• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Is Arizona’s ‘Birther’ Bill Unconstitutional?

Following on the lead of the State Senate, last night the Arizona House passed a bill that would require every Presidential candidate to provide a so-called “long form” birth certificate, or some other form of proof of birth from a hospital, in order to appear on the Presidential ballot. As David Weigel noted, the law is written in such a way that it seems to be specifically designed to keep Barack Obama off the ballot. The bill now sits on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk where she can choose to sign it into law, veto it, or do nothing at all at which point it would automatically become law after five days. The question, though, is whether or not the bill is Constitutional.

The issues of Presidential qualification are dealt with, quite clearly it seems, in the 12th and 20th Amendments, which would seemingly pre-empt any state law on the subject.

First, the 12th Amendment provides in part:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following [changed to January 20th by 20th Amendment], then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The 20th Amendment says in part:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The clear implications of these Amendments and Article II, then, is that the issue of Presidential qualification is one that solely belongs to the Electoral College and Congress. The states play no role at all.

The Constitution does allow states to determine rules for ballot access, however, in  U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court put important limits on what the states can make a ballot qualification when it comes to Federal offices.

In that case, Arkansas attempted to put a term limit on Members of Congress and Senators via it’s state Constitution by stating that a candidate’s name could not appear on the ballot if they had served three terms as Congressman, or two terms in the Senate. The Supreme Court struck down the state-imposed term limits, focusing primarily on the issue of whether states have the right to impose requirements beyond those strictly set forth in the Constitution:

[W]e believe that state imposed qualifications, as much as congressionally imposed qualifications, would undermine the second critical idea recognized in Powell: that an aspect of sovereignty is the right of the people to vote for whom they wish. Again, the source of the qualification is of little moment in assessing the qualification’s restrictive impact.

Finally, state imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. From the start, the Framers recognized that the “great and radical vice” of the Articles of Confederation was “the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE orCOLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of whom they consist.” The Federalist No. 15, at 108 (Hamilton). Thus the Framers, in perhaps their most important contribution, conceived of a Federal Government directly responsible to the people, possessed of direct power over the people, and chosen directly, not by States, but by the people. See, e. g., supra, at 22-23. The Framers implemented this ideal most clearly in the provision, extant from the beginning of the Republic, that calls for the Members of the House of Representatives to be “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Art. I, §2, cl. 1. Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people. As Chief Justice John Marshall observed: “The government of the union, then, . . . is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 404-405. [n.31] Ours is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863).

The Framers deemed this principle critical when they discussed qualifications. For example, during the debates on residency requirements, Morris noted that inthe House, “the people at large, not the States, are represented.” 2 Farrand 217 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). Similarly, George Read noted that the Framers “were forming a Nati[ona]l Gov[ernmen]t and such a regulation would correspond little with the idea that we were one people.” Ibid. (Emphasis in original.) James Wilson “enforced the same consideration.” Ibid.

Consistent with these views, the constitutional structure provides for a uniform salary to be paid from the national treasury, allows the States but a limited role in federal elections, and maintains strict checks on state interference with the federal election process. The Constitution also provides that the qualifications of the representatives of each State will be judged by the representatives of the entire Nation. The Constitution thus creates a uniform national body representing the interests of a single people.

Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their representatives would result in a patchwork of state qualifications, undermining the uniformity and the national character that the Framers envisioned and sought to ensure. Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 428-429 (1819) (“Those means are not given by the people of a particular State, not given by the constituents of the legislature, . . . but by the people of all the States. They are given by all, for the benefit of all-and upon theory should be subjected to that government only which belongs to all”). Such a patchwork would also sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States. [n.32]

The holding in this case, then argues strongly in favor of the proposition that the states cannot impose requirements for federal office holders beyond those set forth in the Constitution. This would include the requirement that a candidate provide proof of his eligibility beyond the affidavit which every state requires a candidate or his representative to sign.

Arizona’s bill, if it becomes law, would also seem to be vulnerable to a challenge under the Full Faith And Credit Clause. 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.

Assuming this bill becomes law, I would imagine we’ll see legal challenges fairly quickly. Hopefully, though, we won’t have to deal with that and Governor Brewer will do the right thing and veto this stupid bill.

 

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. tom p says:

    Hopefully, though, we won’t have to deal with that and Governor Brewer will do the right thing and veto this stupid bill.

    And save us all a lot of money on legal expenses (which AZ can ill afford to lose)

    The stupidity of this bill becomes obvious when one considers the possibilty of 50 states with 50 different qualifications for President.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Jay Tea says:

    Doug, you’re a lawyer and I’m not, so you have an advantage here. But there are a couple of points that don’t lead me to challenge you (I’m not that confident of my abilities as a slightly-above-average layman to go that far), but I think are worth considering.

    The first is that, technically, we don’t vote for president. We vote for electors, who then vote for president. That could be enough of a fig leaf technicality.

    The second is that the Constitution explicitly grants the states final say on Congressional elections (Article I, Section 4), as well as full control over how the electors are chosen (Article II, Section 1). It also limits Congress’ role to setting the date of the “chusing” of the electors and the date that they cast their votes — and no further.

    I see this as in the spirit of Arizona’s controversial immigration law — not adding anything to existing laws, simply extending the enforcement thereof. And in this case, there is considerably more precedent in the states managing their own elections.

    The obvious exception, of course, is in the South, after the Civil War through the Civil Rights movement (albeit intermittently). In that case, though, the states were accused of violating and thwarting the Constitution; here, the state is actively attempting to reinforce it.

    My inclination is to agree with Arizona’s right to control its ballot in a way that is fully in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the US Constitution… but again, as merely a layman with a true passion for and plenty of amateur scholarship of the Constitution, I think it is highly arguable… and fascinating.

    I also think it’s pretty much guaranteed to serve as a dog-whistle to the hyperpartisan dips who will find it an excuse to toss around their stock accusations and insults instead of actually trying to think about the issue.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. PD Shaw says:

    I think the Full Faith and Credit Clause is the big problem here. If Hawaii is going to certify that he was born there, I don’t think Arizona can question that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Jay Tea says:

    PD, “Full Faith And Credit” was also brought up during the gay marriage dispute. It didn’t get the DOMA struck down, as I recall.

    And as I read the law, they aren’t challenging a theoretical Hawaiian certification, just asking for confirmation.

    It’s a real can of worms…

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Jay,

    You are correct. The states have the power to regulate the electors. that is different, though, from saying they have any role at all in determining the eligibility of a candidate for president.

    Also, i suggest you take a look at that Thornton case because it places limits on the states power even over Congressional candidates.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Southern Hoosier says:

    I don’t care if it’s the States, Congress, or the Supreme Court, we need some type of vetting process to insure that future presidential candidates are qualified per the Constitution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jay Dubbs says:

    Apparently Arizona is doing so well that it can continue to pass these “Full Employment for Lawyers” bills. If Hawaii (or any state) certifies that a person was born there, the Constitutional requirement is satisfied. (And even that probably isn’t Constitutionally required.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Jay Tea says:

    Again, Doug, layman here, but it seems to me that Thornton was based on additional restrictions to hold office, while Arizona doesn’t change the fundamental qualifications to be president. It’s simply saying “we’re going to make certain the Constitutional limitations are followed.”

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Jay Tea says:

    Apparently Arizona is doing so well that it can continue to pass these “Full Employment for Lawyers” bills.

    Well, with ObamaCare being threatened, we gotta have SOMETHING to pick up the slack for those poor, underprivileged lawyers…

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Rick Almeida says:

    PD, “Full Faith And Credit” was also brought up during the gay marriage dispute. It didn’t get the DOMA struck down, as I recall.

    Jay, to the best of my knowledge, DOMA hasn’t been challenged in Federal court at all because nobody has demonstrated standing to sue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. PD Shaw says:

    Jay Tea, I don’t think this bill is simply seeking confirmation. I’m not certain it would be a problem to require a candidate to provide a birth certificate, which could be used to demonstrate his or her age. This particular bill foresees not liking Hawaii’s form, and requiring names of witnesses and any physician. IOW, it foresees testing the accuracy of the form.

    And part of the problem is that “natural born citizen” is a legal conclusion, not an fact (like age). I agree with tom p that this is setting up a situation where different states might have different legal interpretations of that phrase.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Jay Dubbs says:

    JT,

    As a lawyer I appreciate Arizona’s efforts, but feel sorry for the poor schmuck who is going to have to stand in front of a Judge and defend this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Southern Hoosier says:

    Jay Dubbs says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:02

    Apparently Arizona is doing so well that it can continue to pass these “Full Employment for Lawyers” bills. If Hawaii (or any state) certifies that a person was born there, the Constitutional requirement is satisfied.

