Neil Abercrombie
Newly elected Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, a family friend of President Obama, is reportedly in discussions with the state’s attorney general seeking ways to release additional documentation of the President’s birth in Hawaii at the Kapi’olani Maternity Gynecological Hospital, to shut the birthers up, according to an article in the New York Times.
“He’s a big boy; he can take sticks and stones. But there’s no reason on earth to have the memory of his parents insulted by people whose motivation is solely political,” Mr. Abercrombie said. “Let’s put this particular canard to rest.”
Gov. Abercrombie is apparently unaware that nothing he could possibly do will shut the birthers up. Negative evidence is just like gasoline on a fire to a conspiracy theorist. Evidence against them just proves how big the conspiracy is and spurs them to even greater imagined machinations by the powerful to keep the truth hidden.
Here is a preview of something like what we might see:
Click to Enlarge
Abercrombie is still another nail in their coffin. The final nail will probably come in March or April when birthers come to the realization that the new Congress, full of Republicans, will not waste their time addressing this issue.
Or perhaps in 2012 when Obama is re-elected.What, you don’t think he can beat Sarah Palin?
That too, Doc. I only wonder whom conservatives are going to cast their votes for, for president, in 2012 – the GOP nominee or Palin. I have a strong feeling they are going to find themselves on the horns of a dilemma that will ensure that President Obama wins reelection.
Not that anybody should listen to me, but I am thinking that the GOP nominee will be a name we’ve seen on this blog before, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. (Daniels was the defendant in Ankeny v Daniels).
lol. Now that would be poetic justice.
If Abercrombie does release information, can we start our pool now on what the first response of Birthers will be?
I have dibs on “Abercrombie is an Obama marxist socialist friend and we can’t trust anything released by his administration”
I vote FORGERY!
(If we’re wagering on birther response.)
I’d love to see it released, just for the sheer joy of watching the goal-line moving.
I vote for “it’s a forgery but even if it’s not, everyone knows Vattel secretly really wrote the Constitution so Obama still can’t be president.”
Essentially, Governor Abercrombie is saying the same thing that Governor Lingle did; ie., that it’s just a fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. So, birthers are going to again have to explain why yet another Republican is saying the same thing that the previous one did rather than saying what they want to hear.
Except that Abercrombie is a Dem.
The birther websites are already attacking Abercrombie as a “Marxist,” “a communist,” and a card carrying member of Democratic Socialists of America. Anything released under Abercrombie’s authorization will be immediately suspect to birthers.
Unless, of course, it says Obama was born at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombassa, Kenya.
I stand corrected. I thought he was a Republican
Merry Christmas Everyone (even our birther friends)
……then swiftly expanded upon with some cock and bull wild batguano speculation about how Abercrombie would have done this even earlier but needed ‘x’ amount of time to get all the amended ducks in row, possibly with some added speculation such as why this only happened after this or that DOH employee happened to get sick or take annual holidays at this or that particular time thus giving unfettered and unwitnessed access to assorted things that needed to be amended or created.
This is not a maybe, this is inevitable. Bad idea Mr Abercrombie, bad idea. Merry Christmas to all.
> I vote FORGERY
My dibs are on “Even if the birth certificate says his father is Barack Obama Sr., this has never been scientifically verified but is simply hearsay from the mother, we need a DNA test”. At least on those birther sites that are that tiny bit saner than drkate.
i vote the birthers accept the document as fact and orly releases a public apology to the president ( …… i always slap down $2 on the impossible long-shot to win ).
Merry Christmas all.
You’re all missing the main birfer argument. EVEN if Obama was born in Hawai’i, he’s not eligible to be president because he has dual citizenship AND because both of his parents were not US citizens.
Nothing will please the birfers. Release the information that they have actually asked for will be like pouring gasoline on a bonfire.
Merry Christmas 🙂
> You’re all missing the main birfer argument.
The NBC issue is *one* of the birfer arguments, not necessarily their main one, given that there are different “schools of thought” about this issue anyway.
If NBC was the main argument, they wouldn’t scream so loud for the birth certificate.
Because they realize that the NBC issue is one that won’t stick so easily with the gullible masses as it involves quite a bit of history, constitutional law and a rather convoluted argument why Vattel dictates what NBC means, what SCOTUS “really meant” in WKA etc.
The birth certificate itself (and the other “sealed records”) is the main issue because the birfers still believe there’s “something to hide” and that some kind of “smoking gun” would be uncovered.
I expect that Abercrombie has had a chat about this with PBO & they have decided that this is the best course. I doubt NA would do this w/o the President’s approval since they are good friends
That, and if you’re a birther, you always need a fallback argument.
too late!
and merry christmas all!
I think that is a reasonable argument.
Only the original long-form BC should be released. Amendments or corrections to the birth record will only confuse the birthers. Besides, amendments aren’t really important to the question of where BO was born.
What amendments?
Since most birthers and denialists have decided (a priori?) that Obama is ineligible and then went looking for evidence, coupled with goal posts that have their own warp drive, any release from Hawaii, would, of course, not change the many of most. However, the interesting result might be in those who always state, “if he would only release…” How would their constant statement be resolved in light of any release?
I suspect that, even if the Governor were to receive permission to from the President to release some copy of the “original”, we will still find posters who will state, “if only he would release the original, this would all go away.” It would be as if nothing ever changed.
That’s easy….they will revise it to something starting along the lines of….”if only they would just be honest and release the REAL original……”
It won’t have to make sense or have any coherent believable reasons why what has been released isn’t the real original. A loud chorus of agreement will follow from birtherland no matter what is said along those lines.
All of this of course presupposes that the DOH actually has an original piece of paper of that nature in their possession. I am 900% anti all birther nonsense and totally convinced that Obama was born on the date in question in Hawaii. I am almost as totally convinced that his birth took place in the K Hospital (not that it really matters whether he was born in or out of a hospital)…..but despite assorted announcements by DOH I am by no means wholly convinced that actually they have such an original piece of paper in their possession and I don’t interpret anything they have said as making that a certain foregone conclusion. I till suspect the original information might be now stored only in a format other than paper.
Ahh, consistency…
I would assume that, in almost all cases, they would not need to refer to any physical copy to produce verification as all of that information would have been converted to some electronic format (databases, and possibly, if their IS department did not complain loudly about server space, images). However, given that vital records contain some rather important information, I would suspect that some sort of “permanent” physical record would be retained. Now a physical record may be the original form or a microfilm/microfiche and, I figure, would be stored in an offsite, secured storage.
