Leo. C. Donofrio, birther?
Thanks to nc1 for pointing out a new article over at Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen blog, titled: SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story – How War Veterans and Other Citizens “Born In A House” Are Denied Passports Despite Having Birth Certificates.
It’s an interesting story of a Texas veteran who can’t get a passport because his birth certificate was not accepted by the State Department. Donofrio, as we see in the title to the piece, wants the reader to believe that the vet couldn’t get a passport because he was born in a house instead of a hospital. However, someone familiar with State Department policy who reads the story carefully, will readily see that the problem is not that the vet was born in a house, but that the certificate he tried to use was not issued by any government entity; it was a certificate that the doctor handed to the family, and never filed with the state. It has no raised seal; it has no registrar’s signature. It may be a “birth certificate” but it is not an official one. He had the very same problem as someone trying to use a “hospital souvenir” birth certificate with a passport application.
Donofrio makes a big point that Barack Obama, who has published a “short form” birth certificate, has not proven to the public that he was born in a hospital, and implies that President Obama is being held to a lesser standard of proof than the unfortunate veteran. This is a false comparison. The veteran was denied a passport because he did not submit a government-certified copy of his birth certificate, while Barack Obama published a government-certified copy of his. Obama followed the rules and the veteran did not.
In the article Donofrio wrote:
…I am not a birther either. Readers of this blog know that I believe Obama was born in the United States…
But exactly what is a “birther?” Is it someone who believes Barack Obama was born in Kenya? I feel certain that many who call themselves “birthers” don’t really believe that. The birth certificate issue is for many a political smear, not a dispute over where Barack Obama was born. If Donofrio casts aspersions against President Obama by presenting misleading information relating to his birth certificate, how is he any less a birther than Philip J. Berg, Orly Taitz, Joseph Farah or the folks at the Post & Email blog?
If it talks like a duck…
Thanks Doc….I deal with a lot of birthers and this one is going to be quite hot for a day or two. I usually follow your lead but don’t want to expose an underbelly to a speargun from any of them so on this occasion out of caution I have to ask…..where can I find some specific linkage or confirmation that the birth certificate of the veteran in question carried no raised seal and was not filed with the necessary state dept?
I can’t actually see anything in the blog story. Is this just a gut feel of yours (which I do respect, the subject being right up your street, given your own cv) which you have gleaned from the general thrust of the way the problem is described or do you have something more?
Clearly, the vet’s BC did not qualify under the federal definition:
“SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Contents
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.”
Section 7211(a) is binding on all federal agencies. It has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 note):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The certificate was not (A) issued by a government agency or authorized custodian of record nor was it (B) an authenticated copy issued by such agency or custodian. As Doc has explained earlier, the doctor’s certificate should have been sent to the authorized agency. That agency can certify the privately generated document, making it a government-issued document.
Leo is hopelessly confused. Under the binding federal legal definition, a private doctor cannot possibly be a government agency, nor can he cannot be a custodian (if only because he gave the certificate to the parents). According to the facts, the passport was not denied because the vet was born in a house, but because the certificate was not a government-issued document. It appears that the State Department was just following binding federal law,
Leo’s argument is preposterous. Obama’s COLB was in fact issued by a State agency and produced from birth records maintained by the agency.
I think the technical term for Leo should be “afterbirther.” The pure birthers believe Obama was not born in Hawaii or the USA. The pure afterbirthers maintain the crank constitutional theory that he is not natural born, even though born in the USA, because his father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his son’s birth.
The afterbirthers come in two flavors. One flavor holds that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. The other flavor objects to dual citizenship, arguing that Obama was a citizen of both the US and Kenya (or the British Empire) at birth. Leo is of the second flavor of afterbirther, as he believes the “President was a dual citizen owing allegiance to a foreign nation.”
Mixed afterbirthers cling to both theories — they argue that Obama was not born in the US, and even if he were, he is not natural born because he lacked two citizen parents and also had dual citizenship.
The afterbirthers are selling a crank constitutional theory, and I use the term advisedly. It has no support in the language of the Constitution, nor in any court case, Supreme Court or otherwise, that has ever addressed the issue.
As we all know by now, Minor v. Happersett said in dicta that the issue may have been unresolved, but it was resolved in Wong Kim Ark. No law professor at an accredited law school has ever endorsed it. It has no support in the Memorandum produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Ankeny court rejected it; the State Supreme Court declined to review the decision, and the birthers never petitioned for cert.
Repeat, the birthers and afterbirthers never, never, never, ever petitioned for cert in the one case that was not dismissed for Article III standing.
They are just wasting everyone’s time. If they had believed their own crank theory, they should have taken it to the Court then for a resolution.
Oh gee, is this the “big news” that birther troll was talking about last night? Another birther liar tells another birther lie? That’s not news. It’s OLDS. They just don’t get it that a zillion birther lies and/or distortions of fact will never equal the truth. Fools.