    Jay, do you know who certified Obama’s birth record? Some appointed bureaucrat, with no independent verification. If Hawaii says he was born there, fine, but how about a little independent verification?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Boyd says:

    To me, the problem with the Arizona bill isn’t that it requires “proof of citizenship” (since natural born citizenship is required by the Constitution), it’s that it dictates to other states the criteria they must use for their birth certificates. States don’t get to tell other states what procedures they must follow in their ministerial functions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. PD Shaw says:

    The gay marriage issue is different. Nobody is arguing that a marriage ceremony between two same sex couples did not happen on such and such a day. The state of Alabama is not disputing Vermont’s record of what happened. What is being disputed is whether Alabama can still have laws that restrict the legal effect of that marriage in their state.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Boyd says:

    IOW, Doug, I don’t buy your comparison to extra-Constitutional issues, such as term limits. Term limits aren’t in the Constitution. Natural born citizenship is. Not that I’m a birther, but I think your argument against the Arizona laws is basically a non sequitur.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Jay Dubbs says:

    Southern,

    The state of Hawaii certified that he was born there when it issued the Certificate of Live Birth. Would it be acceptable to require witness testimony of every candidate? To demand that footprints be included, and that the candidate submit current footprints for comparison? This is silly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. matt says:

    I’m reasonably sure my COLB wouldn’t be considered valid by this law so I wouldn’t qualify to run for president even though I was born in Illinois to two citizens..

    Really who has witnesses and crap by the time they are of the proper age?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Southern Hoosier says:

    Jay, when votes are counted, do we trust a single partisan clerk to count the ballot behind a close door and then take their word for it? No it is done by a bipartisan committee. So why should I trust a single bureaucrat behind closed doors? Not every candidate, just the presidential one.

    Hawaii governor claims record of Obama’s birth ‘exists in archives’ but can’t produce the vital document.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html#ixzz1JbnXpNcx
    How do you certify something you can’t find?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Andyman says:

    SH,

    Jay gets to a good point. Perhaps a candidate’s birthplace needs to be verified, but to who’s satisfaction? If I’m satisfied by the COLB and you’re not, what’s the tiebreaker? What about the hardcore birthers who demand all of his tuition bills… do they get their way too?

    What all this shows is that “people are suspicious” is a very tricky reason for compelling anyone to do anything. Some people will always be suspicious. Who decides who gets to be satisfied and who doesn’t?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Jay, do you know who certified Obama’s birth record? Some appointed bureaucrat, with no independent verification. If Hawaii says he was born there, fine, but how about a little independent verification?

    This is a meaningless statement. The Kapiolani Medical Center, where Obama was born, automatically transmitted Obama’s birth data to Hawaii’s Department of Health in 1961, as well as the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Advertiser, both of which published announcements a few days later. The DOH maintained that data in its records, as it still does to this day. Any time Obama needs a birth certificate, he simply requests it from the DOH, which sends it to him. That’s the same way it works in every state in the union. And it’s what Obama actually did in 2007, when his campaign ordered his birth certificate to quell the “his middle name is Mohammed” rumors. I don’t know what other “independent verification” any normal person would want.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. PJ says:

    @Jay Dubbs:

    The state of Hawaii certified that he was born there when it issued the Certificate of Live Birth. Would it be acceptable to require witness testimony of every candidate? To demand that footprints be included, and that the candidate submit current footprints for comparison? This is silly.

    It’s time to demand DNA tests of all future candidates. (And probably also their parents and grand parents just to be sure…)
    The candidate’s mother could have had an affair with a foreigner.
    The candidate could have been swapped at birth.
    Just demanding a birth certificate wouldn’t be enough to stop either of these.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Andyman says:

    It’s my understanding that Hawaii law actually precludes the release of the “long form” BC. That’s why they pass out COLB’s.

    Suppose a substantial number of states pass Arizona-style laws. Hawaii doesn’t change theirs. Would that, in effect, disqualify any Hawaiian from becoming president? That seems like a ridiculous outcome and one reason to be skeptical that Arizona’s law passes a court challenge.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Neil Hudelson says:

    I don’t know why everyone’s complaining about these qualifications. When I was born, I had both parents in the room, 2 doctors (one as a backup verification), a priest, a notary public, and my lawyer. My birth certificate contains my full name, religion, race, my family tree going back 3 generations, notarization, 2 attending doctors signature, a nurses signature, a guy in the waiting room’s signature, a stamp of approval from the local paper stating I was indeed born on that day, both foot prints, all of my finger prints (tiny!), and a drop of my blood to finalize the covenant.

    The last time I asked for my birth certificate, 4 lawyers–two from each party–and the governor all met me at the counter to assure me that my BC was legit.

    IANAL, but that seems to me the normal procedure and certification in every state.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. PJ says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    No DNA testing? All that trouble for nothing… ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. PD Shaw says:

    Where is the hermetically sealed jar containing Neil’s foreskin?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Scott says:

    “I don’t know what other “independent verification” any normal person would want.”

    We’re not discussing what normal people want here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. mantis says:

    Suppose a substantial number of states pass Arizona-style laws. Hawaii doesn’t change theirs. Would that, in effect, disqualify any Hawaiian from becoming president? That seems like a ridiculous outcome and one reason to be skeptical that Arizona’s law passes a court challenge.

    Actually, this law would make an Arizona birth certificate, as currently issued, insufficient. They are trying to bar their own citizens from running for president.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. N says:

    Actually, this law would make an Arizona birth certificate, as currently issued, insufficient. They are trying to bar their own citizens from running for president.

    Yep. Arizona’s own Secretary of State, a Republican born in Tucson mind you, recently commented that he doubted his own birth certificate met the requirements of this law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. PD Shaw says:

    I wonder how many Presidents in U.S. history even had a birth certificate? I’m guessing it’s less than half.

    And how do we know about Chester Arthur?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. PD Shaw says:

    Eisenhower apparently did not have a birth certificate until 1952. Link

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. mantis says:

    Eisenhower apparently did not have a birth certificate until 1952.

    Impeach!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. PD Shaw says:

    Or perhaps just put an asterisk by his name from now on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Davebo says:

    The first president to be born in a hospital was Jimmy Carter.

    Therefore all that came before him were TRAITORS!

    Or something like that..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Jay Dubbs says:

    Given the Arizona’s SOS comments, perhaps this law is not actually aimed at Obama, but is merely a ploy to ensure that Jan Brewer does not run for President.

    As for Southern’s concerns about unmanned (or named) bureaucrats, I think the solution is obvious. From this day forward, all births must be live streamed on the Internet and at the age of 1, a microchip with that video implanted in the child’s skin by an elected official. (A Secretary of Natural Born Citizen Department perhaps?). This way future generations will not be tricked by conspiracies like this generation has been.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Pug says:

    All that information Neil Hudelson has is fine, but we will still be needing that circumcision certificate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. alanstorm says:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Doug, did you forget this minor point? It’s written on some old document somewhere…

    I have no problem with any candidate for national office proving, as far as they are able, that they are fully qualified for the office as stated above. Having a politician fill out an affidavit is insufficient. Having another politician vouch for the candidate is insufficient. Please don’t tell me that you believe that a politician would never lie!

    BTW, your statement

    The issues of Presidential qualification are dealt with, quite clearly it seems, in the 12th and 20th Amendments, which would seemingly pre-empt any state law on the subject.

    is inapplicable. The amendments, at least the parts you quote, are dealing with process, not qualifications. This makes your statement

    The clear implications of these Amendments and Article II, then, is that the issue of Presidential qualification is one that solely belongs to the Electoral College and Congress. The states play no role at all.

    something of a head-scratcher. Nowhere in the quoted portions have you demonstrated that.

    The case you quote is not helpful to you either. The gist of it is given away here:

    Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their representatives would result in a patchwork of state qualifications,…

    That’s fine, the qualifications should be uniform – however, the point of Arizona’s law is not to impose different qualifications, but to assure the voters that all persons on the ballot meet the qualification set forth in the Constitution.

    And, to rephrase, I don’t believe a politician’s declaration that “well, gee, SURE I meet the qualifications! Trust me!” is sufficient.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Davebo says:

    The Alanstorm plan?

    Place the candidate in a large swimming pool.

    If he sinks, he’s a citizen!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. N says:

    alanstorm says:
    That’s fine, the qualifications should be uniform – however, the point of Arizona’s law is not to impose different qualifications, but to assure the voters that all persons on the ballot meet the qualification set forth in the Constitution.

    And, to rephrase, I don’t believe a politician’s declaration that “well, gee, SURE I meet the qualifications! Trust me!” is sufficient.

    Oh for crying out loud. This is a red herring. President Obama has released his birth certificate, and far more is known about his birth in 1961 than the births of many other modern presidents. When asked about this issue during an interview, Hawaii’s Republican Governor Linda Lingle said the following:

    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    You people really need to get over yourselves.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. Trumwill says:

    I believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States and that I shouldn’t even have to preface a comment by saying this… but here we are.

    Despite this, though, I do wonder where the controlling authority is, here? Who makes the ultimate decision about qualification or disqualification? I’ve heard good explanations about why it shouldn’t be a citizen filing a lawsuit (lack of standing) and that the states shouldn’t do it… but who does?

    (I ask because it would be nice to have a forum where we can point to a specific threshold having been passed and urge moving on. I had previously thought that was actually the states putting him on the ballot. But if they don’t really have a choice… where is the threshold?)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. alanstorm says:

    N, for crying out loud! wouldn’t you like this issue to go away? Or, more to the point never come up again? (Nod “yes”, it’s your only reasonable answer.) I would. I’m not a “birther”, I simply want this to never happen again.

    I would prefer to have a candidate prove as far as possible that he is qualified for the office in question, as opposed to having a another politician vouch for him. What exactly is objectionable about this? I have had to do this many times in my life, all for reasons with far less national impact.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. N says:

    alanstorm says:
    N, for crying out loud! wouldn’t you like this issue to go away? Or, more to the point never come up again? (Nod “yes”, it’s your only reasonable answer.) I would. I’m not a “birther”, I simply want this to never happen again.

