As expected, the amended HB 2177, a bill widely reported as being aimed at forcing Barack Obama to show his birth certificate, has passed the Arizona Senate on a strict party line vote, and is on its way back to the lower house for approval of the amended version. We now have the text of the amended bill, which would apply to the general election.
The bill requires a “long form birth certificate” of Presidential candidates, the minimum requirements of which are:
includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.
I frankly don’t understand from that language whether Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth fits or not, although I presume not. In lieu of a qualifying birth certificate, the state will accept other documentation in line with the Department of State’s list of secondary proof of citizenship to obtain a passport. What is curious, however, is that one of the the State Department’s primary evidentiary documents is excluded: a passport, a document which establishes identity, citizenship and place of birth.
The legislation ignores federal standards for a birth certificate and seems to be crafted specifically to ignore all the proof that Barack Obama has already shown.
Let’s see…how do is see this going if signed into law….Obama campaign files for an injuction prohibiting implementation of the law, because on its face it is clearly unconstitutional. Judge grants motion. State of Arizona spends money it doesn’t have appealing. Appeal is denied. The file for cert. Cert is denied….Arizona tax payers carry the tab while the state continues to cut their services.
You’d think there would be at least one Republican in the Arizona legislature that is, or at least knows a laywer….or even a 2nd year law student, who could tell them you’d have just a good chance of surviving a court challenge if you titled it, “let’s keep that dark skinned Obama guy off the ballot”
(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE
Qualifies as a religious test which is prohibited by our Constitution.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
I don’t think the Obma campaign will have to sue. The US government will sue, just as they did with Arizona’s immigration law. This is an un-Constitutional usurpation of federal authority. The results will be identical.in this case- the law will be struck.
I was actually thinking about that…is it an ursurpation of federal authority? It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause, so in theory, another state could bring suit. But I was thinking more in terms of the Term Limits case from a couple decades back, where the actual congressmen had to bring suit. Still stewing about that fine point.
Obama lost Arizona by more than 8% against the native son in 2008. Recent polls show Romney with only a 6% lead.
I welcome anything the Arizona legislature does to fire up the Democratic base. Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona, and, with birthers’ help, he’ll win the state!
“(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE”
.
I initially did not have a birth certificate, I used a baptism certificate to join Marines also for other stuff. Everything was fine until I needed a passport. They would not accept baptism certificate, had to be a state issued Birth Certificate, I was able to get a “delayed Birth” birth certificate, but that was hard (40 years after the fact). I needed affidavit from my surviving siblings, and priest that baptized me (he was 94 and still alive), my older sister was the mid wife, her testimony was the clincher. This took a long time pus 2 expensive trips to Chicago (I lived in Hawaii at the time). (I was born in Chicago at a time when many immigrants had children tru mid wife’s)
.
So (a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE, is a surprise to me. It was not allowed for a passport yet Arizonans can use it, Strange.
.
They know Obama has a passport. That’s why it’s missing from the law. It’s unlikely he had a bris or an “early baptism.” I’m sure they put “early” in there to exclude him, too, because Rev. Wright may have baptized Obama as an adult and could’ve supplied him with a certificate of baptism. I doubt the law will get far enought that Obama would’ve have to supply his papers, but I’d laugh if Grandma Dunham had him baptized as a child.
What I don’t get is the emphasis on “witnesses.” Are there any birth certificates that actually use the terminology “witnesses?” I’ve seen “informants” and “attendants” on a birth certificate but not “witnesses.” I suppose that’s nitpicking over terminology, but it really bothers me. Every time I hear someone talk about witnesses to births, I think of the law in England that required royal births to be witnessed by a minister of the crown. Princess Margaret, born in 1930, was the last royal to have her birth witnessed. Do the birthers want every woman in labor to have a government official present as a witness just in case she gives birth to a future President?
We don’t need Obama or even the Feds to sue. Just get someone who was born in one of the states that doesn’t issue long form certificates to file. When Arizona doesn’t let them on the ballot, they can sue. Eventually we may get this to SCOTUS, where we’d finally hear that a COLB is a valid BC, and proof of being born in the US is all you need to be natural born.
That’s not the only thing wrong with it. It is sex discrimination.
Unless of course they are willing to accept female circumcision certificates.
The film buff in me is now reminded of “Histoire d’O”.
What does a baptism or circumcision have to do with citizenship? The last time I checked, both naturalized citizens and aliens can be baptized and/or circumcised.
And what does “early” mean? I’m 63 now, so age 21 was “early” in my life.
At least they are being transparent.
The Feds sued to block the immigration law on the grounds that immigration is a federal authority. They didn’t wait for an immigrant to be arrested under the law and for him to sue. The qualifications for President is a federal matter.
It is my understanding that the states always have standing to sue the Feds (as they are doing over the health care individual mandate, even though it doesn’t take effect until 2014) and the Feds always have stnding to sue the states.
If the passport office is any indication, early means within the first five years of your birth. To be fair, the passport office also asks for baptism certificates if you don’t have a birth certificate:
The birther law leaves out school records and Bible records.
Seriously? As in U.S. Census?
Is the Arizona House not aware that Census records are only made public after 72 years?
Even John McCain and Ronald Reagan, as old as they were, still weren’t old enough to have access to Census records that included themselves as children.
What an odd thing to include.
Also, Arizona has apparently decided that while they need extensive documentation on the eligibility of Presidential candidates, they don’t really need anything from the VICE-Presidential candidates.
Thus preventing us from seeing any proof that Joe Biden was actually born in Scranton, like he claims. I mean, we have lots of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but what evidence is there that Biden was actually born in Pennsylvania?
On the face of it, census records do sound silly, but it is possible to obtain census information about yourself even if the census isn’t publicly available.
See http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/agesearch/index.html
and
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/agesearch/bc-600.pdf
also asks for baptism certificates if you don’t have a birth
.
not accurate, I know I went through this, read at US State Site:
these Early Public Records are acceptable only if combined, not alone
…Baptismal certificate
…Hospital birth certificate
…Census record
…Early school record
…Family bible record
…Doctor’s record of post-natal care
I had a baptism certificate and nothing else, they said “sorry, no”
my school was gone, no doctor, nothing!
