

If a bill is poorly written, she should be able to pinpoint the part which was poorly written and she did not. It usually takes one or two sentences to explain a legal weakness. I assume either she doesnt like guns in the hands of non psychotics on college campuses, or she made a political decision

Possible reasons to oppose a birther bill
1. political, because she would lose votes
2. she either wants a deal from the Prez, or they are threatening some loss of fed dollars
3. least likely: she thinks they will come up with a valid birth certificate the week before polls open, and pols who pushed the birther issue get egg on their face
4. Blackmail. no comment

I see the possibility a piece of paper will surface just before polls open (just like the documents about Bush’s drinking and military service). The document may pan out later to be a forgery, and there will be plausible deniability, and a cold trail to locate the forger, but the gimmick could spike the election

I see it. I do not see her thinking this way. Scratch one off the list

entagor on April 20, 2011 at 2:51 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Says the person who has concocted a fantasy scenario to which he has not a shred of proof.

One of operates in the realm of facts.
Newspaper articles from 50 years ago
Certificate of Live Birth
Conformation by Secretary of State and Republican Gov’ of State of HI.

One of us operates in the world of Jerome Corsi and his “Truther” movement….

Be well, continue your fight!!!

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Says the person who has concocted a fantasy scenario to which he has not a shred of proof.

One of operates in the realm of facts.
Newspaper articles from 50 years ago
Certificate of Live Birth
Conformation by Secretary of State and Republican Gov’ of State of HI.

One of us operates in the world of Jerome Corsi and his “Truther” movement….

Be well, continue your fight!!!

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

And every single thing you mentioned would occur from an “At Home Birth” filing.

The difference is that an “At Home Birth” Filing would also explain why he doesn’t want anyone to see it. If he had a REAL birth certificate, he wouldn’t be ashamed of it.

Back to you.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

You know what Obama’s “short form” certificaTION is like?

It’s like a guy trying to rob you by putting his hands in his pocket and pointing a finger at you like he has a gun.

“Show me the gun.” You say. To which he replies: “You better believe I got a gun in here! I’ll shoot you if you don’t do as I say! I’m not going to pull it out, but there REALLY is a gun in my pocket! “

Then there are people like NextGen who says: “Better do as he says! That’s a REAL gun he has! I Know because only a REAL gun would make a shape like that!”

You got a gun? (Real birth certificate?) Show us.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Just like it except…a finger won’t shoot.

His certificate does, it carries the full faith and credit of the HI, and thus the US Gov’t. It does represent Prima Facie proof of his birth in HI and citizenship. That’s not a matter of opinion, its a matter of law.

Now it’s your move, unless you can disprove these facts with facts of your own, not “could be” “might” ..but facts.. you are living up to the name of this website…

I could be bilbo baggins..but unless you can prove it …I deny..deny..deny..

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Just like it except…a finger won’t shoot.

His certificate does, it carries the full faith and credit of the HI, and thus the US Gov’t. It does represent Prima Facie proof of his birth in HI and citizenship. That’s not a matter of opinion, its a matter of law.

It’s an ALLEGATION of law. Let us GET his birth certificate into a court and SEE how it stands up shall we? Speaking of “Matter of Law”, here is what Hawaii state law says about an Amended birth certificate.

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

Hmmmm…. Hawaii specifically mentions “altered” or “Late” certificates are no good as evidence. And how do we know if a “certificaTION” is altered or late? THEY WON’T TELL YOU!

Now it’s your move, unless you can disprove these facts with facts of your own, not “could be” “might” ..but facts.. you are living up to the name of this website…

I could be bilbo baggins..but unless you can prove it …I deny..deny..deny..

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM

In discussing this with you, no proof is necessary, because no amount will be sufficient. You are the one repeating that we aren’t ALLOWED to see proof because Hawaiian Privacy law trumps Article II requirements!

Your argument would fold like wet tissue paper if it got into a court of law.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Oh, and here’s the Hawaiian.gov link for that reference to the Hawaiian statue governing “Altered” birth certificates.