    I would prefer to have a candidate prove as far as possible that he is qualified for the office in question, as opposed to having a another politician vouch for him. What exactly is objectionable about this? I have had to do this many times in my life, all for reasons with far less national impact.

    What have you had to do beyond showing your birth certificate? That’s exactly what President Obama has done, even though he didn’t really have to and probably shouldn’t have in hindsight because it still didn’t shut the birthers up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. panjo says:

    The only fact that remains here is that Arizona, again is trying to be above federal law!! Choosing of the president is not for states to decide. He is not the governor but the president where all requirements have to be uniform for all the states.. If Arizona objects they can request and put forth an ammendement to the constitution. This law is uncontitutional in every which way.
    Maybe we can sell Arizona to Mexico and make some money to pay for the debt?? Its a damn dessert anyway full of idiots!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. Southern Hoosier says:

    As I said earlier

    I don’t care if it’s the States, Congress, or the Supreme Court, we need some type of vetting process to insure that future presidential candidates are qualified per the Constitution.

    All this back and forth talk just goes to show we need an orderly vetting process before the 2016 election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. N says:

    Trumwill says:
    Despite this, though, I do wonder where the controlling authority is, here? Who makes the ultimate decision about qualification or disqualification? I’ve heard good explanations about why it shouldn’t be a citizen filing a lawsuit (lack of standing) and that the states shouldn’t do it… but who does?

    If the Republican nominee was enough of an idiot to challenge Barack Obama on this issue, he or she would be perfectly free to file a lawsuit to declare Obama ineligible. Congress also has the final say in approving the results forwarded to them of the electoral college outcome. Any constitutional eligiblity issues would be explored there, and any objections raised by even a single member of Congress would be heard. There was a vote, prior to the inauguration, on whether to accept the results of the 2008 election. The vote was unanimous in its approval.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    As I said earlier

    I don’t care if it’s the States, Congress, or the Supreme Court, we need some type of vetting process to insure that future presidential candidates are qualified per the Constitution.

    All this back and forth talk just goes to show we need an orderly vetting process before the 2016 election.

    The states cast their electoral votes according to their own state election rules, within the electoral college. So the states do have a process. Congress certifies the results of the electoral college, the sole purpose of which is to ensure that the result is legal and constitutional, so Congress also has a process. The Supreme Court is involved in swearing in the president at his inauguation, which in 2008 actually took place twice since the oath was screwed up, so even the Supreme Court has a process. Not to mention the several dozens of birther lawsuits filed with the Supreme Court that the Court has unanimously rejected each and every time. What more “process” do you want?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. Jay Dubbs says:

    If only we had an arbiter of what the Constitution says and what is Constitutional. It could be some type of system with judges and maybe like a supreme court or something. And if they could only address issues such as this. (What? There is? And it has? Oh, then never mind.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. PD Shaw says:

    I disagree that we need vetting. Why not let the voters decide with their votes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. Southern Hoosier says:

    “N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:09
    The states cast their electoral votes according to their own state election rules, within the electoral college. “

    OK Arizona passes a birther law and gets jumped on by everyone. So much for “according to their own state election rules.” Before the primary election, before a presidential candidate’s name even goes on the ballot, there needs to be vetting process. There is nothing in our present process to determine if a candidate for president is eligible. All the electoral college does is to confirm the popular vote.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Boyd says:

    Why not let the voters decide with their votes?

    I’m not a birther or anything, but the answer to your question is, for the same reason we don’t let voters decide to elect a 30-year-old with their votes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    OK Arizona passes a birther law and gets jumped on by everyone. So much for “according to their own state election rules.” Before the primary election, before a presidential candidate’s name even goes on the ballot, there needs to be vetting process. There is nothing in our present process to determine if a candidate for president is eligible. All the electoral college does is to confirm the popular vote

    The states decide how their electoral votes are tabulated and counted within the electoral college. The states do not get to decide to impose their own arbitrary, make-believe rules on candidates in their effort to prevent us, voters, from casting our vote for the candidate of our choice. (Let’s not forget, after all, that birthers are ultimately trying to nullify the constitutional right of every American, 69 million in total who voted for Barack Obama, to vote according to their political free choice.) The Arizona bill gives greater recognition to a certificate of circumcision than it does to a legal birth certificate issued by many states in the union. I suppose, next, Arizona should require presidential candidates to fly to Phoenix, take their pants off and whip it out in front of our governor before being allowed to be placed on the ballot here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:00
    What have you had to do beyond showing your birth certificate?

    Show what to whom? We need a simple standard process. Do we use the short form or the long form? How do we know the birth record is genuine?

    Let the voter decide. Great idea, we now have two armed camps, birthers and non-birthers. Nobody has the final say.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:27 (Let’s not forget, after all, that birthers are ultimately trying to nullify the constitutional right of every American, 69 million in total who voted for Barack Obama, to vote according to their political free choice.)

    No, the birthers are trying to see that the Constitution is being upheld and there is not an imposter natural born citizen sitting in the White House.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Show what to whom? We need a simple standard process. Do we use the short form or the long form? How do we know the birth record is genuine?

    Let the voter decide. Great idea, we now have two armed camps, birthers and non-birthers. Nobody has the final say.

    It’s up to the individual states to decide whether they want to use “short form” or “long form” birth certificates. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you propose a constitutional amendment eliminating the concept of federalism from our system of government. Good luck.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. PD Shaw says:

    Boyd, if the country is going to elect the next breakout star from American Idol, it’s got more problems than the “natural born citizen” clause can protect us from.

    Seriously, this issue is only going to come up in murky circumstances. Arnold can’t get elected President, while repeatedly answering why he doesn’t think the Constitution applies him. And in murky circumstances, the judges would just be making it up. “Natural born citizen” is not a legal term of art, it was a phrase invented on the fly, at a time when the Founders couldn’t agree on what the rules of regular citizenship should be. I think the voters are just as well-equipped to decide whether a candidate is American enough.

    The most logical alternative would be to require Presidential candidates to get pre-qualified years in advance of election. I don’t think that would lead to better candidates, and it frankly sounds like something they do in socialist/religious fundamentalist countries.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. PJ says:

    No, the birthers are trying to see that the Constitution is being upheld and there is not an imposter natural born citizen sitting in the White House.

    Then why were there no birthers before Obama? 42 men were elected president before Obama…
    Did people demand that Reagan should prove that he was a natural born citizen? Kennedy? Clinton?
    Was it as important then as now?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Southern Hoosier says:

    PD Shaw says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:40
    most logical alternative would be to require Presidential candidates to get pre-qualified years in advance of election. I don’t think that would lead to better candidates, and it frankly sounds like something they do in socialist/religious fundamentalist countries.

    I agree. But unlike “socialist/religious fundamentalist countries” the only questions ask of a presidential candidate would be those already written in the Constitution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. PD Shaw says:

    PJ, people questioned McCain’s qualifications. Chester Arthur was subject to simlar rumors. I think as the world has gotten smaller, and America has become a global power, it may become less traditional for candidates to have lived their entire life in the U.S. and be born to two U.S. citizens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. Rick Shreiner says:

    “BIRFERS”, read this:
    Click here which documents Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, defining the Full Faith and Credit clause [all States MUST accept public records of EVERY OTHER State - it's in the Constitution, you know that document you love to quote].
    and then read this:
    Click here which details how Congress, through the CDC determines minimum requirements for public records etc.

    When you have finished the homework assignment, then come back and make an attempt at ‘splaining away the Certification of Live Birth that Pres Obama has had out in public for about 3 years now.

    In the meantime, all you “birfers” have earned a big fat “F” grade, meaning you FAILED.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. N says:

    There is no factual basis for a “pre-nomination vetting procedure” here, which would be unconstitutional by the way: the parties are free to nominate whoever they damn please and it’s not up to some government bureaucrat, much less some birther freak who thinks the President is an illegal alien, to tell them what to do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. sam says:

    @PD

    “I don’t think this bill is simply seeking confirmation”

    It’s a bill of attainder, the aim of which is to prevent Barack Obama from being elected.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. Southern Hoosier says:

    PJ says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:43
    Then why were there no birthers before Obama? 42 men were elected president before Obama…
    Did people demand that Reagan should prove that he was a natural born citizen? Kennedy? Clinton?
    Was it as important then as now?

    Times change, issues change. I’m sure in the in future elections there will be issues that we haven’t thought of yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Wiley Stoner says:

    N, you made a statement that in 1961 they automatically transmitted. You want to explain what technology was available in 1961 to do that? That was approximately 19 year before the PC. Did they use automatic carrier pigeon?
    Arizona has the right to decide who appears on their ballots or do they not?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. Southern Hoosier says:

    PD Shaw says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:52

    PJ, people questioned McCain’s qualifications. Chester Arthur was subject to simlar rumors. I think as the world has gotten smaller, and America has become a global power, it may become less traditional for candidates to have lived their entire life in the U.S. and be born to two U.S. citizens.

    You forgot to add Kennedy as a Catholic and Romney as a Mormon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. N says:

    Wiley Stoner says:
    N, you made a statement that in 1961 they automatically transmitted. You want to explain what technology was available in 1961 to do that? That was approximately 19 year before the PC. Did they use automatic carrier pigeon?