Requirement clearly states:
Early Public Records are not acceptable when presented alone.
the link: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/secondary_evidence/secondary_evidence_4315.html
Just noticed, “State of birth and citizenship is only available in census records from 1910 to 1950,” so even if Obama presented a copy of the 1970 census, it wouldn’t give them the information they want.
The census is self-answered, isn’t it? I mean you fill out a form that says how many live at an address. Then you say how many are citizens. No one verifies that, do they?
richCares, you said, “I had a baptism certificate and nothing else.” I take that to mean you didn’t have anything else on the list. The rule indicates that you need to have more than one item on that list. “Early Public Records are not acceptable when presented alone.”
The birther bill asks for a minimum of two of the alternative records, but it sounds like the passport office wants as many of the items as possible. The passport office has a higher standard of proof than the birther bill, but the bill won’t accept passports.
That is my understanding as well.
I also suspect that like the AZ immigration law, if the AZ Gov tries to sign this bill into law, that could automatically trigger the Feds to immediately take AZ to court on it and the precedent is there for them to so. I think this is the most probable course of action we’d see instead of letting it stand until a potential candidate sues based on standing.
Actually, the way the statute reads (or at least the version i’ve seen) it appies to candidates for the office of president nominated by a party that has ballot access. So just any person from a state with a birth certificate that doesn’t have all the information wouldn’t have standing. No my question is since they have a provision that any citizen has standing to sue to enforce the action, does that open the door for any citizen to sue for injuctive relief to enjoin the statute from going into effect?
SCOTUS will never hear the case. There is just nothing controversial about it. It’s a clear violation of the full faith and credit clause as well as placing additional restrictions on constitutionally established offices. Cert denied without further comment.
I’m admittedly a little fuzzy on the rules for standing in this situation (I deal in mostly commcerial civil litigation). The Feds could sue on the immigration law because the power over immigration is granted to the federal government by the constitution, and federal law has pre-empted any state regulation in the area. The state has in this sense cause a harm to the feds by interfering with their established laws and regulations in the field. But this is more akin to a civil rights violation, where the state is violating a Constitutional guarentee to the other states and its citizens. I think in that sense, the Federal Government probably has standing to sue, but it is a little fuzzy. This isn’t an area that the constitution has granted to the Feds. It’s merely a list of qualifications that the Constitution has defined.
JoZeppy-I appreciate your comments. What about the fact that the 12th Amendment leaves the determination of eligibility to Congress? Suppose a state said only whites could be on the ballot? Is there no limit to the idiocy states can do?
Also, suppose the Feds can’t or don’t sue, can prospective candidates sue immediately or do they have to wait until they are denied a spot on the ballot?
“I had a baptism certificate and nothing else.”
actually the passport office told me in person that only a birth certificate is acceptable. As my mother in law was dying I needed a pasort quickly. They told me no way. I rememebered my neice worked for US State so I called her, she me told about using multiple public records and also her boss arranged for me to get a hardship passport (temporary 3 months), so I made my trip and on return got a delayed BC and a full passport which took almost a year.
.
I was upset that i needed my neice to tell me how to get it done, that the local official would not help at all, in effect without friends in high places I would have been SOL. When I went to pick up my temp passport, the person who initially refused me gave me a snarky look. I filed a complaint tru my neices boss.
The irony is that a bunch of the potential Republican nominees for 2012 won’t be able to produce a BC that meets this bill’s requirements.
Doesn’t Arizona also issue (or are moving to doing so) only abstract forms now?
Passport as PROOF:
when my wife registered to vote, they asked her for proof of citizenhip (she’s Japanese), they said a passport is very good proof, which she recently got and showed it, then finally she voted.for the first time.
I doubt any of the Republicans in that legislature have any expectation that the bill will pass constitutional muster. They know it’s a non starter, but that’s not their intention.
I suspect it’s all about keeping the rednecks angry. If the new law gets challenged, as it will, and fails, as it will, the rednecks will be all up in arms again about the “gub’mint” interfereing with Arizona’s “independence and sovereignty”. What’s more important, from the Arizona Republicans POV, is that the rednecks will be mad at the federal government…. and not them.
I don’t think so, simply because the candidates are in a position to protect themselves and assert their own rights. The law impacts a very small class of easily ascertained individuals, who almost by definition are going to have the means to wage whatever legal fights are needed to afford ballot access.
That being said, it’s an easy fight by whoever chooses to wage it. It will be interesting as the GOP primary season winds up to see how many candidates choose to “release” their birth certificates during their campaigns, and what those certificates from various states look like.
The 12th amendment doesn’t speak so much to actual determinations of eligibility. It says electors can’t vote for a ticket with both a Vp and P from their state, and also that a Vp must be eligible for President, but not so much as to determinations of who is eligbile (or did I miss that). States do have inherent power in regulating their elections, so I don’t see a problem with a general requirement of a state asking a candidate to provide sufficient information to establish they are qualified to hold office.
As for a state trying to race restrictions….not sure if there is a back door through some voting rights statute that would grant standing. I would think there is some general civil rights statute that would give the Feds standing to intervene, without requiring an individual agreived by the state statute…but I really have no real experience in civil rights law….and again, I generally don’t know too much about at what the feds requirements are to establish standing (so if there is another attorney out there that knows the answer…please do chime in).
Scientist, I found this comprehensive document on the history of the census from its origins to 2000:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02-ma.pdf
For the 1970 census (which Obama may or may not be in depending on when he returned from Indonesia in 1970) the document says:
“All answers were designed for self-identification on the part of the respondent, but the enumerator was allowed to fill in blanks by observation when this was possible. For
item 4 (color or race), it was assumed that the respondent’s relatives living in the unit were also of the same race unless the census taker learned otherwise.” So, Obama could’ve been presumed to be white.
They actually provided samples of the questionnaires used. I discovered that the lack of citizenship information isn’t absolute. They did sampling within the population and asked certain questions of every 20th household and every 5th household. If Obama’s family were included in one of those samples, then the birthers could get an answer to some of the questions.
