Arizona state representative Carl Seel is the sponsor of the “birther bill” (HB2177) that recently passed the Arizona legislature. He claimed in an interview with a Phoenix TV station that his bill was constitutional because it is modeled after Department of Defense rules for a top secret clearance, and would withstand a challenge from the conservative bogey man, the ACLU.
Below, I compare the Arizona bill to the federal statute on top secret clearances. While reading, note the bold-faced sections.
First, the Arizona bill:
1. 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. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:
(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
(b) Hospital birth record.
(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.
(d) Early census record.
The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) lists these criteria for proof of citizenship:
a. For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification. Acceptable certificates must show that the birth record was filed shortly after birth and it must be certified with the registrar’s signature. It must bear the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the registrar’s office. The only exception is if a state or other jurisdiction does not issue such seals as a matter of policy. Uncertified copies of birth certificates are not acceptable. A delayed birth certificate is one created when a record was filed more than one year after the date of birth. Such a certificate is acceptable if it shows that the report of birth was supported by acceptable secondary evidence of birth. Secondary evidence may include: baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records, or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge about the facts of birth. Other documentary evidence can be early census, school, or family bible records, newspaper files, or insurance papers. All documents submitted as evidence of birth in the U.S. shall be original or certified documents.
b. If the individual claims citizenship by naturalization, a certificate of naturalization is acceptable proof of citizenship.
c. If citizenship was acquired by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents, the following are acceptable evidence:
(1) A Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); or
(2) A Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (Form FS-240); or
(3) A Certificate of Birth (Form FS-545 or DS-1350).
d. A passport, current or expired, is acceptable proof of citizenship.
e. A Record of Military Processing-Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 1966) is acceptable proof of citizenship, provided it reflects U.S. citizenship. 2-208. Letter of Notification of Personnel Clearance (LOC). An LOC will be issued by the CSA to notify the contractor that its employee has been granted a PCL. Unless terminated, suspended or revoked by the Government, the LOC remains effective as long as the employee is continuously employed by the contractor.
So the Arizona law does have some basis in US law, but it changes the criteria so as to exclude (at least in a birther’s mind) the otherwise acceptable proofs that President Obama has already shown to the public, namely his Certification of Live Birth and his passport1. There is nothing in the US Code about “long forms” or “witnesses” or “hospitals” or “attending physicians.” Also the Arizona would accept two very weak secondary sources of evidence, whereas the US Code only allows them as supplements to a delayed birth certificate.
For example a Canadian mother could move to the US shortly after the birth of her infant, have the infant baptized and examined by a doctor; this would fully meet the Arizona bill, even though neither the baptism certificate nor the medical record would say where the child was born. Fortunately the Arizona bill gives the Secretary of State enough discretion to stem the otherwise certain flood of presidential candidates from Canada.
Update: The hyperlink previously provided to the CIPA, and subsequent text actually comes from National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). The title has been corrected in the article.
1US Passports contain the date and location of birth as well as a citizenship.
“For example a Canadian mother could move to the US shortly after the birth of her infant, have the infant baptized and examined by a doctor; this would fully meet the Arizona bill, even though neither the baptism certificate nor the medical record would say where the child was born.:
They may have put this in to enable a run by Canadian-born Sarah Palin, whose family popped over from Idaho to British Columbia to take advantage of the excellent care available under socialized medicine. Then they drove her back across the border (no passports needed until very recently) and had her baptized (maybe circumscized, too).
“family bible records”
Well, I guess candidate Abraham Lincoln is all set. Seriously, what century do conservatives think this is.
{persnickety grammar note: the legislature “passed” the bill, not “past” it}
So the bill “changes the criteria so as to exclude (at least in a birther’s mind) the otherwise acceptable proofs that President Obama has already shown to the public, namely his Certification of Live Birth and his passport.” Sounds like a formula for a bill of attainder tailored for one targeted individual.
As a technical note, the law that is cited, Classification Information Procedures Act, 96-456, does not seem to be the source for the language they are quoting. I could not find it in CIPA, which I found online. Rather, it is from the document that is linked, the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (2002), which replaced the old Department of Defense Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding Classified Information, dated January 1991. That was the ISM, pronounce “izzm.”