Vince,
I love the term ‘afterbirther’, but I would suggest that mixed afterbirthers would be the ones that claim the president isn’t natural born because of only one citizen parent and also because of dual citizenship. I think the people who also think he was born outside of the US would be more properly designated ‘before-and-afterbirthers’…
What makes it truly pathetic (in my opinion) is that this is apparently what Leo’s been working on since he dropped off the birther radar – I was hoping (for his sake) that he’d been concentrating on his poker game…
I mentioned in another thread my experience, I got in to the US Marines using my baptism certificate as I was born at home and did not have a birth certificate. When I applied for a passport it was a no go. I applied for and finally got a “delayed birth certificate” and eventually the passport. It took 6 months, but I was lucky, my niece in Hawaii works for US State Dept, her and her boss speeded my application through the grinder. (no fun)
one more BC item, my daughter born in Hawaii 1965 tried to use her long form hospital birth certificate to get a passport, that was turned down, she was told needed a state issued certificate, she then got a COLB (just like Obama,s) and got her passport.
.
I attended University of Hawaii 1961/1965, I knew most of the foriegn students including the black African that had a white wife that recently gave birth to a boy. I don’t remember any names but who else could that have been.
Yeah, maybe he can find a good poker-playing therapist to help him out with that, Slart.
And of course, if the president releases a Hawaiian “long form,” the birther klan will whine about it not being a legal document and because of that, it is proof of nothing and we go right back to Square One. They’ve already complained, wrongly, that the COLB is not a legal document, and they will do the same with something that really isn’t a legal document.
It was in the original article from August 15, 2008 that the veteran’s parents never registered his birth as required by Texas law.
The story is not that hot. It’s had two and half years to cool down.
BTW, it was discussed on the DU blog in 2008, which can be found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×3812522. Unfortunately, the link to the original story (http://www.kiiitv.com/news/local/27036259.html) doesn’t work.
What is ironic is that it was the State Department under Dubya that denied this man a passport.
This is what Donofrio wrote:
This clearly states that the birth was never registered by the state or any jurisdiction It further states that the certificate was prepared “in their home.” Donofrio doesn’t detail in what way the doctor was “authorized to issue birth certificates” but it is clear that he was just filling out a birth certificate like other doctors do, and that he had no special “certificate at home license.” US law recognizes certified copies issued by a jurisdiction, not a physician. (See Vince’s comment: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/02/if-it-walks-like-a-duck/#comment-92986 ) The document has to be filed and accepted by the jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction then issues the certified copy.
Now if the fellow had been born in a hospital, chances are that the form would have been filed properly, but the one sentence Donofrio wrote: ” But the State Department denied his passport application because he was born in a house” is just false, and Donofrio contradicts this following when he gives the State Department reason: the birth was unregistered.
The raised seal is part of the process of making a certified copy, not of making an original birth certificate.
If indeed the State Department ate Marroquin’s birth certificate, then he has a legitimate gripe. Once he gets the certificate back, he need only apply to Texas for a delayed certificate, using the certificate (and whatever else they ask for) as evidence. Then he can get his passport. Until then, here’s a picture from the Incan ruins.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IncanRuins.jpg
I want to call special attention to the verbal trick Donofrio uses to fool the reader. Here’s the example: “But since he was born in a house, the State Department claimed that his parents were required to bring the BC to a courthouse for registration…” The phrase “but since he was born in a house” is not part of the State Department claim, but rather before it, an assertion by Donofrio attributing motives to the State Department’s requirement that the birth be registered. That is only Donofrio talking, and talking in contradiction to federal regs that have nothing to do with home births.
Good point, if the certificate was in fact registered then he should be able to get a new copy from the state, immediately. Maybe we should be calling Governor Perry’s office.
What about the Mexican-American’s whose births were filed in Texas and California? They were filed with the associated state. Those people had birth certificates proper. It wasn’t until they applied for a passport that their birth certificates were subjected to further scrutiny.
Why were they subected to that level of scrutiny? It was because of information contained on their long form. Information that is absent fromt the Hawaii COLB.
See the Settlement Agreement in Castelano v Clinton.
“Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those who are similarly
situated, have alleged that the Department of State has engaged in a policy, pattern,
and practice of categorically applying heightened scrutiny to a class of passport
applicants whose births in Southwestern border states were attended by midwives
or birth attendants or whose citizenship is claimed through a parent whose birth in
a Southwestern border state was attended by a midwife or birth attendant.”
The State Department claimed the scrutiny was justified.
Defendants “deny that they committed any violation of law;deny that they acted improperly in any way…”
Just to recap:
Mexican-American’s denied passports/subjected to “heightened scrutiny” because their births were reported by midwives. -Even though the state accepted the birth registration.
But Obama is given access to state secrets and the keys to our nuclear arsenal because his birth information didn’t disclosed who reported his birth.
Ahhh. What a world of hypocrisy we live in.
Given that Obama wasn’t born in a border state, nor with a midwife, nor at a home residence and was a previous senator for many years (including the senate foreign relations committee, if I recall), I don’t think applying the level of scrutiny you cite as ever having been necessary.