The Game Loses Appeal
I now believe that this whole birther issue, although not hatched by President Obama, became a convenient wedge issue. Link conspiracy theorists to the Republican Party. What a concept! When the tea party movement sprung up, why even better. Push the association. FOIA requests about passports? Hold up the information. Answer incompletely. Keep the conspiracy going. All sanctioned actions. A law is even passed, one that impedes freedom of information in the State of Hawaii that should have the civil liberty advocates screaming for its repeal. The “birther” plan eventually fails, for the most part. The November elections don’t go well. The results were not as bad as the worst case scenario, but bad nonetheless. Now there is a LTC Lakin in jail. Most would say (even those sympathetic), “He should not have disobeyed orders,” but the situation leaves a bad taste. I don’t believe Lakin is that well-known, but his story is quite unique and may eventually gain traction. What is he going to say when he gets out? Eligibility legislation floating about. Sports figure proclaims he is a birther. Requests for birth certificate die down, but continue. Requests for the official seal made.** Enter N.A., a friend with some advice.
Truncated Chronology
1. “The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”.[13][14] Noting “there have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate”, Fukino explained that the department was prohibited by state law from releasing it to “persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.” She stated: “No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
2. To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to you today to find out information regarding the transaction that occurred on or about June 6, 2007 to procure Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth. Through much of the Internet-based discussion on his alleged ineligibility for the office of the presidency, I was not able to locate any information on the official transaction that produced the COLB.
Is this information publicly available? If yes, what is the process by which I would need to go about obtaining this information? Is there a form that I would need to submit to retrieve this information?
I am only interested in the details of the transaction concerning whomever requested Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth.
Thank you ahead of time for any information that you can provide.
Sincerely,
-Phil [The Right Side of Life]
Concerned Citizen from the great State of Georgia
To which I received the following response later the same day:
This is not public information.
Aloha,
kd
Vital Statistics
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Hawai’i Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813**
(July 2, 2009)
Not public information. Okay…
3. First waiver of privacy?
“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, Hawaii.”
I believe #3 nullifies the last statement of #1. The certificate was treated differently. Why? Up until the time of Sef’s comment* on this thread to which Doc agreed, I believed that a violation of the privacy act occurred. There is no violation if the person who is the subject of the information permits the information to be released. The D.O.H. acted with permission. Whose? Obama’s of course. (Linda Lingle never said she saw anything.)
4. Second waiver of privacy?
“For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-
9 mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact 10 that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website. (testimony of C. Fukino, February 23, 2010)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf
I am going to suggest to Phil at the Right Side of Life that he make another request for the receipt of the COLB in light of the above testimony. The information he requested is obviously not private.
*I expect that Abercrombie has had a chat about this with PBO & they have decided that this is the best course. I doubt NA would do this w/o the President’s approval since they are good friends. (Sef)
**”The Health Department has responded by sending a pencil shading of the embossment, rather than the seal, which officials say could be misused for fraudulent purposes.”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawaiinews/20101225_requests_increase_for_obama_birth_proof.html
Statement #1 is a response to accusations that the President’s BC had been removed from the DOH and sealed in a way that other BC were not. Statement #3 is not a contradiction, since the director can look at any BC in their possession. That’s basically the job description. Remember, the Governor did not say that she went and looked at the BC. That might have been a violation.
I suspect only a judge can determine if someone has given up their privacy rights.
Charo,
While your interpretation is possible, I think that it is much more likely that Governor Lingle simply misspoke. It was public knowledge that President Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital – I wouldn’t be surprised if she was at the event at the hospital in which the president’s letter was read, but even if she wasn’t, it’s not a stretch to think she might have been aware of this (it is also possible that she looked at documents that she wasn’t supposed to although I think this is unlikely). In my opinion the most likely explanation is that Governor Lingle stated that information which she knew to be correct was released by in a manner about which she was incorrect. Do you not see the difference between the supposition that an old family friend discussed the public action he was going to take regarding the birth certificate (which may require his permission) with the president and the theory that the Republican Governor of Hawaii parsed her words precisely according to DOH regulations because she had the permission of the democratic president? One of these things is much more likely than the other…
> I suspect that, even if the Governor were to receive permission to from the President to release some copy of the “original”, we will still find posters who will state, “if only he would release the original, this would all go away.”
Moving the goalposts is easy here.
If he releases a copy, demand the original (“a copy can be falsified”).
If he releases an image of the original, demand the original (“an ‘online image’ is not a real…”).
If he offers anyone to come take a look at the original original, demand it be sent to a “forensics expert” of the birthers’ choice who will then probably claim it’s fake because it didn’t crumble to dust when he sneezed.
Also discard any serious media source who inspected the original original as lying and part of the conspiracy.
If all else fails, declare the original original a forgery right away “because they’ve had enough time to produce a perfect and undetectable forgery during the last two years”.
And use de Vattel as the Hail Mary anyway.
Soooo predictable…
Exactly right. Birthers are sworn political enemies. Many of them also have racist motives.
Truth is not and never has been the goal.
Utter and complete bullshit.
You’ve gone headlong back to birtherville where you and your obvious confirmation have felt most comfortable all along.
“Keep the conspiracy going.”
It’s pretty easy to make any crap fit your paranoid suspicions without having actual, credible evidence, isn’t it?
Take another few swipes with anything but Ockham’s Razor.
Pathetic.
Thanks for trying to inject some common sense although it’s probably futile.
You’re giving an incredible amount of credit to extremely trivial birther b.s. over the political and executive considerations a President would have to consider more noteworthy.
Where do you think any of that minuscule birther b.s. ranks on the President’s priority list?
Do you think Barack or Rahm or Peter or Valerie or David are surfing birther sites and biting their nails? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
It’s been easy enough for the President to joke about his birthplace or dismiss unfounded conjecture in interviews and press conferences (re: the pitiful Lester Kinsolving).
> Do you think Barack or Rahm or Peter or Valerie or David are surfing birther sites and biting their nails?
Birthers do believe that, as much as any conspiracy believer thinks they are so special that the world leaders are personally watching their every move or have them on their “enemy list” next to Kim-Jong Il and Ahmadinejad.
I had to laugh when some birther site (don’t remember if it was drkate or P&E) actually wrote that the Lakin trial had Obama “sweating bullets”.
No one said anything about biting nails. The issue is becoming inconvenient. The whole issue has been an internet phenomenon. It isn’t that difficult to surf the web, and it is pretty much a standard thing for most people, particularly those with staff who probably want to be aware of ANYTHING that is being said about the President.
Yes, you will.
She didn’t misspeak about directing C. Fukino to look at the birth certificate.
I said that Gov. Lingle never saw anything.