§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 4:21 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Obviously you misunderstand.

The COLB, carries the full faith and credit of the state and says as much on it’s face… there is no more necessary, it is the document of legal standing. You may not like that but as stated that is the fact, and law.

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Obviously you misunderstand.

The COLB, carries the full faith and credit of the state and says as much on it’s face… there is no more necessary, it is the document of legal standing. You may not like that but as stated that is the fact, and law.

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

You are the one that does not understand. The document DOES have legal standing, but it is insufficient to meet the requirements specified by either the Arizona law OR the requirements of Article II.

A DRIVER’S LICENSE has legal standing, but it too is insufficient to meet the specified requirements. Arizona is NOT rejecting Hawaiian Documents, they are simply saying that the documents submitted are not the CORRECT Hawaiian documents. Hawaii HAS the correct document in it’s possession, and It CAN be submitted, so the shoe is on Hawaii’s foot. (Actually Obama) Not Arizona.

Even arguing LAW, you can’t win.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Um…sorry there is no “Arizona” Law..so who’s wrong on the law?

And the facts would suggest you are also wrong on Article 2, as em, he’s president.

heh

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Um…sorry there is no “Arizona” Law..so who’s wrong on the law?

That remains to be seen and is immaterial to the point anyway. Article II required the same proof as the proposed law. Election officials were just too stupid to demand it. Seems to be a common problem nowadays.

And the facts would suggest you are also wrong on Article 2, as em, he’s president.

heh

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 5:20 PM

More like the robber MUST have had a gun because the robbery was successful!

Obama is the result of a “reverse racism” Had he been white, he couldn’t have even gotten the nomination. He would have been regarded as another not very remarkable Democrat politician and the public would have given him a pass. But because he is black, the Media overlooked all his flaws and gave him the equivalent of a BILLION Dollars worth of free advertising and ran interference against his opponent because they were so in LOVE with the idea of having a Black President.

They are such racists that they could not honestly see the flaws in this jack@ss. I assure you, had a Republican tried the birth certificate stunt, the media would have declared his illegitimacy on a daily basis. He would be lucky if he managed to escape prison for attempting such a fraud.

Your argument that the crook got away with it is no justification for him continuing to get away with it.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Obama is the result of a “reverse racismHad he been white, he couldn’t have even gotten the nomination.

But because he is black, the Media overlooked all his flaws and gave him the equivalent of a BILLION Dollars worth of free advertising and ran interference against his opponent because they were so in LOVE with the idea of having a Black President.

He would be lucky if he managed to escape prison for attempting such a fraud.

Posted without comment other than to say, thanks for clarifying your true issue..and none of that changes that fact that his COLB holds standing of FF&C as provided by the United States Constitution.

Done on this topic with you, the ground has moved to a place where we are obviously no longer discussing the merits of the veto.

Be well…

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Posted without comment other than to say, thanks for clarifying your true issue..and none of that changes that fact that his COLB holds standing of FF&C as provided by the United States Constitution.

Done on this topic with you, the ground has moved to a place where we are obviously no longer discussing the merits of the veto.

Be well…

NextGen on April 20, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Don’t like having your side’s racism pointed out eh? Not surprised. It’s kind of hard to invoke Dr. Martin Luther King’s “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…” When you are doing the exact opposite. And now you are obfuscating the truth while proclaiming the tolerance of chicanery to be the “law”, as if con-man dodges are somehow worthy of legitimacy.

We weren’t having a discussion anyway. You were spouting crap and I was refuting it.

Your theories are junk even by legal standards, and your debating tactics don’t even merit the compliment of being called “debate.” They are fallacies heaped upon distortions with a good helping of lies and omissions mixed in. Now that awareness has donned on you that your phony arguments are futile, you spray an implied “racist” fart-bomb as you scurry to hide from the light.

Pardon me if i’m not cowed or impressed. Somehow the stench of Liberal’s favorite spew has lost it’s potency.

DiogenesLamp on April 20, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4