For instance, you could be randomly selected for these questions:
13a. Where was this person born? If born in hospital, give State or country where mother lived. If born outside U.S., see instruction sheet….
14. What country was his father born in?
15. What country was his mother born in?
16. For persons born in a foreign country–
a. Is this person naturalized
16 b. When did he come to the United States to stay?
The newer passport card is just as good for proof of identify/citizenship. It also fits in a wallet, so it’s more convenient to take along than a passport book. There’s also a chance of a passport book getting wet, while the passport card is plastic. It was only $20 when I got mine (processed as a “renewal”) although the current cost is now $30 if you already have a passport book.
I’ve heard of people of certain ethnicity in Arizona who decided to get and carry passport cards. They figured it was handy to have just in case they get stopped, and having a driver license or state ID wasn’t enough to convince law enforcement of their right to be in the US.
So what’s up with proof of citizenship when registering to vote? All I’ve ever seen is a mail in registration form (not printed at home) here in California, as well as an attachment to DMV forms (motor voter). I recall it stated that the applicant must be a citizen of the US, but didn’t require any sort of proof.
What do you expect of a law written by Oily?
As far as I know the enumerator didn’t verify birthplace and citizenship information. So I don’t know how it can serve as proof of eligibility.
Sorry, i meant the 20th. The problem of course is that the AZ law imposes an unreasonable standard of proof that may be impossible for some candidates who are elligible to meet. That would violate full faith and credit and equal protection IMO.
We’ll just have to see how it plays out. I still think there’s a chance the Governor will veto it.
nah don’t you worry yusself ovah that. trust me, everbody that az’s republicans want on their ballot won’t have no trouble t’all makin’ it on — and anybody they don’t want will …
I can’t see Obama challenging the law. The executive branch of government has nothing to do with presidential eligibility, so I don’t see how they have standing. I don’t think anyone is going to challenge this law, Constitutional or not.
No-one should take it for granted that the amended bill will pass the House – the speaker and other members have doubts about it’s constitutionality.
I do not see this as a “religious test.” It is just an early record of a person living in the jurisdiction.
Scientist wrote, “As far as I know the enumerator didn’t verify birthplace and citizenship information. So I don’t know how it can serve as proof of eligibility.”
I think you’re right about that. That’s probably why the passport agency won’t allow you to use just one document, like the census.
If Obama were in the census and his household were picked to answer those questions, and those answers were consistent with him being born in Hawaii, the birthers would see it as part of the conspiracy. If they believe Obama’s family would forge a birth certificate, they’d believe the family would lie to a census taker.
They cannot use it alone, but as one of the two required secondary documents.
Every original birth certificate has a space for a witness, they just call it Attendant. I’ve never seen one with a separate Witness space, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. The Informant need not be present at the birth.
If President Obama needs a longer birth certificate with more information on it to get on the ballot in Arizona in 2012, I’m sure that Governor Abercrombie will see to it that whatever he needs is made available for him.
The Hawaii legislature would probably have to pass a “special exception” law, but that’s one day’s work.
The candidate could sue in state court, because unless they can show harm they wouldn’t have standing in federal court.
My reading of Hawaii statutes is that basically all it would take is for the health director to approve a new procedure for requests to obtain a certified photostatic copy of the original (if it exists). I think the price is set by law, so they won’t be able to charge more like some jurisdictions for a photocopy.
If it isn’t overturned, I think they might just repeal the law once Obama is no longer running for President.
Of course there is the possibility of the state of Hawaii suing. They are the state that produces documents in question for the presumtive Democratic party nominee. The Arizona law voilates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, mandating they change the documents they produce. And the kicker is, in disputes between the states, guess which Court has original jurisdiction?
And that’s what i have a HUGE problem with. So now, someone’s (not just Obama’s but anyone’s) ability to get on the ballot could depend on the good-will of the Governor and legislature of their birth state. Suppose the Democratic Governor of Minnesota wants to stop Tim Pawlenty from running because he thinks he is the strongest Republican candidate. Assuming Minnesota doesn’t normally issue long forms he just has to refuse to do so.
Is that likely ti happen? No, but why give anyone that power?
I agree — but that is exactly why Obama should NOT do anything other than provide whatever official certification of birth is issued by the state of Hawaii to all applicants in 2012.
Here’s why: Obama happens to be in a position of power, born in a state which strongly supports his party and currently governed by a man who was once a personal friend of his parents. So of course if laws need to be changed to accommodate his candidacy, it will happen. But suppose, for example, a candidate born in a different state, not so supportive of his candidacy, runs into a similar problem? If Arizona creates a new litmus test that invalidates commonly issued state and federal documents (like US passports), then only the rich and powerful will be able to meet that litmus test..
So Obama really shouldn’t be asking for state’s to pass one off laws to help him — not because it is hard to do, but simply on principle.
Would the state of Hawaii have standing to sue the state of Arizona for refusal to accept the COLB, under the full faith and credit clause?
This bill is in violation of the US Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause, in which every state must accept the official documents of all other states, and the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii.
Do you think that Arizona will accept the COLB or that Hawai’i will issue President Obama a ‘long form’? I would think that this law is destined for court (as some candidate will probably be unable to satisfy it – depending on the interpretation of the Arizona SoS – and would clearly have standing if barred from the ballot.
Dr. C, if the executive branch has nothing to do with presidential eligibility than how can Arizona’s Secretary of State, which is part of the executive branch, have any say on presidential eligibility?
Does Arizona only issue short forms? I thought I read that somewhere.
Probably correct. Another reason why the Obama administration would not want to raise a legal challenge is that it would finally wake up the press that there has to be a reason why Obama does not want to release his long form birth certificate.
Bob
Why do you beleive that simply repeating the same tired, incorrect talking point over and over means something?