She was. http://www.kapiolanigift.org/doc/centennial-magazine.pdf Page 6.
Mr. Abercrombie said. “Let’s put this particular canard to rest”
By opening up a new canard? Here is what I mean.
“Mr. Abercrombie, 72, said that although he did not see the elder Obamas at the hospital with their newborn son, he did remember the couple bringing the baby to social events.”
What will determined birthers do (anr are doing)? Examine the statement. What events? President Obama’s birthdate was 8/4; S.A.D. was established in Seattle for September classes. And on it goes.
As for myself, I find it interesting that he seems to think the bills requiring eligibility proof are effective only for 2012. From the article:
And he is angry about legislation in several states that would require presidential candidates to document that they were born in this country. A similar bill died in Congress last year.
“My thought was, ‘Wait a minute, why didn’t you ask me, my friends in the national Congress, the House of Representatives?’ ” he said. “They know me, they know that I was here, but they didn’t even bother to have the courtesy to do that, which is disappointing to me, because it is very difficult for me not to conclude that bills like that are meant as a coded message that he is not really American.
***
I just saw this. Oh yes, in birtherville, everyone believes that there is a legitimate certificate purposefully being withheld with bits of unconfirmed statements dripped now and then for political purposes. (Hint: birthers don’t refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists.)
Doc,
I have a comment in moderation.
I just saw this. Oh yes, in birtherville, everyone believes that there is a legitimate certificate purposefully being withheld with bits of unconfirmed statements dripped now and then for political purposes. (Hint: birthers don’t refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists.)
I just saw this. Oh yes, in birtherville, everyone believes that there is a legitimate certificate purposefully being withheld with bits of unconfirmed statements dripped now and then for political purposes. (Hint: birthers don’t refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists.)
Doc,
I just took out the profanity in Majority Will’s quote so you can delete my comment (I separated it out and already answered).
This should have been added to the comment at 9:53.
He will have a point if President Obama decides not to run, and the legislation is dropped.
Charo,
Do you honestly think that the President isn’t going to run for a second term? While that is always within the realm of possibility for any sitting president, it is an extremely minuscule possibility compared against the likelihood of running for a second term.
Anyone who seriously pines their hopes on him not running for re-election at all is not facing reality and just setting themselves up for disappointment.
G,
I think he will run. The larger point is that the proposed legislation is to be effective not just for 2012, but onward. It is about more than Obama. But I would be wrong in that statement if Obama does not run and the legislation is dropped.
Exactly how Abercrombie will be able to produce additional evidence is still unclear.
“We have to take a look at what we can do with that. But I can’t imagine that we can’t find some way to see to it that those who are honest about it, who don’t have a personal agenda, could have no further argument about it,” he said.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13739513
Very fair statement.
Well, if you or the people pursuing this are drawing a direct connection between the legislation and Obama, then it really isn’t about eligibility as much as it is purely against Obama, is it?
In the unlikely scenario that Obama woudn’t run for a second term…if such legislation suddenly drops as well as being “moot”…gee…what does that say about the real motives involved here?
The point is, we realize that what is really behind all this stuff has very little to do at all with people caring about the Constitution and is pretty much pure anti-Obama nonsense.
So far, we’ve had several states propose such “birther” bills. None of them have yet to be approved or signed into law. Until any of them actually move forward to being voted on by both chambers in the state, such things are about as irrelevant as most proposals submitted by chamber members that never ever see the light of day. So, when that actually happens and the story gets relevant and interesting, then I’m sure we’ll have plenty of reason to examine and discuss it further. Until then, it pretty much is nothing more than fantasy nonsense.
Say such a bill did “pass”. First of all, the language had better be reworked to pass Constitutional muster and not be discriminatory beyond the purview of merely trying to validate a candidate’s eligibility. It most certainly cannot be designed to target only one individual or only go after people of a certain viewpoint or racial identify.
And most importantly, any such state law cannot have verbiage that conflicts with federal law, which has clear supremacy on this issue. Nor can it ignore the “full faith and credit” issues of accepting documents deemed valid in other states.
Therefore, even in some “what if” circumstance where a state writes such a law that meets all those conditions and can pass muster…
…all Obama has to do is present the exact same COLB document directly to that state and he is ruled eligible.
Bottom line – these “birther bills” are all inspired by people that intentionally are looking for ways to stop or target Obama and the biggest irony is that if they could actually properly write and pass a valid law on the issue of NBC – it would result in not hurting nor stopping Obama one iota, nor would it be able to make him produce any documentation beyond the very same COLB that we’ve all seen for over 2 years now.
G,
That is the whole point I was making.
Hear, hear.
Charo –
Ok. I understand the context of how you were intending it now. My post can be considered as expansion of your point.
To anyone else reading my reply, it should be viewed as a rebuttal against the notion and intent of those who wish to push such legislation and reinforcement of Charo’s point.
…On further observational news of the day, the sharp polarization within this country is evident within this latest poll:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/12/27/obama_remains_most_admired_man.html
A sitting US president being on the top of the current list isn’t actually that newsworthy at all. Historically speaking, that’s fairly standard. Living Ex-presidents will often be somewhere on some folks list, but it is less common for them to remain at the very top.
Although everyone is entitled to their opinions, I am disappointed in conservatives that their top admired man and woman in 2010 would be GWB and SP. To me, I would think that there would have to be much more worthy candidates out there in conservatism and for the segment of the population that would put those two as their “most admired”…well, it simply makes it hard for me to take any argument from them seriously or to understand what it is that they actually hold on to as admirable “values”.
Think of the legislation in Hawaii and this response:
Attorney Peter Fritz testified in March that he thought the bill, if passed, would violate open government laws.
“The Legislature should have used a scalpel to address the problem of multiple requests, but it decided to use a shotgun and cover all areas,” Fritz said in an interview.
***
Legislation is not for the moment only, but extends into the future, no matter the initial motivation.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11434
Think of the legislation in Hawaii and this response:
Attorney Peter Fritz testified in March that he thought the bill, if passed, would violate open government laws.
“The Legislature should have used a scalpel to address the problem of multiple requests, but it decided to use a shotgun and cover all areas,” Fritz said in an interview.
***
Legislation is not for the moment only, but extends into the future, no matter the initial motivation.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11434
I am having trouble submitting the comment. Sorry for any multiple posts.
Charo, the only problem is I seriously doubt that the Hawaii Department of Health keeps the specific reciepts. And if they do, they are not under the public records part of Hawaii law.
Well, the two issues are not quite the same thing. For one, the HI law did pass.