Those regulations may be due for revision in the light of more recent law, like. Pub. L. 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3823 (Dec. 17, 2004), posted here many times for itts definition of birth certificate..
PL 108-458 provides that “(b) Standards for Acceptance by Federal Agencies.– (1) In general.–Beginning 2 years after the promulgation of minimum standards under paragraph (3), no Federal agency may accept a birth certificate for any official purpose unless the certificate conforms to such standards.”
I am sure the standards are mired in bureaucratic limbo. But when they are issued, they will govern all federal and state agencies, including the Defense Department and Arizona. Meanwhile, the definition in 108-458, is in the law, and it is repeated from laws passed in the 1990s.
The state department uses language similar to DOD in its passport regulation, see § 51.42:
“Persons born in the United States applying for a passport for the first time.
“(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.
“(b) Secondary evidence of birth in the United States. If the applicant cannot submit a birth certificate that meets the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, he or she must submit secondary evidence sufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Department that he or she was born in the United States. Secondary evidence includes but is not limited to hospital birth certificates, baptismal certificates, medical and school records, certificates of circumcision, other documentary evidence created shortly after birth but generally not more than 5 years after birth, and/or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts of the birth.”
Source:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=5692d4f912e9abd4a397315db82410d5;rgn=div5;view=text;node=22%3A1.0.1.6.33;idno=22;cc=ecfr#22:1.0.1.6.33.0.1.1
State recites a long list of statutory authorities for its regs:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1504; 18 U.S.C. 1621; 22 U.S.C. 211a, 212, 213, 213n (Pub. L. 106–113 Div. B, Sec. 1000(a)(7) [Div. A, Title II, Sec. 236], 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–430); 214, 214a, 217a, 218, 2651a, 2671(d)(3), 2705, 2714, 2721, & 3926; 26 U.S.C. 6039E; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 652(k) [Div. B, Title V of Pub. L. 103–317, 108 Stat. 1760]; E.O. 11295, Aug. 6, 1966, FR 10603, 3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp., p. 570; Sec. 1 of Pub. L. 109–210, 120 Stat. 319; Sec. 2 of Pub. L. 109–167, 119 Stat. 3578; Sec. 5 of Pub. L. 109–472, 120 Stat. 3554; Pub. L. 108–447, Div. B, Title IV, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 2809; Pub. L. 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3823 (Dec. 17, 2004).
The last authority listed is my old friend, 108-458 .
Obviously, Obama is eligible for a passport under State’s regulations. If he presents the COLB, he gets the passport, and no one at State ever has to look at the secondary evidence.
The AZ bill studiously ignores valid evidence in favor of secondary evidence; it doesn’t have a prayer.
Vince,
It looks like this isn’t a bill of attainder (since the SoS said the COLB was OK IHO) – it looks like the birthers can’t even violate the Constitution correctly…
Using the sniff test the Arizona law HB2177 fails. For example “circumcision certificate.”
I am trying to determine what is so special about term long form.
Absolutely nothing, except it registers now on a gut-level of bogeyman terms for certain RW nuts… similar to them shouting “marxist commie nazi” around every corner without realizing both the inherent contradictions and the utter disconnect between their words and any sense of reality.
Didn’t somebody say that some state or other actually writes ‘LONG FORM’ on their BC’s that contain less information than Obama’s?
They might. The point is that the terminology used differs state to state, as does the look, size and extent of information contained within that state’s official birth certificate document.
The whole “long form” terminology nonsense being referred to here is a completely fabricated birther construct, because it sounds simple on a gut level, in order to dupe people into questioning the current official HI document – the COLB.
Prior to the COLB becoming their official document over a decade ago, prior versions of the form they released were “longer” and obviously, when info is created, there is always an original record which contains all fields of info they record.
All of which are completely irrelevant and immaterial distractions that the birthers use as a straw man argument. None of the “long form” nonsense is relevant since:
1. HI officials and their own website FAQ make it repeatedly clear that they do NOT provide anything other than the COLB and that people can NOT obtain a certified copy of a “long form” anymore.