Funny how that works in birferstan. If he raises a legal challenge he has something to hide and therefore is trying to stop the states from releasing the long form. If he doesn’t then he has something to hide and the press would wake up. This is the heads I win tails you lose argument
Arizona no longer issues long forms to anyone born after 1989. So in 14 years those children can’t run for president on Arizona’s ballot
Birther’s actually believe Obama can’t meet the AZ law, they are so excited, OMG. Watch them go beserk when Obama is put on AZ’s ballot. their tiny brains will not be able to handle that.
I’ll take Supreme Court for $200, Alex.
It would seem a waste of money for Hawaii (or the other states with the same computer-generated certificate) to sue when they could just make an exception in their procedures for favorite-son presidential candidates. I suppose the states could get together and sue. I’m not seeing this happen.
I meant the executive branch of the federal government.
Actually, this isn’t the type of “dispute between the states” contemplated in terms of original jurisdiction — that’s for big stuff like figuring out water rights or boundaries. Full-faith-and-credit is something that would generally be resolved by the individual parties involved. So I don’t see a Hawii-initiated lawsuit, or even standing. (Hawaii issues COLB to Obama – what Obama does with it from that point on isn’t Hawaii’s problem any more.)
I think the procedure is more like — Obama gives Hawaii COLB to Democratic Party Chairman. Democratic Party submits COLB to Arizona SOS along with other ballot stuff.
If SOS accepts it and places Obama on the ballot, the burden would be on some objector in Arizona to bring suit in state court. Democratic Party defends suit, arguing FF &C. They win.
If SOS refuses to accept it, Democratic party brings action for injunctive relief in Arizona courts, submitting COLB and asserting FF&C. They win.
Could you describe the injury?
Exactly.
Seems the most effective, straight forward process to me.
The next step would be that AZ appeals to SCOTUS who then denies Cert without comment.
Well, procedurally it could also go through the Federal district court system.
I think the problem legally is more than merely the FF&C issue — I think the argument would be that by setting up an alternative, nonstandard way of verifying births, the Arizona legislature has unduly burdened access to the ballot. Even if a person can produce the required documents, it makes no sense for someone to be required to dig up census data and baptismal certificates when a state-issued birth certificate or passport should suffice to prove place of birth.
I think a law could be written that would pass muster, but it would have to be very simple and not put the state or SOS in the position of trying to interpret the Constitution.
That is, I don’t have a problem with the idea that a candidate should submit a COLB, copy of their passport, and/or consular certificate, and that they should submit a statement detailing US residency for a period of at least 14 years (which doesn’t necessarily have to be continuous). But it’s the idea of the state setting up its own scheme which seems like basically a 21st century twist on the literacy tests that used to be in place to prevent blacks from voting prior to the passage of the civil rights act in the 60’s. You can’t simply invent a new set of requirements because you don’t like the risk of black folks getting elected.
“A charge levelled”? You mean working on a political campaign is a crime? I think you would find that virtually every state official in the nation has worked for one or another candidate. Gov Lingle worked for McCain, yet says Obama was born in Hawaii.
I’m curious what you do in life other than posting nonsense on blogs. In the real world, when a spokesperson issues an official statement under his name and title, such statements have been pre-cleared and represent the official position of the organization. If it’s just his personal opinion, then it would be “a senior official” or something that would not mention his name.
Don’t hold you breath waiting for a correction. On second thought, do hold your breath…
Why should someone with every right to run have to depend on special favors from the state they were born in (where they may not have lived in decades) to get on the ballot? Suppose those favors were denied for political reasons? This is a can of worms that shouldn’t be opened.
The problem is the statement is OBVIOUSLY wrong that it’s in the LAW that even the person on the birth certificate can’t have a copy of the long form, only the short form.
Here’s another indication of it. When Gov. Abercrombie wanted to release Obama’s original birth certificate he was told by the Attorney General he couldn’t do it without the person’s consent. Don’t you think if it really was in the law that even the person on the birth certificate couldn’t get a copy the Attorney General would have told him that, because it would mean that in fact Obama had no say in the matter?
Law Stops Effort to Document Obama’s Birth.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 22, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/politics/23hawaii.html
Bob
Release of a document requires the consent of 2 parties: the custodian of the document (the State of Hawaii) and the concerned person (Obama). You don’t know what document Abercrombie was referring to. Likely the Governor knew that the actual birth certificate couldn’t be released so he was looking for some supporting document that could be released.
As for your legal opinion,are you:
1. A Lawyer
2. Who practices in the area of records law
3. In Hawaii
The Attorney General can say yes to all 3. Unless you can say yes to at least 2, then what does it matter what you say? I mean i know we are in an age where everyone with a Google connection fancies himself an expert in everything, but there is still expertise that one can only gain by study in a field and practice over many years. Find someone who is an acknowledge expert in the relevant laws that agrees with your position and then we can discuss it.
“I suspect it’s all about keeping the rednecks angry. If the new law gets challenged, as it will, and fails, as it will, the rednecks will be all up in arms again about the “gub’mint” interfereing with Arizona’s “independence and sovereignty”. What’s more important, from the Arizona Republicans POV, is that the rednecks will be mad at the federal government…. and not them.”
Exactly – they just need to keep the reptile-brain stems of the hard core GOP/Birther subpopulation flooded with endless stimulation. It is that simple – the AZ assembly members toatlly get this game and play it endlessly.
One thing I’m curious about. What happens if Obama doesn’t bother challanging this law and then his team turns up with his COLB and points out that according to the US constitutions Full Faith and Credit clause they have to accept this as proof?
Will the Arizona election board just accept it, thereby making this law just apply to candidates who are from Arizona, or will they refuse and force a lawsuit which they will most certainly lose?
I can certainly see political benefits to Obama in forcing such a lawsuit come election time.
See Expeliarimus’ hypothesis above. Its a win-win for Obama whether the AZSOS accepts it or not.
The Dr points out: “The legislation ignores federal standards for a birth certificate and seems to be crafted specifically to ignore all the proof that Barack Obama has already shown.”
The idiots don’t seem to get that their bill is an speed bump for the GOP primary candidates as they wil all have to jump through the same silly hoops. The big joke would be if a Mitt or Palin were the ones who end up triggering the first challenge.