Two, the issues of concern are fairly different, as from the article, the point of contention was:
Really, their only argument against is that they view the law as “overly aggressive”. However, under the definition for “vexatious requester” above, I fail to see how it truly could impact honest journalism.
That law doesn’t go after people for simply asking for material or for even asking for follow-up. It specifically addresses when the same requester or organization repeatedly asks for the same info over and over again, despite having already been responded to multiple times.
In a nutshell, it simply addresses the issue where people who don’t like the answer they get think they can just keep asking the same tired old question over and over and over again as if by their mere ability to be obtusely annoying and to refuse to accept the original responses, that *somehow* by magic, they’ll get a different response.
I’m all for the law. I think I’ll refer to it as the “what part of No did you not understand the first fifty times I said it” law.
So far, the law has withstood any challenges to it.
What was most telling about that article was the comments – I see BZ spammed the comment section as much as she could.
The blogger who posted the article was a law school student at the time interested in First Amendment issues. Just as you don’t see anything wrong with the effects of a vexatious requester, I don’t see anything wrong with everyone proving eligibility under the requirements of the Constitution.
That is obviously not what I meant- the effects of a vexatious requester law
I would agree except that one of the required answers to be given for a request is that the information is not available.
Also, C. Fukino gave testimony that could be argued, waived privacy.
Excerpts:
Spokesperson for the Hawaii State Department of Health, Janice Okubo, maintains the law is needed. She says 5 to 10 hours a week, she and her fellow state workers answer repeated demands from people outside of Hawaii seeking copies of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Okubo maintains that she isn’t opposed to answering questions or providing information to journalists or citizens who have “reasonable” requests. But there are three or four people who keep asking for information and don’t stop, even when the department gives them most everything they request, she says.
(Emphasis in bold is mine.)
I would not be surprised if Orly Taitz, Kate Vandemoer and Sharon Rondeau were three of the four (or one of their flying monkeys).
These are vexatious political enemies with delusions of being “at war” with the current Administration.
“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.”
Done. Next?
He had better be careful that he will not be considered a vexatious requester!
Charo, I fail to see a reasonable scenario where he could be deemed such.
Here’s the definition again for you:
Your remark seems to be merely glib snide trash talking and not based at all on the reality of law at hand nor the terms defined within it. In other words, it is a nonsense remark to make.
From the poll:
This year, Obama was named by 22%, Bush by 5%. Bush is the most-admired man among Republicans, cited by 11%. Twenty-five percent declined to name a most-admired man and 22% didn’t name a most-admired woman. About one in 10 chose a friend or relative. We have the poll percentages for Obama abd Bush, but not for HRC and Palin (just the party breakdown.) With Palin ending up ahead of Oprah and Michelle Obama in the poll, it seems she has to have some support with non-Republicans. I would be interested in the opinion of those familiar with polling.
G’s link has a link to the actual poll.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-27-most-admired-poll_N.htm
Well, G, according to most, everything has been asked and answered already. What could he possibly ask for, in the minds of those who say all has been answered? Don’t get me wrong: I am all for the the new Governor’s plan of action.
When I say asked for, I mean, divulge to the public. He doesn’t need to ask himself.
charo: The blogger who posted the article was a law school student at the time interested in First Amendment issues. Just as you don’t see anything wrong with the effects of a vexatious requester, I don’t see anything wrong with everyone proving eligibility under the requirements of the Constitution.
False equivalency. These two are not comparable – nor is your portrayal accurate of the NBC eligibility issue.
As Majority Will already stated, the only eligibility requirements for POTUS are already simply stated in the Constitution.
Each state SOS has existing procedures in place that they use for candidates to get on a ballot and be considered eligible.
At best, you can argue that you “personally” or even the birthers “personally” don’t have a personal right to vet candidates nor to see any privacy-law protected documentation that goes through any SOS policies and procedures towards certifying ballot candidates.
You can’t even say that none of the SOS requested or received birth certificates as part of the application process.
At best, you can argue that you want clarity that such documentation is part of the vetting process to take place and that signatures attesting to the same are not sufficient on their own.
But that is not in any way the same argument as deterring “vexatious requesters”, who are intentionally wasting government time and tax dollars.
MOST of us here don’t have any problems with a law that would simply add clarity and fair standards for ballot access vetting.
What we have problems with are those that try to create laws merely for political or discriminatory purposes and which are intended to CONFLICT with our Constitution, not support it.
FINALLY, the biggest difference between the 2 scenarios is that the HI law against “vexatious requesters” WILL succeed in having its intended affect, as it WILL be applied towards those perpetrators it was intended for.
However, as I’ve stated before, if any state actually went forward with a such an NBC law that was properly worded in a way to remain Constitutional and NOT discriminatory, it would NOT achieve its backers “intended” results of harming Obama – he would merely show the exact same COLB document and they would HAVE to accept it and that would be that.
…And if they tried to create any law where its verbiage was in any was discriminatory or conflicted with matters of Federal Law having supremacy on jurisdiction on this issue over states – then such an attempted law would FAIL and would NOT be enforceable.
The only difference I see here is I want our laws to be fair and designed properly and created for the right reasons, not for political witch hunts and to be properly enforced.
Whereas, you seem to support petty partisanship driving policy.
And what makes you think that I disagree with the above statement?
And that sentiment is implied because I said I agree that everyone should have to prove eligibility? Everyone is everyone, There is not a political party called everyone.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-29-admire-gallup-poll_N.htm
The poll of last year gave the percentage of the poll numbers for the list. It did so the year before that.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113572/obama-hillary-clinton-share-most-admired-billing.aspx
Why aren’t the percentages given for this year? I would like to see the percentages for all the group of women, but particularly HRC and Palin. Not according to party votes (Palin got 26% of Republican voters). Does someone not want those numbers published?
Yeah, it ticks me off when news organizations do a crud job of reporting polls and leave out the actual stats, the actual wording of the poll question and most importantly, the LINK to the actual poll. So USAToday and many others stink at simply doing that.
To find it, you actually have to go to gallup.
Here it is:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145394/Barack-Obama-Hillary-Clinton-2010-Admired.aspx
The percentages for the top 10 in both male & female categories are listed there. For the record, it was 17% HRC, followed by 12% Palin, Oprah at 11% and Michelle Obama at 5%.
The actual questions polled were phrased as follows:
“What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?”
“What woman that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?”
Sorry, I forgot to address that part of the question specifically. That data is also included to some extent, within the actual gallup article:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145394/Barack-Obama-Hillary-Clinton-2010-Admired.aspx
You just have to scroll a good way down to find it, and for some reason, they only listed the top 5 responses instead of the top 10 in the breakdown of those that called themselves either: Democrats, Independents, or Republicans.