2. ALL relevant info in regards to the issue of NBC are fields of data included on the COLB – (place of birth & date/time of birth).
As the COLB they generate uses the same data as any “longer form” they have, this info would NOT differ.
Therefore, those questions have been fully answered on the COLB, which renders the whole “long form” argument nothing but red herring concern trolling.
A law that specifies for any purpose a “family bible” is respecting the establishment of religion.
It’s undefined. I wonder if “circumcision certificate” is defined anywhere in law, or how “baptism certificate” is defined in any law that does not respect the establishment of religion.
I think the effect of the law will ultimately be the unintended consequence of giving the AZ Secretary of State a carte blanche license to put anyone on a ballot that he or she chooses, but no liberty to exclude anyone.
In Obama’s case, the new law is moot since the Secretary has already indicated that he is eligible, and since the law puts it at his discretion, and since a lawsuit over the matter is probably not even going to be entertained let alone heard, it’s over. It might not be over for a GOP contender, though. Nobody else has these assurances…
One of the key problems in the AZ law is that any citizen with a personal gripe or who “haz a sad” about a candidate can challenge the SOS’s ballot approval.
In other words, AZ just opened themselves up to endless frivolous lawsuits by both political opponents and utter crazies, in regards to just about any candidate going onto that ballot and that the SOS has to defend them. Huge potential for utter chaos and a sinkhole of state funds there…
That doesn’t mean they can hold up the elections, though. The AG doesn’t even have an obligation to take up the case. Anyone can file a suit, but there’s no reason to expect their suit to get a first hearing.
I’m not exactly sure how that could all play out. I’ll defer to the lawyers on here to speculate…but none of us may know for sure how that will be handled until it actually occurs…
Not really. Family Bibles were once the primary storage location for such information. Bibles were well cared for, not lost, and maintained by someone deemed trustworthy by the family. They are a good source for genealogical records when state records did not exist or were less than up-to-date.
That the recording of family vital events is in a Bible does not make reference to it an establishment of a religion any more than reliance on state records establishes.
On the other hand, Family Bibles are not, of course, ‘certified’ sources, let alone ‘self-authenticating’.
I’d bet that this is a sop to the Dominionists and other ultra right-wing Christians who homeschool, homechurch, and do everything possible to avoid interacting with the evil, secular world.
That’s why i think there’s a good chance the AG will recommend a veto and the Governor may well listen. The fight over the immigration law has already cost AZ a bundle and at least that only has to be fought once. This law has unlimited court cases built into it and that can be repeated in every single election.
The foolish legislators seem to have forgotten that there are 1,000,000 registered Democrats in AZ. 0.01% of those people challenging Republican candidates (as they could) would be enough to clog the courts and the AG’s office.
Frankly Governor Brewer has to veto this if only to distance herself from the chaos that will ensue when the thing becomes law. The vote on it was enough to override a veto anyway, and that’s the only think that would hold me back. Thats probably also what the senate leader is telling her in order to prevent a veto.
And people wouldn’t even need the expense of an attorney if the could file pro se. I foresee boilerplate mills churning out lawsuits with fill-in-the-blanks forms. In addition to the Grand Canyon, AZ will have a legal sinkhole, too.
Could it be possible that, in the end, the State of AZ would be precluded from appointing (is that the correct term?) grand electors since its election would be mired in legal troubles. Then in effect AZ would be disqualified from participating in the election of your President.
If AZ swings to the Republicans, this would of course be a blow to the Republican Party.
As there’s too much at stake, I doubt the “system” will tolerate this bit of tomfoolery for long.
It wouldn’t even have to swing. Arizona was solidly Republican last time around.
They are making a “family bible” into a qualification for President. Family Bibles (undefined) have *never* been the primary storage location for information related to qualification for President. My family has never had any such thing. Only people who practice a particular sect of a particular religion even know what you are referring to.
It’s amazing to me that something without enough votes to even get out of committee managed to then pass with enough of a majority to override a veto.
That is because they used a sneaky trick of attaching it a a rider to another bill…
I wouldn’t be too sure about the ability to override a veto – the fact that the SoS has indicated that he would accept President Obama’s COLB and the blowback they have gotten may well induce some legislators to change their minds…
Family Bibles entries are just an example of one of several kinds of contemporary records useful in establishing facts of birth. They are not important from any religious reason, but because they were contemporary.