    By “automatically” I meant, “as a matter of standard procedure for all babies born at that hospital.” Even in 1961, most if not all states required hospitals to send birth record data to state agencies for every birth that took place in their facility. I assume this was done by mail, but you may be right that carrier pigeons may have been used. I really don’t know.

    Arizona has the right to decide who appears on their ballots or do they not?

    The state government of Arizona does not have the right to prevent American citizens who happen to reside in Arizona from voting for the Democratic nominee for President, or the Republican nominee for President, or any other party’s nominee. Americans have a constitutional right to vote enshrined in the 6th Amendment. The courts do not take kindly to efforts to infringe on that right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  66. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Times change, issues change. I’m sure in the in future elections there will be issues that we haven’t thought of yet.

    You flatter yourself. There’s no “issue” you’ve raised here. There isn’t even a prima facie case to be made out that the President was born anywhere but at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. In fact, you birthers are so scatterbrained you can’t even decide on the basic facts of your own kook conspiracy theory. Some of you say he was born in Mombasa. Why? No one knows. His father wasn’t from Mombasa, and Mombasa wasn’t even in Kenya in 1961, it was in Zanzibar. Oh, which reminds me that some of you say he was born in Zanzibar. Some of you also say he was born in Indonesia, even though there’s no indication he ever lived there until after his mother married an Indonesian at a later age. Some of you say he was even born in Canada, according to some mysterious “Canadian news reporter” who birthers have failed to identify by name. Birthers can’t seem to make up their minds, and they’re also very confused about the facts. Now, one of them is the front-runner in the polls for the GOP nomination. Good luck with the election!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. Southern Hoosier says:

    PJ says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 16:43
    Then why were there no birthers before Obama? 42 men were elected president before Obama…
    Did people demand that Reagan should prove that he was a natural born citizen? Kennedy? Clinton?
    Was it as important then as now?

    You ever read your own posts? Then why were there no birthers before Obama? All I see is a question about past presidents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  68. An Interested Party says:

    Then why were there no birthers before Obama?

    Melanin…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  69. Southern Hoosier says:

    An Interested Party says:Friday, April 15, 2011 at 18:55

    Then why were there no birthers before Obama?

    Melanin…

    I was wondering when some liberal would play the race card.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  70. alanstorm says:

    What have you had to do beyond showing your birth certificate? That’s exactly what President Obama has done…

    Citation? Or did he fill out an affidavit, as is currently allowed? Not snark, just want to see it stated somewhere. Preferably somewhere credible. I haven’t seen it claimed either way.

    There is no factual basis for a “pre-nomination vetting procedure” here, which would be unconstitutional by the way: the parties are free to nominate whoever they damn please and it’s not up to some government bureaucrat, much less some birther freak who thinks the President is an illegal alien, to tell them what to do.

    Um, sort of. Parties can try to nominate anyone they please, but they can’t be elected unless they fill the requirements set out in Article II. You may have meant that, to be sure, but your statement as is is misleading at best.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. N says:

    alanstorm says:
    Citation? Or did he fill out an affidavit, as is currently allowed? Not snark, just want to see it stated somewhere. Preferably somewhere credible. I haven’t seen it claimed either way.

    You want a citation for google.com? His birth certificate has been widely published, discussed, analyzed, photographed, and scrutinized by outlets like the Washington Post. If you only consider the Newsletter of Orly Taitz to be a credible source, I can’t help you.

    Um, sort of. Parties can try to nominate anyone they please, but they can’t be elected unless they fill the requirements set out in Article II. You may have meant that, to be sure, but your statement as is is misleading at best.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I have any idea how anything you propose could possibly be constitutional. You can’t force political parties in America to go through a vetting process. The place to raise constitutional objections is Congress, when it certifies the results of the electoral college. Don’t like it? Propose a constitutional amendment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 19:59
    His birth certificate has been widely published, discussed, analyzed, photographed, and scrutinized by outlets like the Washington Post.

    You mean the one and only photo copy that was released by the Obama administration?

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I have any idea how anything you propose could possibly be constitutional.

    I guess you are clueless about the Article II of the Constitution

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  73. Southern Hoosier says:

    Amendment 10: Powers not delegated to the United States or denied to states are reserved to the states or to the people.

    Since there is no vetting process in Article II of the Constitution and a vetting process is not denied the States by the Constitution, then the States have the Constitutional power to establish a vetting process.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  74. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    You mean the one and only photo copy that was released by the Obama administration?

    Check your facts. Once birthers claimed the image clearly labeled and published by the Obama campaign on its official website was a hoax, the Hawaii Department of Health issued an official statement authenticating the certificate. Then, the Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, directed the director of DOH to personally view the original vitals in the DOH’s 1961 records, she did so, and Governor Lingle openly stated that the certificate was real, and that President Obama was born in Hawaii. In addition, and also in response to birther hysterics about the certificate’s authenticity, FactCheck.org physically examined the certificate, took photographs of it from multiple angles (including a few to show the “raised seal” that birthers claimed did not exist), and published its findings on ITS website. So yeah. That birth certificate.

    I guess you are clueless about the Article II of the Constitution

    Says the guy who thinks the President of the United States is an illegal alien.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Amendment 10: Powers not delegated to the United States or denied to states are reserved to the states or to the people.

    Since there is no vetting process in Article II of the Constitution and a vetting process is not denied the States by the Constitution, then the States have the Constitutional power to establish a vetting process.

    That’s a brilliant attempt at constitutional interpretation by you. You may, however, want to read the substance of the very blog post you are choosing to comment on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 20:41 Check your facts.

    OK fact check

    Dr. Chiy­ome Fukino, the for­mer direc­tor of Hawaii’s Depart­ment of Health, in a rare tele­phone inter­view with NBC said the orig­i­nal so-​​called “long form” birth cer­tifi­cate — described by Hawai­ian offi­cials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound vol­ume in a file cab­i­net on the first floor of the state Depart­ment of Health.

    They are talking about seeing the long form. but it was the short form that was released.

    The com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for the state’s then Repub­li­can gov­er­nor, Linda Lin­g (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a pub­lic state­ment in response to claims then cir­cu­lat­ing on the Inter­net that Obama was actu­ally born in Kenya.

    According to this story the governor never saw it, the communications director released a statement based on what Fukino said without ever seeing it.

    She (Fukino) found the orig­i­nal birth record, prop­erly num­bered, half typed and half hand­writ­ten,

    What was released was not half written and half typed.

    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attor­ney general’s office, said state law does not in fact per­mit the release of “vital records,” includ­ing an orig­i­nal “record of live birth” — even to the indi­vid­ual whose birth it records.

    If an orig­i­nal “record of live birth” can’t be released then what is that at the top of the page with the numbers blacked out?
    http://moronia.us/front/2011/04/hawaii-health-official-says-she-and-gop-governor-saw-obamas-birth-record/

    Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833

    How convenient for all you non-birthers. Facts are such ugly things, no wonder people ignore them

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 20:41
    Says the guy who thinks the President of the United States is an illegal alien.

    Actually I’m not much of a birther. I just want one thing, independent verification of what was released is real. A photo copy cannot be verified. When it comes to Obama’s birth record and liberals, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s quote, “The lady doth protest too much.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  78. hank says:

    I hate to see time & money wasted on this folly. I have had a running debate with an avowed birther and financial supporter of former LtCol Terry Lakin about the nuances in the Constitution regarding this issue. Below is the best description from the USC which I guess you could call the “meat & potatoes” of the Constitution:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
    I have read extensively lately about all this and have found nothing that even obliges anyone to provide proof of citizenship or even birth. The above title seems to be the best we can do now and we should probably leave it alone. No matter how you feel about this President he has been duly elected under the laws of our great nation and if you want the guy the only way to effect that change is at the ballot box. Be thankful we can have these discussions without having to be furtive about it and be equally thankful that we do not change our govt at the point of a gun.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  79. Al says:

    It’s times like this that I really, really, really hope that there is a shadowy organization running the world behind the scenes. This stuff is just a sideshow meant to entertain us, right? Please?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  80. Southern Hoosier says:

    hank says: Friday, April 15, 2011 at 21:42
    I have read extensively lately about all this and have found nothing that even obliges anyone to provide proof of citizenship or even birth.

    I guess there is nothing that would require a person running for president to show proof of age either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. AdrianS says:

    It’s interesting to see how all of Obama’s minions are scattering and fluttering around like chickens with their heads cut off, worried about the effect of Arizona’s law. Why? Is it that Obama really doesn’t have a long-form birth certificate? I guess not. Because why else would Obama’s followers even worry? Obama has a birth certificate. Right? Or, NOT.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  82. An Interested Party says:

    This is all really quite simple to resolve…if the birther loons are so convinced that the president does not meet the requirements to serve, why don’t they simply bring forth multiple lawsuits challenging him?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Actually I’m not much of a birther. I just want one thing, independent verification of what was released is real. A photo copy cannot be verified. When it comes to Obama’s birth record and liberals, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s quote, “The lady doth protest too much.”

    Holy Jesus. I love the irony of that quote.