It is worth noting that Oprah made all 3 lists, at 2nd place on ALL of them to boot: D (13%), I (10%), R (8%)
HRC was 1st place on D & I lists (31% & 15% respectively) and also on the R list at #3 (5%).
Michelle Obama only made the D (#3) & I lists (#4), where she comes in at 10% and 5% respectively.
Palin only made the I (#3) and R (#1) lists, at 7% and a whopping 26% respectively.
Again, I find that most telling of the results. The 26% for R is extremely high, compared to all other poll percentages and therefore accounts for the bulk of her being #2 on the woman’s list. Furthermore, as many Tea Party folks have been calling themselves “Independent”, even though they pretty much just mainly vote R anyways… I highly suspect the 7% in that category is the Tea Party contingent who were previously (and really still are) part of the R base anyways.
The only other name to appear on more than one segment of the woman’s list was Condi Rice, who was #5 for I and #4 for R, with 2% and 4%, respectively.
Honestly, I don’t know what more he can legally provide. Although I too can understand his passion and desire to put an end to this issue, I don’t think anyone here actually believes that anything he does will make a difference to the birthers.
Like everything else to date, they will just dismiss, ignore or move goal posts somewhere else in response to anything he does to prove them wrong and their issues baseless.
The end effect will be a few news headlines and some articles here and a lot of buzzing in birtherdom, but other than that, nothing will change in birthers minds and Obama will still be president.
So to be clear, you are saying that you agree that “it would NOT achieve its backers “intended” results of harming Obama – he would merely show the exact same COLB document and they would HAVE to accept it and that would be that. ”
Until now, I’ve seen you mention that you understand the overall circumstances of the motivations behind these attempted laws, but it wasn’t entirely clear that you concurred with what the results would be.
No, the sentiment is implied because you tried to make the glib false equivalency link between these so-called “eligibility laws”, which you agree are utterly politically motivated purely as anti-Obama gimmicks and an anti-harassment statute passed by HI.
Further, I don’t yet have the sense from your responses that your own claims that “everyone should have to prove eligibility” are sincere and not merely similarly politically motivated.
As I tried to point out in prior posts, you cannot say that states DON’T already have procedures for ballot eligibility. At best, you can have an opinion that some of them aren’t as stringent as you’d like them to be.
I guess what is missing here is that you’ve complained that you want more and criticized our existing system, but you have not yet spelled out exactly what you want the process to be and your reasons to support that.
So, tell us exactly what you want to see the various SOS do and why.
You’ll have to think what you think. Everyone should have to prove eligibility. I don’t know what each individual state requires. I do know that it was a myth that the President is required to be vetted by any federal agency. What is true or untrue about state requirements, I do not know. In the states where eligibility already has to be proven, legislation would be redundant.
I bought her book for my mother-in-law for Christmas, with the fringe benefit of being able to read it myself when she’s done.
I’m still waiting for you to explain just exactly what you want the process to be to “prove” eligibility….
…Until you can answer what you expect, it is hard to know what you are actually asking for and why it is different from what happens today.
I’m not sure what “myth” you are referring to. Maybe each of us had our own personal assumptions beforehand of what we thought might happen as candidates try to get registered on ballots for office…
…and maybe along the way, we’ve all been better educated about the actual processes in place and what does or doesn’t happen or is or isn’t required to *some* extent and have a bit better idea of how this actually happens…
…so, we can say we are better educated and less ignorant about the process in general…
…but I’m not aware of any over-arching federal “myth” out there that we were taught that says something else took place any differently… so I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about on that. Please explain.
I hope the book is enjoyable and both she & you like it. I’d love to get your “book review” after you’ve had a chance to “borrow” your MIL’s gift. 😉
I always thought Condi was sincere, bright, personable, fair-minded and multi-talented. I was just disappointed that I didn’t feel that she ended up being very effective in either of her cabinet positions. From a lot of the interviews, I get a strong sense that her opinions weren’t listened to by the rest of the administration as much as she should have been and personality wise, I think she’s more comfortable being a follower and a team player than having to be a leader and decision maker. I still always liked her though. I think she’s much happier doing other things outside of politics now. Of course, all that is just my POV and opinion on her.
I’ve asked quite a few birthers the same question and it has always been ignored.
These are the same birthers who have insisted that a magical form with hospital and doctor name has been locked away by the President (not HI or privacy laws) and is proof the President MUST be hiding something for all kinds of nefarious reasons on baseless conjecture and zero credible evidence. Paranoia at its best.
Birthers can’t ever seem to recall where those requirements are in the Constitution or when they became law or when any other President has been REQUIRED to provide doctor and hospital name to every demanding citizen to prove eligibility.
Requests increase for Obama birth proof
By Rob Shikina
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 25, 2010
People who do not believe President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961 have stepped up their requests for proof of his birth this month, in the hopes that the new gubernatorial administration will offer more information.
The state Department of Health says it has received 27 requests for information about Obama’s birth certificate this month, compared with 16 in November. There were 16 requests alone in the first half of this week, although most came from a single person.
(excerpt) Some birthers, however, have skirted the law by changing their names in their requests or going online and asking blog readers to send in requests.
(emphasis mine)
The rest . . .
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101225_requests_increase_for_obama_birth_proof.html
Gee…and I think its fairly obvious who that person is. Eventually, folks like Ms. Tickley, BZ, the P&E folks and the other flying monkeys will not be able to hide behind fake handles and will get dealt with as vexatious requesters, as they should be.
Hopefully, some of them will end up behind bars or under locked up medical care before they physically threaten, detain or seriously hurt or kill someone as has already happened in the recent past.
AGREED!!!
There was a time when commenters were claiming that presidential candidates had to be vetted by the FBI, that sort of thing. A report by Jack Maskell, a constitutional attorney who is employed by the Congressional Research Service, stated that:
“…there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.”
Again, I don’t know the specific requirements set forth by each Secretary of State, if any. If legislation is being proposed at the state level for eligibility verification, it is my understanding that no requirement exists.
I saw her promoting her book on one of the late shows, and it seems a more personal memoir rather than a political one. I agree that she seems content to be out of the spotlight.
I had to pick myself up off the floor after falling out of my chair when I saw this.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/27/chris_matthews_why_doesnt_obama_just_release_the_birth_certificate.html
Yeah, someone posted the link and then we’ve been talking about it on the open thread. Did you actually watch the full news clip or are you just focusing on the headline title?