I would not have known of an uncle who died in infancy without a family Bible entry, the only record to my knowledge of his birth. A family Bible entry was also important to historians establishing the birthplace and date of US President Chester A. Arthur.
This is almost becoming a straw man argument — refuting an overstated claim to the importance of a family Bible record.
But … it opens the door to acceptability of the books of other religious records from other than christian…
Where does it say that you have to be a citizen to received a top secret clearance???
It doesn’t. But if an applicant claims to be a US Citizen, then the statute cited in the article says how that is to be verified. A Facility Security Officer must be a US Citizen.
A birth event note in a Bible is not a religious record, it is just a note in a book.
Bibles are often printed with pages for just such records. If a Koran is published containing pages to record Family events, then its worth is exactly the same as a notation in a Bible. If the Family has a sheaf of foolscap paper that they treasure and pass on from generation to generation, then that is, to me, worth exactly the same as the Family Bible to another family.
On the other hand, entering the events in the Bible (or Koran) could be construed to be ‘swearing on the Bible’ (or Koran) that the events so recorded are true. But isn’t that exactly what people do when they are sworn in as a witness in a court room? That isn’t establishing a religion is it?
Or they have a choice to swear without swearing to God.. I mean to which deity does a Buddhist swear? Or to which (literally) does a Hindu swear?
There was a quote on one of the birfer blogs somewhere referencing a claim by Rep Seel that to have a top secret clearance required US Citizenship. I know it does not. NATO officers are not always American citizens. There are many Canadians working at top secret air defense installations North American wide.
Apparently it was in caucus that Rep Seel made a statement about having to be an NBC to have a top secret clearance…I am still trying to find a hard reference….
Gen John Shalikashvili was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was born in Poland to Georgian refugee parents. Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia to Czech parents Neither were natural born citizens and both had the highest level of security clearance. Oh, and Henry Kissenger as well.
Here is the Archive video of the House Republican Caucus 4/14:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=9183
The Bill comes up at the 9:30 mark, Rep. Seel starts talking about 12:20, and his lie about top secret security clearance comes up at about 13:30
I haven’t seen anyone claim that entering the events in the Bible is construed as swearing to it. It is, as you said, just a note in a book, but the important feature is that it is a record made more or less contemporaneous to the event.
It is interesting to note that in the examples Dr C quotes, the family Bible is a member of an explicitly non-exhaustive list. In the AZ bill, it is part of a list that is explicitly limited to only the items mentioned. That can’t be good.
Yeah, that is where they really seem to get themselves in trouble with this law and claims about where they modelled its requirements. To have this exclusive list with those odd circumscision and religious references as options, YET exclude a PASSPORT… that just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Thanks for this information, Doc.
It reinforces the fact that birthers are liars and that Seel picked and chose just those things he was pretty sure President Obama could not produce from a list that was meant to supplement a delayed registration, not supplant a valid birth certificate. I see that newspaper announcements would have been acceptable…
Hey, wasn’t Obama’s COLB ammended and didn’t John Brennan’s firm illegally access and possibly scrub his passport data? Sorry, I like to see the 1961 records thank you very much.
No it was not. It would say amended on it if it was.
As gorefan said. NO. It would say “amended” if it was.
Low level employees of the a company Brennan was CEO of did access the passport records of the President, and McCain, and Mrs. Clinton. There is no evidence of any “scrubbing.”
And I’d like to see Miley Cyrus nude. I think the odds of me getting my wish are a whole lot better than yours.
No, I believe this was a gut and stuff…the original bill was deleted and replaced with birfer bullshit.
Bill was just vetoed by Brewer
Gov. Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Guns on Campus
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/brewer-vetoes-birther-bill-guns-on-campus-4-18-2011
And how will the birthers react to this utterly predictable event? I think their clamor for Arizona to override the veto is going to be fun… (even better if they actually succeed).