    A “photo copy cannot be verified”? What does that even mean? The ORIGINAL was PHYSICALLY EXAMINED by the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, and by several analysts for FactCheck.org, which by the way is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization run by the Annenberg Foundation. You know. Annenberg. The guy that was good friends with President Nixon and President Reagan. The conservative. Do you next wish for the certificate to be personally delivered to your living room sofa so you can inspect it yourself?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. Jay Tea says:

    N said:

    The state government of Arizona does not have the right to prevent American citizens who happen to reside in Arizona from voting for the Democratic nominee for President, or the Republican nominee for President, or any other party’s nominee. Americans have a constitutional right to vote enshrined in the 6th Amendment. The courts do not take kindly to efforts to infringe on that right.

    The Sixth Amendment says no such thing; it’s entirely concerned with the rights of the accused.

    If you meant the 15th Amendment, it says The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

    None of which apply to the Arizona bill being proposed — it does not deal with race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  85. N says:

    Thanks for pointing out my oversight, Jay Tea. Which brings us to the point that the right to vote is protected by far more important provisions of the Constitution that you seem to have overlooked in your haste to correct my amendment number: the 1st and 14th Amendments. Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. Boyd says:

    Once again, I’m not a birther, but I can’t avoid pointing out a fatuous argument when I hear it, regardless of whether or not I agree with other, more fundamental points.

    And N, if what you keep saying is true, then states couldn’t establish procedures or requirements for parties to get their nominees on the ballot. That’s just not true. While I completely agree that the procedures they are trying to establish with this bill are asinine and unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, your claim that Arizona can’t do anything like this is obviously incorrect on its face.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  87. Jay Tea says:

    Don’t get snotty with me because you screwed up your own citaiton, N.

    You cited the 6th Amendment, and that didn’t sound right, so I fact-checked it — and you were wrong.

    Then I looked at the 16th, figuring it might have been a typo. No again.

    But the 14th does deal with voting rights, so I mentioned that.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying that you’ve yet to actually present a cogent argument.

    I was about to dismiss you as one of those ignoramuses (ignorami) who insist that something is “fundamental” and “so important” that it HAS to be in the Constitution, even if they can’t point to just where it is, when you started citing court cases. That opened up a new possibility — you’re now BSing as fast as you can.

    Again, I’m no lawyer, but a quick skimming of Burdick v. Takushi seems, to this layman, to assert the opposite of what you imply: that states can put some limitations on voting and ballots without rising to the level of “infringing on a Constitutional right.”

    Again, not saying you’re wrong — but you sure as hell haven’t even started to prove you’re right.

    and the more bogus arguments you throw up, the less “right” you look.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  88. Southern Hoosier says:

    Annenberg Foundation is about as left as you can get. Total lack of independent verification by the right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  89. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 03:57
    A “photo copy cannot be verified”? What does that even mean? The ORIGINAL was PHYSICALLY EXAMINED by the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, and by several analysts for FactCheck.org, which by the way is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization run by the Annenberg Foundation.

    The Annenberg Foundation is a big supporter of NPR, National Propaganda Radio, hardly a right wing news source

    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attor­ney general’s office, said state law does not in fact per­mit the release of “vital records,” includ­ing an orig­i­nal “record of live birth” — even to the indi­vid­ual whose birth it records.

    If an orig­i­nal “record of live birth” can’t be released then what did Factcheck look at?
    http://moronia.us/front/2011/04/hawaii-health-official-says-she-and-gop-governor-saw-obamas-birth-record/

    Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833

    The Governor couldn’t find it, but Factcheck did? Facts are such ugly things, no wonder people ignore them

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  90. Southern Hoosier says:

    Jon Meacham: Allow non-native Americans to run for president

    If we were to repeal the (native-born) clause, we would open the doors to the children of the new America, a nation that began to take shape when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965. Orrin Hatch suggested this almost seven years ago — he was thinking then of a possible Schwarzenegger bid — and you can imagine how far the initiative got. Amendments take time, but this one is worth the effort.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/jon-meacham-allow-non-native-born-americans-to-run-for-president/8679/
    PBS supported by the Annenberg Foundation, fair and balanced.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  91. jukeboxgrad says:

    Southern Hoosier:

    The Governor couldn’t find it

    This is the article you cited:

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833

    That article doesn’t establish that “the Governor couldn’t find it.” That article does exactly what you are doing: making a claim without showing proof to demonstrate that the claim is true.

    How do you know “the Governor couldn’t find it?” Is that what he said? If so, then cite his exact words where he said that.

    Total lack of independent verification by the right.

    Obama’s birth and the authenticity of his original birth certificate have been verified by the former governor of HI, a Republican and a supporter of McCain. How is this not “independent verification by the right?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  92. N says:

    Again, I’m no lawyer, but a quick skimming of Burdick v. Takushi seems, to this layman, to assert the opposite of what you imply: that states can put some limitations on voting and ballots without rising to the level of “infringing on a Constitutional right.”

    Your skimming skills leave much to be desired. I merely cited Burdick for the general notion that the right to vote is a fundamental one in our Constitution, under the 1st and 14th amendments. the court said in part:

    It is beyond cavil that “voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.”

    Burdick makes some interesting points that address your very argument, though, so I’m surprised that you missed this one completely:

    The Constitution provides that States may prescribe “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” Art. I, 4, cl. 1, and the Court therefore has recognized that States retain the power to regulate their own elections. Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647 (1973); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986). Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role in structuring elections; “as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974).

    This point also addresses Boyd’s confusion above who cites an Arizona statute. Both of you gentlemen appear to have skipped the entire discussion in the original blog post, and have also failed to comprehend Thornton. I suggest some more skimming.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  93. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    If an orig i nal “record of live birth” can’t be released then what did Factcheck look at?

    The birth certificate issued by the DOH.

    The Governor couldn’t find it, but Factcheck did? Facts are such ugly things, no wonder people ignore them

    Governor Abercrombie wanted to plunge into the DOH’s vault and pull out Obama’s original vitals. The DOH told him that’s not legal, as it has from the beginning. Factcheck examined his birth certificate, not the vitals, because birthers like you said the certificate was a fake computer image.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  94. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says: Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 12:36 Obama’s birth and the authenticity of his original birth certificate have been verified by the former governor of HI

    The com­mu­ni­ca­tions direc­tor for the state’s then Repub­li­can gov­er­nor, Linda Lin­g (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a pub­lic state­ment in response to claims then cir­cu­lat­ing on the Inter­net that Obama was actu­ally born in Kenya.

    http://moronia.us/front/2011/04/hawaii-health-official-says-she-and-gop-governor-saw-obamas-birth-record/

    According to this story the governor never saw it, the communications director released a statement based on what Fukino said without ever seeing it. Fukino is the only one that actually saw it and we are taking her word for what she saw.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  95. jukeboxgrad says:

    Fukino is the only one that actually saw it and we are taking her word for what she saw.

    She was appointed by an R governor, and she made her original statements about Obama’s birth while acting on behalf of that R governor. And she is a GOP contributor. Why shouldn’t we be “taking her word for what she saw?”

    How is her statement not “independent verification by the right?” In your view, what exactly would qualify as “independent verification by the right?” Does Trump have to get a look at it?

    According to this story the governor never saw it

    The story doesn’t say “the governor never saw it.” It says Fukino saw it. This does not establish that “the governor never saw it.”

    We’re learning a lot about your relationship with the truth, and reality.

    Fukino is the only one that actually saw it

    The story you cited says this:

    Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.

    The plain meaning of that statement is that “the state official in charge of vital records” also saw it, along with Fukino. Why did you say “Fukino is the only one that actually saw it?”

    Like I said, we’re learning a lot about your relationship with the truth, and reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  96. N says:

    Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii, when asked about the birthers:

    You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.

    Bottom line: these people will never, ever, ever shut up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  97. Jay Tea says:

    N, it appears that the examples you cite show that states can put some restrictions on elections, but not conditions on the candidates above and beyond those set by the Constitution. The Arizona statute does not impose any new conditions, but merely enforces one spelled out in the Constitution. So on the surface, it appears that the Arizona statute is not immediately and obviously unconstitutional.

    The question is, then, does the restriction it places rise to the level of an unreasonable burden?

    I’d say that boils down to the fine print of the statute. And for that, the lawmakers need to craft the statute very, very carefully.

    And it would really help if they dumped the legalese and just wrote it in plain frigging English.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  98. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says: Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 13:50

    She was appointed by an R governor, and she made her original statements about Obama’s birth while acting on behalf of that R governor. And she is a GOP contributor. Why shouldn’t we be “taking her word for what she saw?”

    I find it interesting how liberals will readily take the word of a lone Republican appointee, but still won’t accept the Supreme Court decision on the 2000 election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  99. N says:

    Jay Tea: I believe you’ve stated the issue correctly. One of them anyway. However, you may want to consider your conclusion of that issue a bit more carefully. Re-read Doug’s post, the concluding sentence of which is, “Hopefully, though, we won’t have to deal with that and Governor Brewer will do the right thing and veto this stupid bill.” Consider Arizona’s Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s warning that this bill is unconstitutional (you can google his many statements). Consider Governor Brewer’s own statement yesterday that she thinks the bill may be unconstitutional, not usually something a governor says in advance of signing a bill into law. This bill has literally zero chance of seeing the light of day, whether it’s signed into law or not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  100. Jay Tea says:

    N, I don’t have a conclusion here — I have an inclination. And that inclination is to accept the Arizona law, in theory. The particulars, I leave to others — reading them give me the same kind of headaches that the birther idiots and their incredibly elaborate legal theories on why Obama isn’t the “right” kind of American to be president give me.