Really, there is not much in this segment that is any different from questions that Matthews has asked on several of his prior news segments on the birthers, nor for folks like us who are very familiar with this issue, are the viewpoints expressed on there covering territory that we haven’t already covered or said numerous times. But always interesting to watch how the mainstream broaches the topic when they cover it.
The MAIN news, which is driving this story all over the news shows today (including Matthews) is the Gov. Abercrombie announcement that is the very story topic of this actual blog post. Although we are unlikely to see what Abercrombie is able to do in these regards until sometime after he actually takes control of things in the new year, the news stations should be able to get a few days of mileage just off of that announcement alone and then another coverage splash once he actually does something.
That should provide for a brief period of heavy blogging and posting and popcorn worthy entertainment, but in the end won’t likely change anything at all and any birthers who are expecting something other than what we already have known all along about his place of birth are going to be sorely disappointed, but unlikely to be dissuaded from their lost cause at all.
I guess in a way, Dr. C. scooped all the cable news networks and beat them to the punch on reporting it. Although, since this site focuses on such types of news, I suspect this will be one of the front-end sources to beat the cable news stations to the punch on the next act of this story too.
So stay tuned and keep your popcorn handy,
Yes, I listened to it twice. What, did you think I assumed CM converted to birtherhood? Chris Matthews asked more than once why he doesn’t just show the ling form? It exists, he says. Please link to me where Chris Matthews has ever said that.
long form
Well, I had this interview in mind when I wrote that, from 7/28/09:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yedex5i_3U4
I found it again and just re-listened to it. The part I was recalling starts just before the 8:00 mark.
Although they don’t specifically use the term “long form”, it is a similar setup where Matthews sets his guest up with a “setup” question of alluding to the long form by asking if HI has another document other than the COLB to provide, and then his guest, Howard Fineman explains the issue of the COLB and the issues around the “long form”.
It felt like a similar argument and style of “setup” question to have his guess address the question to me.
charo, with all due respect, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the US political system. It is an ADVERSARIAL system. The responsibility to challenge the eligibility of a candidate lies with their opponents. Lacking a challenge from an opposing candidate, Secretaries of State aren’t going to dig into a candidate’s sworn declaration-they lack the resources to do so and frankly it isn’t their responsibility. Nor is it or should it be the responsibility of the FBI or any other federal or state agency. The US has by far the longest election campaigns of any country. Surely in the 2 years of primaries and general elections, an ineligible candidate’s numerous challengers, as well as the press and various interest groups, can find the time to dig into their background and bring forward “the dirt”. Finally, you as a voter have the right to make your own determination, and are certainly free to wiithhold your vote from someone for any and all reasons. The Constitution and the laws established the system without an official electoral body because the intent was to leave the ultimate determination to the voters and to their elected representatives in Congress, with input from those with an actual interest (i.e., those who got off their duffs and ran) rather than internet wise guys.
To give a sports analogy, the officials on the field call plays as they see them. They will listen to challenges from players and coaches who feel that a call went against them. Like it or not, the fans in the cheap seats are just background noise. You certainly wouldn’t expect officials to react to boos from the bleachers. Nor would the game be a better one if they did.
> You certainly wouldn’t expect officials to react to boos from the bleachers.
Nor would a viewer have “standing” to challenge an official’s decision in court, regardless whether it just made him sad his team unfortunately lost or whether he lost $100,000 in a bet on the team.
Unless he has, in the latter case, actual proof the referee was making the wrong decision on purpose, e.g. after accepting bribes. But it is not the referee’s duty to prove his decision was correct or not purposefully incorrect, nor is it up to the courts to decide the winner of a football match or decide for a rematch because the referee made a mistake.
The same reasoning holds, slightly more to the point, if it turns out afterwards that a player was not eligible (e.g. because his college records were inflated or because the rules did not allow him to play). A viewer simply can’t call for action on that, and neither paying for a ticket or taking part in a bet gives him any “standing” for that matter.
For the record, Governor Abercrombie was inaugurated on December 6th and has been the Governor of Hawaii since that date.
Requiring proof of eligibility doesn’t change that a bit.
The degree of the responsibility of the Secretary of State would depend on how legislation was written. Teachers in my state have to get fingerprinted, have an extensive child abuse background check by the Department of Public Health and Welfare as well as a state police background check.
It will be if that is the law.
Again, what will change with eligibility legislation? He/She is eligible. Opposition research done?
I have even less resources than the Secretary of State.
More at a later time…
The authorities don’t issue licences to run for office. Nor should they ever in a democracy. There are countries where you need the approval of the authorities to run for office (Iran, China). This isn’t one of them.
Credible Presidential candidates have very significant resources. They have teams whose sole purpose is to dig up all kinds of dirt on their opponents. No candidate who spent years running for president and raised tens of millions of $s is going to sit idly by and lose to an inelligible opponent.
Why do you hate democracy?
The fingerprinting, etc. has nothing to do with licensing. In order to be eligible to get interviewed for a teaching position, the prospective employee must show proof that all of those are done or soon will be.
Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but I don’t consider eligibility “dirt.”
Someone who doesn’t hold your opinion hates democracy?
I don’t see eligibility verification causing states to go into bankruptcy.
Thanks for that bit of info! I didn’t realize that he already took office and just assumed that he took office in Jan, like most of the other elections. I stand corrected.
i think we can both agree that “ineligibility” would be a massive piece of “dirt”. in fact it would be the brass ring of dirt. think about it, mccain finds out that obama is ineligible ( kenyan, 2 parent, indonesian, muslim….. take your pick ). mccain and his campaign sit on this news till about a week before the election then….. BAM….. no time for the opposition to present a comprehensive candidate ( i doubt that a candidate could even get on the printed ballot ).
I am not going to rehash what I have already said. You can check back on the thread. In brief, any proposed legislation, whenever and if ever it should be enacted, would extend into the future, beyond 2012.
Of course fingerprinting has to do with licencing for teachers. Democracies license all kinds of professionals. They don’t license political candidates. Dictatorships do. Sorry you can’t see the difference.
Anything about an opposing candidate is dirt.
Not at all. But someone who wants Big Brother to pre-approve candidates is no friend of democracy.
No. But since no ineligible candidates have been elected to major office in recent times (there were a few early 18th century Senators including Henry Clay who served before they were 30 and I believe a House member who was younger than 25), you are proposing a solution in search of a problem. As long as unemployment is at 10%, our students are being beaten by 25 or so other countries and our infrasturucture is behind many 3rd world countries, our representatives have more important business than worrying about where some candidate was born. Let the opponents take care of it. They have much more incentive to disquallify the ineligible than you, me or some state bureaucrat.