The fact that crafted a law that specifically excludes the most common and most recognized BC. Such idiots. I hope they pass this! It wil be so much fun to watch this crash into reality and combust.
You really are a dense one, aren’t you? The question was that since the statute permits anyone to sue under it, is it likewise an open door to sue challenge the statute. The state already opened the door giving everyone standing, so can it therefore be considered a waiver of standing.
Obots posture about the fact that current laws exclude regular citizens from challenging candidates’ eligibility to run for POTUS by saying that there is no particular injury to the person bringing up the lawsuit.
Can you describe an injury (caused by the new law), which would give someone the standing to sue the state in advance, before election takes place?
I’m sorry if you lack literacy. THE STATUTE ITSELF GIVES THE RIGHT TO SUE WITHOUT THER BEING AN INJURY. IT’S A STUPID LAW.
Did you get that?
Read the bill. The bill specifically grants standing to sue to any citizen. The legislature has the ability to grant standing if it so choose, as Arizona has done here. Also, although many states have adopted the requirement of standing, only federal courts are bound by the Constitutional requirement for standing. Now the question, for the 3rd time is, does the state’s granting any citizen standing to sue under the statute, also operate to allow anyone to sue to challenge the statute. I’ll give to you a 4th and different way. Since the state has waived the requirement to show injury for a person suing to enforce the statute, is that equally a waiver to sue to challenge the statute?
Thank you. I was running out of different ways to say the same thing.
> It wil be so much fun to watch this crash into reality and combust.
Let’s check some possible outcomes if a Republican, say Palin, sues:
1. The law goes down in flames in court, R.I.P.
2. AZ orders the SOS to place Palin on the ballot anyway. This will be the most fun as it would expose the bigotry behind the whole sham. First states will demand AZ be expelled from the Union. 😉
3. AZ quickly modifies the law, trying to find a way to have Palin qualify but not Obama. AZ will be the laughing stock of the country.
Any way, AZ Republicans will get a solid beating from their fellows everywhere in the country.
Personally, I don’t think so. The law states:
However, any candidate, whether viable or not, should have standing to challenge the requirement, as applied to their own candidacy. The first day to file campaign papers is December 20, 2011
I agree, it would be a stretch…but then again, I don’t know anything about Arizona law on standing in general.
I haven’t seen the final version, but aren’t the requirements only applicable to the general election, not the primary (and only to parties with ballot status in the state)? Therefore, unless I’m reading the statute wrong, if you are going to challenge it in Federal court, you would at least have to show that you would likely be able to get on the ballot?
when responding to nc1, please type more slowly so she can understand, OK?
I personally think these laws are great for Obama.
My personal objection to the whole ‘long form’ birth certificate deal is that I do not think that the President of the United States should appease a mob of opponents who are looking for dirt to use against him.
However, I have never been against Hawaii releasing the original birth certificate, or President Obama presenting the document to an official agency that is asking for it.
President Obama will probably find a way to obtain his Hawaiian BC and present it to whatever state demands it. And will do so publicly.
Birthers of course will immediately raise flags as to the authenticity or validity of the orlginal long form birth certificate, but that is just a given.
But lets look at the other option- Barack Obama has Hawaii send his COLB to Arizona.
The pasty white Attorney General of Arizona then announces that he is refusing Barack Obama’s BC, but accepting whatever BC the white Republican candidate submitted. Regardless of what the AG says, it will be perceived as a racial issue by minorities around the country, and invigorate the African American- and very likely the Latino vote.
Cue interviews with Hawaiian politicians wondering why Arizona refuses to accept their birth certificates, cue interview with Daniel Inouye talking about how he thought the country had moved past such racially motivated laws. Cue Dr. Fukino being interviewed again.
It will be grand.
Or the Libertarian Party will sue on behalf its potential candidates. I cannot imagine any Libertarian accepting that they must provide any proof beyond what is required in the Constitution.
I am really, really looking forward to all of this.
Many (most?) of these birther bills have required an “original document”, with some even mandating that the submissions become part of the public record and open to public inspection. One simply can’t submit a passport of consular record if it won’t be returned. Or for that matter, why would anyone submit a “long form” from a jurisdiction that no longer issues them. If one applies for a passport, the State Dept returns the documents after they’ve been verified.
As for my contention that the Hawaii Director of Health could simply approve a new procedure for obtaining a “long form”, let me elaborate why it won’t happen. They’ve already gone through the trouble and expense of converting their system. It’s worked pretty well for them. Other than people questioning Obama’s COLB, I haven’t heard of the State Dept, employers, organizations, etc having any problems accepting them where a birth certificate would normally be accepted. The State of Hawaii has no incentive to change their policy. The health director also has a budget. I’m pretty sure that the new one wouldn’t be too keen on having to justify why they’re devoting so much more time to pulling up old birth certificate files if the standard policy is to provide one if requested. As it is, they’re spending too much time answering birthers’ inquiries.
Of course. Conservatives hate the 1st Amendment. Huckabee: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards”
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/few-words-from-mike-huckabee.html
I do object to the state releasing the document. It’s against the law. I have no objection to the state requiring proof of eligibility, and likewise, the President submitting his COLB to the state, which the state would be required to accept.
I personally hope he doesn’t. Conservatives love to scream states rights, but they forget what that includes….the rights of other states they don’t happen to live in. The State of Hawaii issues perfectly acceptable records to establish the facts of birth in their state. The State of Arizona is bound by the US Constitution to honor that document.
Or the DNC or any other party with ballot rights could just sue to enjoin the law from going to effect. Wouldn’t be hard to get an injuction for such an obviously unconstitutional law.
Completely agree with your whole post.
I fully agree with all of your positions and reasons on this.
The stupid… it burns….
md
Amen. Well said and yet dealing with Obama Derangement Syndrome may require such steps to be taken.
But, you don’t need to show you can get on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican. Also, a lesser party could argue that they should be granted standing before having to expend the resources to gather the necessary signatures to qualify.