    I believe that Arizona — or any other state — could pass this kind of law and have it pass Constitutional muster. Whether this particular law qualifies or not, I’m not prepared to say. To do so requires far more attention and expertise than I am prepared to commit to it.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  101. jukeboxgrad says:

    Southern Hoosier:

    I find it interesting how liberals will readily take the word of a lone Republican appointee, but still won’t accept the Supreme Court decision on the 2000 election.

    I find it interesting that you would make such a deeply asinine comparison. “Take the word” has to do with deciding whether or not a person is trustworthy. “Won’t accept the Supreme Court decision” has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of trustworthiness. It has to do with believing that voters, not judges, should choose the president.

    So my opinion about the general trustworthiness of Republicans might effect my atittude about Fukino, but it has nothing to do with my attitude about the 2000 court decision.

    You also obviously don’t understand the simple concept of statement against interest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_against_interest

    Even if I think that Republicans are generally not trustworthy, Fukino’s identity as a Republican makes this statement of hers more credible, not less credible, because it’s essentially against her interest, in a way. Just like it was against Lingle’s interest to take steps helpful to Obama while Lingle was campaigning for McCain. Therefore those steps and statements by Lingle have extra credibility.

    That is, to people who are capable of simple reasoning. That is. a group that doesn’t include you.

    And when you say “lone” you are essentially repeating your false claim that it was seen by no one but Fukino. What a surprise that instead of taking responsibility for your false claim you would just say it again.

    And I notice that you’ve answered this many of my questions: zero. Thanks for demonstrating that birthers love raising questions, but always, always, always cut and run when they are on the receiving end of tough questions. These threads are packed with examples of that phenomenon. So I’m sure that evading those questions is exactly what you’re going to continue to do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  102. joe schmoe says:

    The US Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born citizen”.  This is not some hodgepodge of words thrown in there because the Founders were not sure what they wanted.  The wording in the Constitution was painstakingly debated at the Constitutional Convention in Philly the summer of 1787.
    The definition of a “natural born citizen” in 1787 (as well as today) was taken from common law to mean someone born of parents, both legal citizens of the US.  It doesn’t matter that BHO was born in HI (as I believe he was).  His father was never a US citizen.  His father was a subject of Great Britain in 1961 (per British law of 1948(?) ) and that made BHO also a British subject (per that same law).  In 1963 when Kenya gained it’s independence, father and son became citizens of Kenya.  BHO may have held dual citizenship by having a US citizen mother and being born in HI, but this doesn’t change the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen”.
    If the COLB does not have citizenship status of both parents listed, then it would not be a legal document for purposes of determining eligibility for President.  Also, if AZ requires a long-form and HI supposedly won’t release the long-form, even to the person it pertains to, then who is to say AZ is the one denying HI citizens a chance to be President?  One could argue that HI is denying that right by not releasing a long-form to it’s own citizens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  103. joe schmoe says:

    Sorry I can’t cut n paste or whatever (using old phone), but someone posted above that the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution?  I’ve read the Constitution many times, but nowhere can I find that power given.  I understand later on some Justices found that power, but they would have had to ‘interpret’ that.  Seems if it’s not in there, it’s not in there.  Too bad we can never know what the Founders meant in 1787-1789.  I mean it’s not like anyone was transcribing the debates in the Constitutional Convention or the Ratification Debates.  Also, the Founders never penned letters making the case for what they meant (can we say Federalist Papers?).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  104. jukeboxgrad says:

    The definition of a “natural born citizen” in 1787 (as well as today) was taken from common law to mean someone born of parents, both legal citizens of the US.

    No, that’s not what NBC means. It means citizen at birth:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause#English_Common_Law

    if AZ requires a long-form and HI supposedly won’t release the long-form, even to the person it pertains to, then who is to say AZ is the one denying HI citizens a chance to be President? One could argue that HI is denying that right by not releasing a long-form to it’s own citizens.

    Only if “one” doesn’t understand the Full Faith and Credit Clause:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  105. Southern Hoosier says:

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
    This was posted by someone else earlier. Under the legal system, there is no simple definition of citizenship

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  106. [...] 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 [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  107. jukeboxgrad says:

    Southern Hoosier:

    Under the legal system, there is no simple definition of citizenship

    For some weird reason you pasted in about 600 words, even though all you need to know appears right at the top:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States

    Yes, I realize that for the likes of you, the words “a person born in the United States” aren’t quite “simple” enough.

    By the way, I know you’d love to change the subject, but the questions you’re ducking are here:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-arizonas-birther-bill-unconstitutional/#comment-1396439

    You’re ducking lots of other questions, too, but those would be a good place to start. Then again, maybe you’d like to continue to prove that you have no integrity whatsoever, and refuse to take responsibility for your falsehoods after you’ve been caught.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  108. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says: Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 09:51

    For some weird reason you pasted in about 600 words, even though all you need to know appears right at the top:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States

    OK you are right. Only a person actually born in the United States is a citizen. Thank you for showing me that children of American citizens born overseas are not American citizens. Children born on military bases overseas are not US citizens. And the children of foreign diplomats born in the US are US citizen. You are so much smarter than the law

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  109. Boyd says:

    How are children born of American parent abroad pertinent to this discussion? If the simple question is, “How is Barack Obama a US Citizen?” the simple answer is contained in the portion of law cited by jukeboxgrad (“a person born in the United States”). How is bringing up a non sequitur pertinent to this discussion?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  110. N says:

    joe shmoe said:
    The definition of a “natural born citizen” in 1787 (as well as today) was taken from common law to mean someone born of parents, both legal citizens of the US.

    False. British common law adopted jus soli, birthright citizenship, as early as 1608. The founding fathers were not fools as you contend, and knew how to draft clauses in the Constitution to avoid confusion. If they wanted the presidential qualifications clause to require citizenship of one’s parents on both sides, they would have said so in the clause. They didn’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  111. jukeboxgrad says:

    Southern Hoosier:

    OK you are right. Only a person actually born in the United States is a citizen.

    Except that’s not what I said. I cited this part of the law:

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States

    I cited that part of the law because it’s the part of the law that’s relevant to the current discussion. I didn’t say that’s the only way to become a citizen. I said this is how Obama became a citizen.

    As Boyd pointed out, the rest of what you cited is comepletely irrelevant. Why did you cite it?

    We can add that to the long list of questions you’re too cowardly to answer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  112. anjin-san says:

    Let’s just summarize. Any black person who wants to run for President has to prove that they are not an African/Muslim to the satisfaction of every Republican in America.

    See how easy that was?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  113. Southern Hoosier says:

    How is Comrade Obama, the Great One’s, birth relevant to whether or not the Arizona law is constitutional or constitutional?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  114. Southern Hoosier says:

    “Boyd says: Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 10:50
    How is bringing up a non sequitur pertinent to this discussion?

    It seems no one can agree on the definitions of citizenship. So I posted all the modern day definitions there seems to be.

    I said earlier

    Under the legal system, there is no simple definition of citizenship

    Citizenship is not as simple as English common law or something that was written 1787.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  115. jukeboxgrad says:

    How is Comrade Obama, the Great One’s, birth relevant to whether or not the Arizona law is constitutional or constitutional?

    Who said Obama’s “birth [is] relevant to whether or not the Arizona law is constitutional or constitutional?” No one did, because it’s not.

    However, Obama’s birth is relevant to the law, because the purpose of the law is to keep Obama off the ballot.

    It seems no one can agree on the definitions of citizenship.

    It seems that you like to make things up. There is only one definition of citizenship relevant to Obama, and the only people who have trouble understanding that definition and agreeing on that definition are wacky birthers like you.

    You seem to be trying to prove that you have an endless supply of falsehoods, irrelevancies and straw man arguments. Keep up the good work. I can hardly wait to hear the next one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  116. Southern Hoosier says:

    This whole argument is ridiculous. Most of the stuff posted on here has nothing to do with the Arizona law. Hawaii says Comrade Obama has a valid birth record. Then it is up to the Arizona to accept or reject it in 2012 if the law passes. If Arizona accepts it, no problem. If Arizona rejects it, then there will be a court challenge. All these fine arguments be birthers and nonbirthers, change nothing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  117. Southern Hoosier says:

    jukeboxgrad says: Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 14:14
    However, Obama’s birth is relevant to the law, because the purpose of the law is to keep Obama off the ballot.

    So this law only applies to Comrade Obama and no one else? Then it is unconstitutional. If Hilliary becomes the 2012 Democrat candidate, then she won’t have to show proof of birth to Arizona?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  118. jukeboxgrad says:

    So this law only applies to Comrade Obama and no one else?

    No, I didn’t say that it applies only to Obama. I said that the purpose of the law is to keep Obama off the ballot. Do you know why I said that? Because the purpose of the law is to keep Obama off the ballot.

    What a surprise to find you being so obtuse.