You don’t need to be get fingerprinted to get a teaching license. If you are going to use your license, particularly in public schools, you need to get fingerprinted as well as obtain clearances. You still have a teaching license if you don’t do those things.
If someone is proven eligible, that is dirt?
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
Generally speaking, if enough people share an opinion and those people are able to get representatives elected who also share that opinion (enough of them to override a veto if the Governor does not share that opinion), the legislation passes, as long no one challenges its constitutionality or it can survive such a challenge. If it becomes unpopular, the legislation will be overturned by the action of the voters again. If there is not enough support initially, it stays an idea on a blog.
Democracy.
You do in New York. Anyway, we aren’t discussing teaching licenses. My question to you is, “Should you need a license from the state to run for office?” A simple yes or no please.
Since no ineligible candidates for the presidency have ever been elected and none in Congress in almost 200 years, why should anyone waste their time over this? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
For those who believe the NBC is antiquated and irrelevant, it is really pointless to have a debate.
No problem, it was a logical assumption on your part. For some strange reason, Inauguration Day in Hawaii is December 6th.
Senators Hatch and Nickels, as well as a plethora of legal scholars have said it is. What are your arguments that it isn’t? Do you have ANY? I strongly suspect you don’t.
You would be wrong. I have some responsibilities here at home. I don’t shy away from arguments. This can wait.
Amazing how those always come up just when you are called out……
Birthers Challenge Hawaii to Produce Statehood Certificate
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/12/29/birthers-challenge-hawaii-to-produce-statehood-certificate/
Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, Misha.
The interesting thing, misha, is that the arguments against the legitiimacy of the US annexation of Hawai’i are far stronger than any of the arguments actually made by the birthers. The overthrow of the Hawai’ian Kingdom by pro-annexation forces was of questionable legality at the time and would almost certainly be considered illegal under today’s international law.
Thanks for the good excuse to read up on this, I’ve been meaning to do that for quite awhile.
First stop: Wikipedeia:
The story about Pat Robertson on that site is even funnier.
It now costs nearly a billion dollars to run a successful Presidential campaign. It takes more than a year. The candidates are subjected to constant scrutiny by at least 3 24-hour news networks.
In this environment, does it really make any sense anymore that the Democracy that charo describes above can’t figure out if Arnold or Granholm or Kissinger or Kennedy is beholden to a foreign regime?
Oh, wait, Kennedy’s allegiance to a foreign nation was due to his religion, rather than to where and to whom he was born.
The NBC clause has never been all that useful and is now actively anti-democratic. Let Arnold run for President and prove why he’d be the best for the job!
I have discussed the NBC issue here at length. What you are accusing me of goes against everything I have ever said about it. I think it is a necessary protection; however, if there is a Constitutional amendment eliminating the clause, then that would be the law that trumps all. (Democracy) You are the one compared eligibility to licensing. The simplest example is the soccer analogy. If a kid plays soccer on a travel team, the kid needs a passport that is generated after providing a picture and a copy of the the birth certificate. In my experience, occasionally a ref asks to see them prior to a game. Soccer kids don’t need to be licensed.
You would rather make a cheap argument. If I don’t get my kids to bed, they’ll stay up too late. Or they won’t eat when they are supposed to. Or need me to talk to them. I get caught up here way too much.
That’s not an argument, that’s simply your belief. Necessary how? Protection against what? Is there a better way to protect, one that doesn’t go against fundamental American and human values, as well noted by Senator Hatch (and Greg above)? The sole argument I have heard in favor of the clause is some vague concern about “foreign influence”. Yet the most effective way for foreign powers to gain influence is good, old-fashioned cash. Would you ban from public office anyone who accepted cash from a foreign government or corporation in the 5 years preceding or following their time in office? What about US corporations with substantial interests overseas? What about corporations in general and their over-sized role in the political process? This is a complicated, globalized world and things aren’t so simple. But unless you address the role of money in the power structure, you are dodging the main issue.
As far as the soccer analogy, no soccer league would refuse to accept Barack Obama’s official COLB or his US passport. If they did, they’d have a losing lawsuit on their hands.
As for your kids bedtime, that is obviously important. However, you have this (very annoying) habit of posting inflammatory nonsense and then ducking out. It seems to me that the 2 choices for a person of integrity are: 1. Be prepared to respond to counter arguments; or, 2. Stay away ab initio. Posting and running frankly seems chicken-excremental.
There are many here who would disagree with you. You haven’t even been here for quite some time to know what you are talking about. Up until a month or so ago, everything I said was considered inflammatory. People have to eventually duck out. It is a NY’s resolution to duck out altogether.
So because you seem to need for this validation: I am just a chickens**t dumba**.
You didn’t even bother to read above:
charo December 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm charo(Quote) #
G: However, as I’ve stated before, if any state actually went forward with a such an NBC law that was properly worded in a way to remain Constitutional and NOT discriminatory, it would NOT achieve its backers “intended” results of harming Obama – he would merely show the exact same COLB document and they would HAVE to accept it and that would be that.
And what makes you think that I disagree with the above statement? (charo)
Yeah, I ducked out on this thread big time. What a chickensh**…
Not so in Colorado:
http://www.ehow.com/how_7435371_obtain-teaching-certificate-colorado.html
I never said such a law would be unconstitutional. Merely a pointless waste of time. You may think legislators should pass a whole bunch of laws that are pointless. I don’t. There are plenty of useless and downright pernicious laws, many of which have passed or would probably pass a constitutional challenge. Constitutional does not necessarliy equal wise and judicious. We don’t need more of such garbage laws.
As far as my challenge, you most definitely did duck it-I asked for your arguments in favor of the natural born citizen restriction. Something beyond “I think it is a necessary protection”. Perhaps a well-thought-out response to the points I raised in the first paragraph of my post at 11:19 AM. Is that too much to ask?
For the record, Charo. I feel I have a gained understanding of your position based on your posts and I do not have a problem with the position you are taking on this.
I think it is well within a reasonable standard of opinion and I accept that you do just want to see a more defined eligibility confirmation process in place, regardless of who the candidate is and that you had just always assumed that something more than what happens now took place.
Now, it is quite valid for others to argue that they think the existing process works just fine and that someone’s signature on a form attesting and affirming that they understand and meet the eligibility requirements is completely sufficient and fully consistent and inline with many other areas of law where people validate by just doing that.
Some here are even of the opinion that they don’t see the need or value of the NBC clause anymore and would be fine without it, but as you have correctly pointed out, the reality of that is not even on the table for consideration and would require a Constitutional Amendment to change, so the only serious issue for discussion is what does it mean to check for eligibility and who is responsible to do so.