Has anyone asked Tim Pawlenty about this yet? My wife requested her Minnesota birth certificate at the end of last year and got a short form (which, since it didn’t have the race of the parents, contains less information than Hawaii’s).
So, I’d be curious how Tim Pawlenty plans on complying with Arizona’s legislation. Does he plan on asking Governor Mark Dayton to order the Department of Health to change their policies on the forms given out?
I find it utterly ridiculous that Arizona would, in effect, hand to the Governor of Minnesota the power to keep someone off the ballot in their state.
Snip:
“A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.”
What does any of that have to do with citizenship?
What if the doctors is not listed and any witnesses are deceased or cannot be located?
What wil the de vattalists think?
There is nothing about proof the parent’s citizenship!
This leaves a split between the born in Kenya and born in HI but need two parent birthers!
This makes it hard for most people to run the AZ. I love these fools! If I were among the dems in the assembly I’d encourage everyone to vote yes to make the idiots live with their own stupidity for a change and put Gov. Brewer in the position of signing a clearly stupid bill or pissing off her core supporters.
I just became a supporter of the AZ bill!
If I’m Tim Pawlenty’s attorney, however, here’s how I’d reason:
1. Request the birth certificate from Minnesota.
2. Get the short form from Minnesota.
3. Send the short form to Arizona with a memo explaining that this is the only form that is available and therefore, the name of the hospital and attending physician is “not applicable.”
Greg-I was thinking about the term “if applicable” and it seems to be so vague as to be meaningless. Also, signatures of “any witnesses in attendance” is strange. When my kids were born, in addition to me and my wife, there were several docs and quite a few nurses (high risk pregnancies). Do they all have to sign? What about the baby?
This law gives stupid a bad name.
What part of that clause does “if applicable” apply? Does it just apply to a doctor’s name or does it also apply to the hospital? the place of birth? the date?
Also, blatantly unconstitutional bill.
I assumed the “If applicable” referred to things like, if someone gave birth at home, or in the taxi going to the hospital and such, there might not be a doctor to sign. I didn’t think it meant “If the document in question happens to list these things.”
I do not like the bill granting standing to the world, because I think it’s too expensive as it is to run. It would be too easy for people to challenge for no other reason than to cause a candidate to waste money. I firmly believe that were a truly ineligible candidate to run, their opponent could challenge – bill or no bill – under Article II and would have standing (as one that could suffer imminent harm) and thus no bill would be necessary. However, since birthers believe McCain is ineligible as well and “In on it”, they’ll never accept such a reality.
I’m not clear that the candidate would be sued under that provision. My understanding is that the “citizen” would sue the Secretary of State for allowing the person on the ballot. In an era when state budgets are a mess, they are opening the door to virtually unlimited lawsuits. If some Republican sues to get the Democrat off the ballot, some Democrat can sue to get the Republican off the ballot. The State will have to defend. Get them dismissed. Rinse and repeat. Nothing in there limits it to one suit/candidate, as far as i can tell.
If I understand it right, they can only sue to force the Sec. of State to follow the law. So if a candidate filed a long form bc and the S of S accepted it, how could someone sue to say the law had not been followed?
I consider that even worse for the state. Few things frustrate me as a taxpayer than when government entities make policy – laws or otherwise – that flies in the face of settled law, and then the state is on the hook for the costs of defending it. In some cases, they end up on the hook for the other side’s attorney’s fees too.
This law, if it works as you describe (and reading it more closely I think you’re right) simply will cost Arizona money it doesn’t have, to “satisfy” a constituency that can never be satisfied.
(School boards are the masters of this, creating policies that they can see have been struck down by courts all over the land, then complain about having to cut important things when the legal fees come due…drives me crazy)
See Max Rafferty and the Dover, PA school board and Creation.
Yeah, I can’t stand the Creationist and ID idiots. They are still out there and getting aggressive again. See the nonsense in TX. All they do is dumb down our already suffering school systems and then as Tarrent pointed out waste the taxpayer’s money with these court battles that they will always lose. But then again, some of these folks seem to hate education in general and probably would be happy to destroy schools. They need a stupid populace to buy into their nonsense and be easily manipulated on other matters.
Okay, I have to ask. Has anyone ever received a “circumcision certificate?” Wouldn’t it be like a tonsilectomy certificate?
Never heard of it. My mother told me mine was done right after birth, by the same physician. She didn’t want it done at home by a non-MD mohel. She said her father-in-law was so angry about that, he didn’t talk to her for six months.
Nor do I know where my baptismal certificate is. I doubt it would meet AZ’s meaning of “early”, but it certainly was before my “enlightenment”.
Does a circumcision certificate also come with prints of the feet? ; )
I thought the same thing, being that I was never issued a certificate of any kind for my son, and have not seen one for my grandson (though said grandson does have both a hospital souvenir birth certificate with footies and a state-issued short form certificate used for whatever official stuff babies need birth certificates for).
However, a quick internet search reveals that apparently such a thing can be had — see: http://www.alljewishlinks.com/brit-certificate/brit-certificate-2/ or http://www.phoenixbris.com/CeremonyCertificate.htm
though I’m not sure that it serves any particular function, and certainly does not establish place of birth. Jewish ritual circumcision takes place 8 days or more after the birth of a boy, and there is no particular reason that the location of the ceremony would be recorded on the certificate — but even if it were, that would not necessarily correspond with place of birth.
I am not talking about the right to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate. That is the most important part of the Arizona law.
I am talking about injury to an Obot who would want to challenge the new law. If Arizona passed the law, what injury could be claimed by an Obot to sue the state? I hope my question is clear now.
I for one will not be suing. However, rules of standing are different in state court than in federal court.
I am not a lawyer, but whether obot, lib or rightwinger, all have a right to vote for the representative of their choice. When that choice is denied due to an unconstitutional law, they might have a right to sue.
This is very different from people suing because their candidate lost.
This would be a suit for obstructing an eligible candidate from being voted for.
I’m sure a real lawyer will explain it better, but I’m not sure you’ll understand it any better.
Do you think that US citizens have the right to sue an ineligible candidate from running for POTUS?