    Still waiting for you to answer these questions:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-arizonas-birther-bill-unconstitutional/#comment-1396439

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  119. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    This whole argument is ridiculous. Most of the stuff posted on here has nothing to do with the Arizona law. Hawaii says Comrade Obama has a valid birth record. Then it is up to the Arizona to accept or reject it in 2012 if the law passes. If Arizona accepts it, no problem. If Arizona rejects it, then there will be a court challenge. All these fine arguments be birthers and nonbirthers, change nothing.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but the state’s secretary of state has already said, in public, that Obama’s birth certificate would meet the standards of this bill if it is passed. He is a Republican. The lawsuits would be filed by birthers, as they have been doing repeatedly for 3 years now despite consistently losing. As they will again this time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  120. John Anon says:

    Mataconis has given some false information in the above article. He said the short form “certification of live birth” is the only birth document Hawaii releases. He gives a link to an Anderson Cooper CNN transcript to back up this false statement.

    Hawaii’s director of health stated publically that Obama’s original birth records are on file and that she has physically seen them. However, the long form can only be legally released by certain parties, i.e., Obama himself or a family member. That’s the reason why Hawaii is not releasing the long form when people request it, because no family member is authorizing the release.

    Long form certificates of live birth from Hawaii are all over the Internet, most notably the Nordyke twins who were born a day after Obama. Their birth certificates have a doctor’s signature, parents’ signatures, hospital name, etc.

    Obama released a vague computer print out from 2007 that has no independently verifiable information on it. No doctor’s signature, no parent’s signature, no hospital. All the known witnesses are dead. And he released it by posting it to a Democratic friendly web site.

    Instead of just releasing the long form certificate that the state of Hawaii has on file, I believe a legal and political battle against Arizona will ensue. All the stops will be pulled to prevent the release of the long form document. The media will repeat lies and smear anyone who raises questions. The corrupted legal system will block all attempts at release and will even jail people who get too close, as they did to war veteran Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who tried to force the release of the long form document by demanding to see it before deploying to Afghanistan.

    In my opinion, the powers that be will fight its release with everything they’ve got because they have too much to lose if the truth comes out.

    We should be demanding that all our political candidates show us their birth certificates, college transcripts, criminal records, credit scores, etc., not making circular legal arguments why the shouldn’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  121. N says:

    John Anon says:
    Mataconis has given some false information in the above article. He said the short form “certification of live birth” is the only birth document Hawaii releases. He gives a link to an Anderson Cooper CNN transcript to back up this false statement.

    This too is a tired old birther argument that has been repeatedly addressed and debunked before. Some birther on the Internet doesn’t speak on behalf of the Hawaiian government on matters of Hawaiian law. The Hawaii Attorney General does. And here’s what the Attorney General’s Office says on the issue:

    Joshua Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records. “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said. But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  122. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says:Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 14:34
    Sorry to disappoint you, but the state’s secretary of state has already said, in public, that Obama’s birth certificate would meet the standards of this bill if it is passed.

    Uh. why should I be disappointed?

    Southern Hoosier says:If Arizona accepts it (Obama’s birth record), no problem. If Arizona rejects it, then there will be a court challenge. All these fine arguments by birthers and nonbirthers, change nothing.

    jukeboxgrad must be the one to be disappointed, because this law is not going to keep Comrade Obama off the balloit in 2012.

    jukeboxgrad says: Because the purpose of the law is to keep Obama off the ballot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  123. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Uh. why should I be disappointed?

    Because your unconstitutitonal desire to prevent American citizens from voting for Barack Obama will be thwarted, and a man you believe is an illegal alien will be re-elected President. Hope that answers your question, birther.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  124. jukeboxgrad says:

    John Anon:

    Long form certificates of live birth from Hawaii are all over the Internet, most notably the Nordyke twins who were born a day after Obama.

    Here’s something else that’s “all over the Internet:” birther comments like yours that are 100% nonsense.

    Simple question: when exactly did the Nordykes obtain their “long form certificates of live birth from Hawaii?” Will you be the first birther to answer this question? So far all the others have evaded it.

    Another simple question: can you demonstrate that anyone has received any “long form certificates of live birth from Hawaii” at any time in the last, say, ten years?

    Since you seem to think that Hawaii still releases “long form certificates of live birth,” don’t you think it’s odd that the birthers can’t produce a single verifiable example of such a thing happening in at least ten years?

    Southern Hoosier:

    jukeboxgrad must be the one to be disappointed, because this law is not going to keep Comrade Obama off the balloit in 2012.

    I didn’t say it would keep him off the ballot. I said the purpose of the law was to keep him off the ballot. Do you realize that not everything that is created for a certain purpose manages to succeed in fulfilling that purpose? I guess not. But your comments are fulfilling this purpose: proving that birthers are terminally witless.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  125. John Anon says:

    Because your unconstitutitonal desire to prevent American citizens from voting for Barack Obama will be thwarted, and a man you believe is an illegal alien will be re-elected President. Hope that answers your question, birther.

    Obama campaigned on transparency. Just release the complete records. What’s the big deal?

    Obviously, the state of Hawaii has more information on his birth than what’s on the short form. The document Obama released doesn’t even name the hospital he was born in. Why not release everything? When did transparency become a bad thing when it came to politicians? Are you a birther, too, and at heart you feel that there is something in his birth records that will prevent your candidate from running for re-election?

    Personally, I think the powers that be will fight tooth and nail to prevent the birth records from coming out. The establishment, especially the press and the financial sector, has too much to lose if it comes out that he’s not who he says he is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  126. Boyd says:

    None are so blind as those who will not see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  127. Southern Hoosier says:

    N says: I said the purpose of the law was to keep him off the ballot.

    Your the one that keeps saying it not me. You sound so disappointed. I bet you were hoping that Arizona would keep Comrade Obama off the ballot, so you could go around yelling, “It’s 2000 all over again! Arizona is stealing the election.”

    illegal alien

    LOL where did you come up with that one? Did the coyotes bring him accross the Mexican border in time for the 2008 election?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  128. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    LOL where did you come up with that one? Did the coyotes bring him accross the Mexican border in time for the 2008 election?

    I’m surprised that one hasn’t been proposed before. Or maybe it has. In any event, if the logical outcome of your arguments sounds absurd to you, perhaps that’s because your arguments are absurd.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  129. N says:

    Southern Hoosier says:
    Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 16:43
    N says: I said the purpose of the law was to keep him off the ballot.

    Your the one that keeps saying it not me.

    You misquoted me here and have confused me with another commenter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  130. John Anon says:

    Another simple question: can you demonstrate that anyone has received any “long form certificates of live birth from Hawaii” at any time in the last, say, ten years?

    It looks like long forms were released up until last month.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  131. N says:

    John Anon: Are you seriously linking an article written by “The Post and Email”? The same publication that believes Barack Obama is a reptile-human hybrid? Really?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/whos-behind-the-mask-of-obama/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  132. Southern Hoosier says:

    N I apologize for getting you and jukeboxgrad mixed up, I was laughing so hard at him, I wasn’t paying attention.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  133. whoframedrudy says:

    In other words, you also believe Obama is hiding something. Checkmate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  134. jukeboxgrad says:

    John Anon:

    Obama campaigned on transparency. Just release the complete records. What’s the big deal?

    WSJ said this:

    Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.

    http://on.wsj.com/1zABul

    Which other presidents “provided a legal birth certificate?” A complete list please, with citations.

    He’s already done more than any other president. And that’s still not enough? Why?

    The document Obama released doesn’t even name the hospital he was born in.

    Can you name the birth hospital for all our other presidents? Can you show proof of the birth hospital for all our other presidents? Or for any of them? Why did this never matter before?

    It looks like long forms were released up until last month.

    It looks like you’re easily fooled. The form in that article is a shoddy Photoshop job. Why is the person’s name hidden? To make it impossible to verify where the form came from. If these people want to be taken seriously, they need to start by revealing the name on the certificate.

    Look at the date-stamp at the bottom of the form. You can see it here:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii.jpg

    The year (“2011″) is in a distinctly lighter font than the rest of the date (“MAR 15″). That’s because the year was changed, poorly, in Photoshop. And no high-resolution photo provided, because then the forgery would be even more obvious.

    Compare that the authentic date-stamp you can see here, in a high-resolution photo:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

    As you would expect, the month, day and year are the same weight.

    There are a few other problems with your forged document. It should be stamped on the back, not the front. And it should have a raised seal. It doesn’t.

    These people hid their names because they’re trying to get away with an obvious forgery.

    I notice you’re also refusing to answer the question I asked you about the Nordykes. When did they obtain their documents?

    By the way, notice this:

    The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The birth request form is here, so you can see for yourself:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

    The form is called “Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record.” And that’s exactly all that the state is willing to provide: a certified copy. Which is exactly what Obama has already presented. Which is why WSJ said that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  135. [...] 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 [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  136. Bentley Strange says:

    Unfortunately, the claim that Hawaii does not issue “Long Form” birth certificates is untrue. They do and evidence including the forms and receipts for the fees paid to obtain such as recently as 2010 exist. The claim that they do not is simple obfuscation, and attempt to mislead, and those making that claim need more evidence than the quoted words of those with an interest saying so.

    Please produce legal evidence by way of statutes or regulations that forbid the issuance of long form certificates if requested by the person concerned or an appropriate parent or guardian. Why on earth should they deny access to COPIES of such data, none of it is normally kept secret.