My whole position is that it is one thing for people to generalize and say that they think processes aren’t good enough. Everyone complains. That is easy. What is hard is actually coming up with fair, uniform and unbiased policies that conform with all other laws.
So, I’d really like to move this discussion to something more productive and mature on this topic – if you are not satisfied and wish to see improvement in the eligibility validation process for ballot access, what exactly do you suggest that process should be and why?
Don’t you want to be my press secretary? 😉 I couldn’t have said it better.
I need more information concerning the whole process. In most situations that I can think of, self-affirmation is not good enough. Now when a patient goes for medical testing, the person has to show a driver’s license because of the massive amounts of insurance fraud. A handshake used to mean much more than it does now. Verification is pretty standard. I know these are general points. Our legislators should be able to come up with some kind of reasonable compromise to ensure eligibility verification. It is done in so many areas of our life. I am friends with our outgoing state house representative. He may have some ideas given his legislative experience.
Seriously, though, I do plan to spend much less time here. I find it interesting to debate, bounce ideas around with others, but since May of this year (right after my dad died), I have too many times ignored my responsibilities as a parent. I home school and miss conversation with adults. I also have two professional licenses that I haven’t used for a number of years, and this past year, I have felt a need for intelligent discussion so that my brain cells are still intact for my kids’ education during their teenage years! Elementary school academics are not all that tough. My son is now in 6th grade, which I can’t believe.
I need to be committed to my kids first. Sooo (did I just turn into Squeeky???) although I have at numerous points made a decision to stay away from commenting, the temptation was too strong. With a new year around the corner, I have got to follow through.
Thanks for your comments through these months. You were the first person to actually engage in a civil discussion with me.
In my home state, I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the case. A teacher can’t get a job without getting fingerprinted anyways. For the interviewing process, you need to show that you have been fingerprinted and have clearances. Sometimes a school will accept your word that you will do these things if there is an immediate need. Because of the abuse that has been more prevalent, schools are much more stringent than they used to be.
That should be Do. See, the brain cells are disappearing, as I have feared.
Before this mutual love-fest gets out of hand,let me return to the original point I made before someone diverted the discussion to a topic on which she refuses to back up her arguments. The current system is ADVERSARIAL. Someone can get on the ballot by their sworn affirmation. But no opposing candidate is going to sit on their hands and lose to someone against whom they have evidence of ineligibility. A rival candidate has a much stronger motivation to get an ineligible person of the ballot than any state bureaucrat.
Once again (I will repeat this until said person addresses the point head on) in 230 years, no ineligible person has become President. A few ineligible (by age) folks got into Congress in the early 19th century, but that is largely because Congress has absolute power to seat whom they will. The current system WORKS.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
I also want to point out that we simply do not know for certain if various states do ask for (or even if they don’t) if they receive and look at birth certificates as part of their process for the ballot eligibility – particularly where the president is concerned.
All we know is that for the major parties – the party itself is often involved in the process and providing certain sworn testaments to a candidates qualifications. We also can’t say that those party bosses didn’t directly receive certified birth certificates themselves that they looked at.
Part of the reason we don’t know is that we aren’t those government officials tasked with dealing with such things and are not privy to the information that they request or receive.
A lot of this argument for better process is based on nothing but pure speculation by us folks who have no authority or responsibility for such matters, who are criticizing a job and its processes for which we really don’t know anything about.
The citizen’s role is to vote, based on the information that they are aware of. The opposing candidates and the media are responsible to ask and bring to light any questions that they find suspect. Those responsible for ballot eligibility and candidate registration/certification are responsible for doing their job.
Other than us not having paid attention and basically being ignorant to the details of the process itself until recently, we really can’t say at all that there ARE actual problems with the current process (maybe an argument of govt transparency at the state or party level of making the steps of their processes fully known…(but NOT that they should ever have to reveal private info, just maybe confirm they’ve seen/addressed it as the case may be).
It is an extremely valid argument to make to take someone at their word and sworn testimony, absent solid evidence that indicates otherwise and to assume that in the bright, harsh and hotly contested spotlight of a nearly 2-year national campaign for president (particularly of someone who has held prior political offices at both the state and national level), that if there were any real concerns with such a basic qualifier and the NBC clause, that it would have come to light a long, long time before the candidate got very far…
When you really think about it, it is extremely unrealistic to believe that a candidate who didn’t meet the NBC requirement would get that far in life without such things as their place of birth being known well in advance of even trying to get on the ballot. Especially when they’ve had driver’s licenses, passports and held various other offices in the past.
Such a likelihood is so improbable that it almost renders worrying about such things as a non-issue entirely.
LOL! Heck no. Not even close. 😉
I’ve been away since Christmas Eve and just now finished reading the entire thread. A few comments:
1. Charo made a couple of references to a possible waiver of privacy because officials from Hawaii have made some public comments about Obama’s birth there. It should be pointed out that while it is possible for state officials to violate Obama’s right to privacy, but there is nothing that they can do to waive his right to privacy. The right to privacy is Obama’s, not the state’s, and only Obama can waive it.
2. As for proving eligibility, I would have no problem with states requiring candidates for President to produce state-issued birth certificates. However, I would have a problem with state laws which would also leave it up to the state’s Secretary of State to make a ruling about whether those birth certificates are adequate (the full faith and credit clause requires states to accept birth certificates from other states) or to rule if the candidates are in fact natural born citizens.
And while the birth certificates would establish when are where the candidates were born, what proof would these state laws require to establish that the candidates meet the residency requirement? And if a state Secretary of State is a Vattelist, could he or she also demand proof of the citizenship of the parents of the candidates?
What seems like a simple thing – requiring candidates to prove eligiblity – can become a very slippery slope, particularly when not everyone agrees on the definition of natural born citizen. Giving a state official the authority to rule on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution would be very dangerous and almost certainly unconstitutional.
3. I have a hunch that Governor Abercrombie is looking for a way to get Obama’s “long form” birth certificate released without having it appear that a concession is being made to the birthers. I can see Abercrombie asking Obama for permission to make the “long form” public on the basis that it would relieve Hawaii’s burden of having to respond to the constant requests (at least, the ones which cannot be identified a “vexatious” requests). If Obama were to agree, Hawaii could print a stack of copies and respond to every request by simply mailing a copy to the requestor. Of course, this would not satisfy the hard-core birthers, who would claim that the document is forged or altered, but it might satisfy some and it likely would make life easier for Hawaii DOH.
Good post, Rickey. Thank you for your summary and insights.