I hope that you are aware of the fact that Obama’s eligibility was challenged in court prior to elections and post elections. The courts said to US citizens/voters and minor party candidates to get lost – no injury.
Applying the same standard to Arizona law – an Obot challenging the new law should be told to get lost – no injury, right?
Why do you assume that Arizona law would prevent an eligible candidate to run? Eligible candidate has a legitimate birth certificate on file with the appropriate state agency.
It seems to me that you don’t have much faith in the official birthplace story (Kapiolani Hospital).
“The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state’s ballot….
The bill won final approval from the state House in a 40-16 vote.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_XGR_OBAMA_BIRTH_CERTIFICATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-15-01-43-17
> Do you think that US citizens have the right to sue an ineligible candidate from running for POTUS?
No, because until he is actually elected president, where is the injury?
> Applying the same standard to Arizona law – an Obot challenging the new law should be told to get lost – no injury, right?
Again you are not getting it right, even though “US Citizen” explained it clearly.
If an ineligible candidate is on the ballot, there is no injury (because you don’t have to vote for him and if he is not elected, there is no harm done).
If an eligible candidate is excluded from the ballot, there is injury (because you can’t vote for a candidate who is legally qualified to receive votes).
Is this difference too complicated for your little birfer brain to comprehend?
> Why do you assume that Arizona law would prevent an eligible candidate to run?
Because it sets requirements that not every candidate who is legally eligible might be able to comply with.
> Eligible candidate has a legitimate birth certificate on file with the appropriate state agency.
If Hawaii no longer issues “long forms”, there is no way a candidate born in Hawaii could comply with the Arizona law unless Hawaii changes its policies.
As long as the Arizona law violates Full Faith And Credit, it can very well happen an eligible candidate is excluded by this law. And not just Obama, this can happen to Republican candidates from other states as well.
> It seems to me that you don’t have much faith in the official birthplace story
I don’t have much faith in the sanity of some Republican state representatives enacting another “ban the black guy” law.
The funny part is going to be if Obama complies with the AZ law but a Republican candidate can not. After all, Hawaii might indeed change its policies to release documentation that the AZ law requires. How about a Republican candidate born in a state that does not issue “long forms” and which is controlled by a Democrat governor who refuses to change the rules to release a “long form”? I’d be laughing day and night.
> It seems to me that you don’t have much faith in the official birthplace story
Besides, you are basically saying “it’s OK to have an unconstitutional law if it doesn’t affect my candidate”.
So you would support a law banning women from being put on the ballot as long as your candidate is a man? And if I speak out against such a law, you’ll tell me “You don’t have much faith that Obama really is a man”?
I don’t think so (though I wouldn’t bet on it).
When Arizona either accepts President Obama’s COLB or loses in court (the only two options) and you’re sitting around kicking and screaming and gnashing your teeth and wailing about ‘traitor judges’ or ‘obot tricks’ I want you to remember that we told you exactly what was going to happen. Until then, keep spewing your birther hate and lies – it’s helping with President Obama’s reelection (I’m sure you’ll really be stewing in your own filth by mid-November 2012…).
Somebody ought to tell you that Arizona law discrimnates against ineligible candidates – it says nothing about race or gender.
Apparently your mental faculties aren’t up to the challenge of understanding a hypothetical situation (and one that is an apt analogy to your position…). Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are, or is ignorance really bliss?
How much are you willing to bet that President Obama wont be on the Arizona ballot in 2012? I would bet a considerable amount that he will be on the ballot… (you can go ahead and place the bet on Intrade, if you like…)
Here is an Illinois birth certificate- If Alan Keyes or someone else in Illinois tried to use it, Arizona’s new law would reject it. It has even less info than Obama’s COLB.
http://www.imagehosting.gr/out.php/i1535334_birth-web2.jpg
Why does nc1 and birthers hate Democracy?
Challenges to the law itself will likely not be filed by some “Obot” living in Arizona, but by one or more of:
The Federal government because the law violates the US Constitution by imposing un reasonable restrictions on eligible candidates
Another state because the law violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause
A candidate (not necessarily Obama) who is unable to get his birth state to issue a “long form” certifcate
Here is what an “Obot” living in Arizona could do: File lawsuits agaunst every single Republican candidate on the ballot, whether they are eligible of not, forcing the State of Arizona to defend those lawsuits. When those are dismissed, nothing prevents “Obot #2” from doing the same. Even in a Republican state like Arizona, I bet one could find a few hundered “Obots” angry enough to do that,. This law ought to called “The Arizona Lawyer’s Full-Employment Act”
What’s the big deal here? Barry is a natural born citizen and has a doctor’s signature on his birth certficate according to Dr. Fukino. Just release the long-form and end the birthers. Why all the legal attempts to keep it sealed? You know alittle transparency/acountability might go a long way with the voters. Signed A crazy birther troll
What will Jleinf’s excuse be when Obama makes it onto the Arizona ballet? I sure hope Jleinf sticks around through the next election, so I can enjoy his sweet birther tears when Obama is re-elected.
Agreed.
Bob
Why should President Obama release what no other President or Presidential candidate in history in history has ever had to release? Just because he ALREADY released what no other Presidential candidate in history ever released? And THAT didn’t kill off the birthers, it just inflamed them, and caused them to create from whole cloth this ludicrous distinction between a Short and Long form that nobody cared about until the second Obama released his Birth certificate?
All that would happen is that you and your friends would nit pick it to death and compare it with every single statement released ever in order to declare it a fake.
If I was President Obama I would be flipping you the bird too. And that’s NOT including all the stuff you lot have been insinuating about his mother and grandparents, which would really make me sooo concerned with how you feel about things.
Of course you do. You’re disturbed and a disgrace.
Implicitly it does, as a male candidate can provide a circumcision certificate, and a female cannot.
And the nice word “applicable” – to enable the SoS to put Pawlenty on the ballot, but stop Obama. Like those nice tests they used in the South in the good old days. This is where the law will be defeated, since the SoS will be sued by all and sundry if they dare to do that.