    And many posters are making one classic mistake, confusing citizen with “natural born citizen”. If the founders had meant “english common law citizen” which is claimed, then that is what they did with citizen. Natural Born was a specific phrase chosen to distinguish it from an ordinary citizen. Why else give it a distinct name ? Caprice ?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  137. [...] not the only one who wonders if the Arizona law may have a constitutional problem since it arguably runs counter to [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  138. JosieM says:

    Bentley…the point is that the vital statistics office responsible for legal veriifcation of births within its jurisdiction have certified President Obama was born in Hawaii. They have explained their processes and referenced the statute (HRS §338-18) on their website. As with all state laws, The “Certificate of Live Birth” is that verification of birth. Different states allow different data to be included. As a genealogist, I love those few states where data is publically dispersed. However, as a citizen, I prefer my personal id information and health information to remain private.

    President Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential candiacy by being born within the US states and being older than 35. The US Constitution requirements are specific as far as what is required for citizenship for presidential candidates. The hospital, doctor’s name, witness names are not relevant to the requirements for Mr. Obama’s elgibility for president. The “Certificate of Live Birth” validates those requirements just as it would for applying for any driver’s license or voters registration today where proof of US citizenship is required or applying for a US passport. The laws and regulations for obtaining an Arizona driver’s license or a US passport make reference to certification of birth by the state or local vital statistics office responsible for maintaining those records. It does not nor should it specify the data to be included in that verification. Trump is an idiot to imply the “Certificate of LIve Birth” is not sufficient. It is the form of birth certificate issued by many states. My husband and I have Certificate of Live Births with the same limited data as Obama’s from two states other than Hawaii. We’ve had multiple corporate moves in the last 5 years and have never run into trouble in using them for obtaining driver’s licenses or US passports or for positions where US citizenship was required.

    For Arizona to impose the specific verification requirements of Hawaii and all other states who follow a similar process is ridiciulous. So this bill gives the Secretary of State and/or anyone who wants to challenge the legality of the legal documents from another state the opportunity to keep a candidate off the ballot. That is wrong and hopefully the constitutionality of it will be tested in the courts very quickly if Brewer signs it because it won’t survive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  139. jukeboxgrad says:

    Bentley Strange:

    Unfortunately, the claim that Hawaii does not issue “Long Form” birth certificates is untrue. They do and evidence including the forms and receipts for the fees paid to obtain such as recently as 2010 exist.

    If such “evidence” exists then why don’t you show it to us? The article that you’re talking about that supposedly shows “forms and receipts for the fees paid” is here:

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=285921

    Do you notice a small problem? With the exception of the Nordykes, who obtained their documents about 50 years ago, all the forms on that page are presented with the names hidden. How is it possible to verify this information if the names are hidden? If the information is authentic, then what’s the point of hiding the names? How come the entire birther movement is not able to present a single verifiable example? There are many signs that those photos are sloppy forgeries. I already explained some clues in one of those photos.

    And let’s take a moment to consider your wacky standards of proof. HI’s former governor, a Republican, has said that Obama’s document is authentic. Nevertheless, you reject this evidence. On the other hand, you see a fuzzy photo on WND, with names hidden, and you claim that this is “evidence” which proves that HI still produces long form birth certificates.

    Do you really not see how absurd your position is? Your standards of proof are highly elastic. You are obviously granting yourself permission to reject all facts you don’t like, even if they are supported by strong evidence (e.g., multiple statements by Republican officials, including a Republican governor), while embracing all claims you do like, even when the evidence for those claims is quite weak (e.g., a fuzzy photo of a document with names hidden).

    How does that make sense?

    those making that claim need more evidence than the quoted words of those with an interest saying so

    Gov. Lingle had her DOH certify Obama’s birth while she was campaigning for McCain. How was it in her “interest” to do that? Likewise for Fukino herself, who is a GOP contributor.

    And I have presented “more evidence than the quoted words” of anyone. I’ve shown you the form HI uses, which “does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate:”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

    But in the style of all birthers, you are completely ignoring all facts and evidence which don’t suit you.

    Please produce legal evidence by way of statutes or regulations that forbid the issuance of long form certificates if requested by the person concerned or an appropriate parent or guardian. Why on earth should they deny access to COPIES of such data, none of it is normally kept secret.

    “Why” not provide a photocopy of the “long form?” For good reason. HI and most or all other states produce only the computerized copy (that is, what Obama has already released) for a simple reason: it’s cheap and efficient. I explained this point in more detail here:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369609

    And there are problems that would be created if HI decided to release more than what they have already released:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369353

    And many posters are making one classic mistake, confusing citizen with “natural born citizen”. … Natural Born was a specific phrase chosen to distinguish it from an ordinary citizen.

    No one is claiming that “citizen” and NBC mean the same thing. You are correct that they don’t. A citizen is a person who becomes a citizen by any means, at any time (which could include naturalization). NBC means citizen at birth:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause#English_Common_Law

    Not every citizen is a citizen at birth. Some become citizens later (e.g., by naturalization). But everyone born in the US is a citizen at birth, that is, NBC. This includes Obama. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  140. N says:

    Bentley Strange says:
    Unfortunately, the claim that Hawaii does not issue “Long Form” birth certificates is untrue.

    Unfortunately the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office disagrees with you, as already pointed out above with a full quote from AG spokesman Joshua Wisch. When weighing your word against theirs on a point of Hawaiian law, I defer to theirs.

    And many posters are making one classic mistake, confusing citizen with “natural born citizen”. If the founders had meant “english common law citizen” which is claimed, then that is what they did with citizen. Natural Born was a specific phrase chosen to distinguish it from an ordinary citizen. Why else give it a distinct name ? Caprice ?

    There is a clear distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen” in that the latter may have been naturalized. The drafters chose to limit the office of the presidency only to those born in the country. As also adequately explained above, if they wanted to add more qualifications, they knew how to do so. They did not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  141. [...] not the only one who wonders if the Arizona law may have a constitutional problem since it arguably runs counter to [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  142. Mary Adams says:

    Jay Tea says:
    Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:10

    Again, Doug, layman here, but it seems to me that Thornton was based on additional restrictions to hold office, while Arizona doesn’t change the fundamental qualifications to be president. It’s simply saying “we’re going to make certain the Constitutional limitations are followed.”

    Yes it does. It requires that they have been born in a hospital with the requisite number of witnesses or that they have been circumcised, baptized, have a mother who’s medical records are still available or have parents who are still living (no medical witnesses to the birth would be allowed to say so due to HIPAA).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  143. Mary Adams says:

    Bentley Strange says:
    Monday, April 18, 2011 at 05:43

    Unfortunately, the claim that Hawaii does not issue “Long Form” birth certificates is untrue. They do and evidence including the forms and receipts for the fees paid to obtain such as recently as 2010 exist.

    That is NOT a birth certificate. It is an uncertified copy of information allegedly collected at a birth.

    Natural Born was a specific phrase chosen to distinguish it from an ordinary citizen. Why else give it a distinct name ? Caprice ?

    To distinguish from NATURALIZED citizens. DUH!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  144. [...] 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 [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  145. [...] not the only one who wonders if the Arizona law may have a constitutional problem since it arguably runs counter to [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  146. N says:

    VETOED.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  147. borderraven says:

    Full Faith and Credit works both ways, and states must honor the public acts (laws) of other states.

    Requiring state elections officials (Secretary of State) to vet candidates for ballot access is representation with taxation.

    If you want on the ballot in my state, then you meet the simple requirements I impose. If your state no longer provides a true copy of a long form birth certificate, then change the laws of your state to comply with my simple request to validate ballot access.

    If you don’t like my laws, then leave my country!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  148. mantis says:

    If your state no longer provides a true copy of a long form birth certificate, then change the laws of your state to comply with my simple request to validate ballot access.

    Full Faith and Credit does not mean one state’s laws supersede another.

    If you don’t like my laws, then leave my country!, too bad, you have to change your state’s laws, because I said so.

    FTTY

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  149. Coldoldgold says:

    I am amazed that no one ha sbrought up the 10th amendment…

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

    Lets assume just for the sake of argument that Obama was born outside of hawaii.

    The 12th amendment dictates that the Vice President (heaven forbid), Joe Biden would take over as President. I have no problem with that Constitutionally. However, this constitutional amendment refers specifically to the “President”, which by implication refers to a time after the respective presidential election has taken place.

    The 20th amendment has no standing here whatsoever. Why? because this amendment refers to the “President elect” or the “Vice President elect.” The only time there is a President elect or VP elect is during the lame duck session; in other words, between the end of the election and the oath of office, until which time the residing president retains authority.

    My point is, no where in the Constitution does it state or even imply that congress has the authority to confirm the qualifications of a Presidential candidate.

    Also, in regard to US Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton, read Thomas’s dissent. It is also worth noting that this was a 5-4 decision, which means that it is possible that the precident could be overturned by the right SCOTUS.

    This case creates a precident for senators and representatives,but not the presidency. if such a case were to arise involving the office of the Presidency, it would be up to the SCOTUS to decide. However, since there is no such case as yet, the state of Arizona has the constitutional right to pass such a law under the banner of the 10th Amendment.

    This of course is my opinion, and the only opinion that matters is that of SCOTUS.

    I suspect a law such as Arizona’s woiuld be the law reviewed by the SCOTUS, and that they would cite US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, though i know not the outcome.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0