Good for Governor Brewer! I’ll take rationality wherever I can find it in Republicans…
[the quote is from FUT’s link]
Thanks, Slart
And this is what the birthers look like right about now poor Scott Tenorman
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104191/chili-con-carnival
This is hilarious on so many levels, Bob. I just can’t wait until they start calling Brewer a traitor. 🙂
Mmmm… the tears of unfathomable sadness! I think the birthers visited the pony before eating the chili, too…
Can anyone drop this news on Dr. K(h)ate’s blog? (my IP has been banned – if you try, don’t include the link – I think any links [at least from an unknown poster] send a comment into moderation over there… [and what goes into the HoH’s moderation stays in her moderation]) Who wants to poke the birthers? (link below under ‘The Ugly’)
Give me the link, slart
i got it. it’s in moderation though, and I’m sure she wants to keep the klan in the dark about this
It’s ‘drkatesview’ under ‘THE UGLY at the bottom of this page…
FUT,
If the past is truly prologue, then you will be able to make posts over the course of an hour or so after which your IP will be banned… (this may be faster or slower depending on your manner [and how badly you refute their precious… lies])
i’m gonna keep an eye on it and see if it gets out of moderation. she had a thread devoted to the bill, and i know they don’t want to hear the “good” news.
Bummer – the hatriots are always fun when you get them going. I guess Dr. Kate learned from the time she wrote an article praising the integrity of a judge (Judge Carter, I believe – wasn’t he the Marine?) only a few short hours before the judge dismissed the birhter case before him (you can’t make stuff like that up… ;-)). I’m surprised that she didn’t have a stroke when she got the news…
okay, now i have two comments in moderation there
I’m sure her hateliness will spew another fact-free racist rant as soon as she gets the news…
One of the hatriots just reported the news:
Ugh! That is an even worse and more reprehensible type of a slimy political bait & switch trick…
Glad to hear that it was even a bridge too far for crazy Jan Brewer to go along with. All we can hope is that enough of the AZ GOP legislature pulls their heads out of their butts and starts to realize how bad an idea this bill is too and doesn’t override her veto.
LOL! Really? This birther poster claims Brewer could have had Obama “in prison by now”… um…yeah…
Wow, their fantasies are amazingly delusional, aren’t they…
Yeah, i didn’t make it through moderation, slart. figures
It’s okay, they’ve found out and thrown Governor Brewer under the bus already – and there seem to be pro- and anti-Trump factions as well…
This is funny….Brewer is now an enemy…
Elizabeth
April 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I, too, saw this a few mins. ago
Pacific time, and was totally shocked.
This woman must be out of her mind.
Or threatened.
Wasn’t she defending the borders from
illegals?
Wasn’t AZ being sued by Obama?
Did I miss something along the way?
Why would this woman upon whom everyone
was depending, suddenly become a
radical thinker, accepting falsehoods?
I don’t get it.
212 Elizabeth
April 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Later.. I just read the response from Dr. Taitz and if I may, will post it here… it seems the people are not happy with Brewer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a snag in AZ. I am not sure, what was the undue influence on governor Brewer. I was told that previously there was an investigation of her son. I am not sure yet, what prompted her to do this, bur governor Brewer vetoed the eligibility bill, however it is not the end of the road. Since all of the Republicans in the house and senate signed the bill, her veto can be overwritten. We have enough votes to overwrite the veto of this Bernadett Arnold de Arizona
A citizens petition to recall Jan Brewer and kick her out of office is under way. I need help of every tea party patriot to lobby the representatives and senators in AZ to have an emergency hearing tomorrow or day after tomorrow to overwrite Brewer’s veto, we need to get sufficient number of signatures for her recall. This despicable traitor is toast. There are a lot of extremely angry people to let this act of treason against the people to go unpunished. Please call me at 949-683-5411 if you can help in AZ and in LA
> FUTTHESHUCKUP April 18, 2011 at 9:12 pm
> […] I just can’t wait until they start calling Brewer a traitor.
> 212 Elizabeth
> April 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm
> […] This despicable traitor is toast. […]
Obviously it took minus one hour. 😉
“…that recently past the Arizona legislature.”
That’d be “passed”, Doc. —the Phantom Editor
P.S. Keep up the good fight.