“Circumcision certificate” is not really a typical thing for Gentiles. It would be more of a receipt, and possibly nothing more than an itemized claim for payment of a deductible, if you even get that. What paperwork did you get from your last outpatient visit? It’ll look like that, maybe with a whole bunch of other pediatric services.
I notice that this is undefined. Hawaii could stamp “This is a Long Form” on a COLB, and that would make it a Long Form. Nothing in the AZ bill says otherwise.
Some Jewish families make a big deal out of it, so you’d have something like a guest book signed by a Rabbi and so on.
Shirley Mr. Pawlenty can prove he was circumcised and has one other item from the list.
What’s the problem?
I *really* wish this issue would come up, but I know it never will.
I’m not sure, but I think F. Ann Rodriguez gets to decide who is on the Pima County ballot. It would really be rich if Obama was on the Pima ballot but not Maricopa.
However, the law does require “signatures of ANY witnesses in attendance”. To my mind the word ANY means everyone who was actually present when the baby popped out. Most hospital births in the 1960s would not generally not have had the father and other family in the room, but there would likely have been nurses and orderlies in attendance, as well as the doctor. C-sections automatically require an anesthetist (and likely a nurse or tech) in addition to the obstetrician. So when you say “ANY witnesses”, my interpretation is that they would all have to sign.
There might be a way around this. In Obama’s case, his mother is dead, the doctor is likely dead, any other medical personnel are unknown. So, there is only a single living witness to the President’s birth. And that would be him. So, he could sign the COLb as a witness and that should suffice.
Because it is a clear violation of the Constitution? Isn’t that the excuse you birthers keep using as what is behind this whole movement.
Unless of course, you don’t care in the least about the Constitution and this is just about trying to delegitimize a President that for whatever personal reason, you just don’t like?
> So when you say “ANY witnesses”, my interpretation is that they would all have to sign.
Wouldn’t it say “all” then?
“Bring all documents validating you’re natural born” = all 10 you have
vs.
“Bring any document validating you’re natural born” = one of the 10 suffices
vs.
“Bring any documents validating you’re natural born” = ???
I’m not a native speaker so I might miss something subliminal here, but doesn’t #3 say the same as #2?
> Just release the long-form and end the birthers.
End the birthers? END THE BIRTHERS?? You gotta be kidding! They’ve already shown they’re to go off on the next tangent then, be that “de Vattel”, “adoption in Indonesia”, “SSN fraud” or whatever is the next craze you’re following.
A birther is defined by his quasi-religious belief that, since that which must not be cannot be, Obama can never be the legitimate president.
If it would really “end the birthers” to release the “long form”, why are birther sites filled with hate speech about “secret Marxist Mooslim destroying the country” and wild crank theories of “no-one really knew what NBC meant for 200 years” and “the entire world is part of a conspiracy to keep Obama in office”?
If it really only were about the “long form”, none of that crap would exist.
You couldn’t feed that lie to a baby, birfer!
> and caused them to create from whole cloth this ludicrous distinction between a Short and Long form that nobody cared about until the second Obama released his Birth certificate
Or the distinction between a “birth certificate”, a “certificate of birth” and a “certifcation of birth”. When Obama put out the latter, they claimed it was “not a certificate”. Had he published a “certificate of birth”, they would have claimed it’s not a “birth certificate”. Had he published a “birth certificate”, they would have claimed it’s not a “long form”. Had he published a “long form birth certificate”, they would have found something else “missing” or which the state “refuses to confirm”, maybe the doctor’s address or the parents’ citizenship or the Soros Global Registration Number.
It’s a good thing for birthers that I’m not the president – I would crush them like the cockroaches they are if they had said those things about my mother… It’s sad that there are so many stupid, ignorant bigots with Obama Derangement Syndrome…
I am puzzled by some of the language in this bill, as I see others are above. For phrases like “if applicable” or “any witnesses” it would be useful to have some insight from someone in the legal profession about how these phrases would be interpreted by a judge.
To me “any witnesses” is the most puzzling. I agree that if they meant “all witnesses” they would’ve said that, but if they meant “at least one witness” then they would’ve said that. So if the Sec. of State is looking at a BC with only one signature, does it meet this requirement or not?
A man is visiting the shtetl where he was born. He took out his watch, and saw it had stopped. Walking down the shtetl’s main street, he saw a window filled with clocks and watches. He walked in and said to the man behind the counter, “my watch has stopped. Could you fix it?”
“I’m not a watchmaker. I’m the village mohel,” the man said.
“Then why is your window filled with clocks and watches,” the visitor asked.
“If you were in my line of work, what would you display?”
I read a book on that called “Monkey Girl.”
That would be up to the State of Hawaii to change their policy. But then it would just be a photocopy. Would AZ accept just a photocopy?
This is what happens when you have people who have no understanding of the law, like Oily, writing laws.
He has a cruise missile for each birther all programmed and awaiting his word.
Slarty man:
If audition for Arizona ballet does not go well for Obama “Dancing With the Stars” is a sure bet.
No racism there…
A lot of Black people are actually crap dancers, ya know.
I don’t see how that barely literate, POS birther thinks she’s entitled to make jokes from someone’s spelling error.
But then, she is an arrogant, racist pig. She must have assumed that a couple of ESL classes makes her an expert.
Exactly.
When I went to school in Arizona it was one of the best systems in the country. Now its one of the worst and look what is happening.
It’s quite shocking that Donald Trump’s popularity has increased so much recently just because of Obama’s birth certificate. Such a trivial issue has won over a number of much more important ones such as our national security or economy?
Having an usurper as CiC is the top national security problem.
All it means is that there are a lot of birthers about whose compass always points away from Barack Obama.
Not really. If you break down the numbers it increased among the Birther/Tea party Republican roots. If you put the numbers among non birther/tea party republicans his popularity drops to 17%, and among the public at large Obama leads him by at least 10 points.
So he will have 51% of republicans backing him for no other reason than to make the Black guy like he never really existed, but he has no widespread popularity at all
Or to put it more succinctly, the republican base would vote for Cuthulu if he was on the ballot, rather than Obama