Or are you suggesting that the FBI, CIA and NSA never did any background checks?
I find it amusing how birthers always think they’re smarter than organizations such as above as well as lawyers, judges, supreme court justices, governors, state reps, constitutional scholars, etc.
Worse, many want to get rid of experienced politicians in favor of inexperienced ones.
They even make up their own Citizens Grand Juries having no idea what a real grand jury is or how they’re implemented.
Do birthers always seek out the most inexperienced doctors and dentists when they require medical or dental help?
(If not, there’s some hypocrisy right there.)
Additionally, what has happened to birthers that thought they knew more than experienced pros?
Taitz: $20,000 fine.
Lakin: Leavenworth prison and loss of all future benefits.
Fitzgerald: Jail.
There’s always plenty of superstition to go around birtherland, but in the words of Stevie Wonder: “When you believe in things you don’t understand, you suffer.”
You only have Obama’s word that he was delivered in a hospital.
Should all births reported in a border state be subjected to higher scrutiny when applying for a passport?
Other than being born in a border state, had Texas and California issued COLBs, resembling that of Hawaii, instead of certified copies of the original, that would be the only criteria that could have been used by the State Department to determine what certificates deserved such scrutiny.
What do you say we get Congress to enact a federal law that would prevent the State Department from considering birth outside of a hospital or attended by other than a physician as criteria for possible denial of a passport?
And I would take President Obama’s word over anything ever said by any birther. And that goes for the future, too.
Me too, Sef
Apropos of nothing, my mom’s dentist is Dr. Mario Marroquin. He claims to travel out of the country on his vacations. I assume he has a passport.
1. I have no reason to doubt his word.
2. Besides, being born in HI is all that is needed for NBC by birth on US soil. I really don’t care if he was born in a hospital, a house, or in the backseat of a car.
Perhaps they should. The whole point is the southern border state issue, BECAUSE of PAST examples, leading to those cases and those reasons in THOSE SPECIFIC STATES.
Stop being so obtuse. We have 50 states here in the US, if you forgot. Notice most of the others DO NOT apply that same scrutity as TX & CA??? Gee, why do you think that is? Maybe because they didn’t have the problems of those 2 specific states that led to additional concerns.
Maybe you should pay more attention to how concerned people have been about illegal immigration and where the main areas it has been noted as a problem. TX & CA will be near the top of that list. The other 2 would be NM & AZ. So, those are the states that are most likely to consider additing additional levels of scrutiny. A completely isolated island chain such as HI? …No real need whatsoever.
Except that is NOT why they denied it, you bonehead. Read Dr. C’s comments above. It has everything to do with the birth not being registered properly with the state and is NOT really about where the birth took place.
Thanks for the comments all.
I didn’t realise it was something as basic and obvious as the certificate only having been filled out by a doctor and never having been submitted to be registered in the first place.
I suppose I just didn’t think Donofrio would have the brass neck to try to make such a simple scenario as that into a high profile drama so I wasn’t looking for the obvious.
What a pantload. LMAO at the sheer absurdity of this being dressed up as significant.
I think there was already a lawsuit on this issue. I think Dr. C has even written about it. If not, google “state department midwife lawsuit.”
Just realized you posted that lawsuit already. If you’d read the facts of that case, you’d have seen (1) the state department had reason to worry about midwifery in Texas, with documented cases of fraud; (2) they’ve amended their practices to be less arbitrary, even being born to one of the midwives convicted of fraud isn’t enough, now, to invalidate your application.
We don’t know what Obama was required to present to get a passport, but we know that the COLB he presented is what the state of Hawaii gives out when you pay your $5 to get a birth certificate and that they think it is fine to get a passport. (Just as it’s fine for the other 47 states with no evidence of midwifery fraud).
I think the problem with Leo’s post is that his title focused on Mario Marroquin* whose story does not make one of his main points: a person born in a non-hospital setting is subject to more scrutiny when attempting to obtain to obtain a passport, even with a properly certified certificate because of security concerns. I think he is claiming that there is no definitive proof that Obama was born in a hospital and yet was not subject to any official scrutiny for the presidency, where there should be security concerns. That is what I took from the post and it certainly was not all of what he presented. If the following from the post by Leo is true, Mario Marroquin may have been denied a passport anyways, or at least had a harder time. Example from his post:
IS BIRTH IN AN “APPROPRIATE MEDICAL FACILITY” NECESSARY FOR A PASSPORT?
The following was posted at the Baby Center Community blog on August 27, 2010:
4 of my siblings and I were born at home and of course received a state of TX birth certificate.
My older sister recently applied for a passport and sent in all of the paperwork including a copy of her birth certificate as required. She received a letter back from the passport office that since she was not born in an “appropriate medical facility” her birth certificate was not valid proof of U.S. citizenship. WTH!
*He is really screwed because the State Department has not returned the only document he has to prove he is a citizen.
I e-mailed Doc last week after finding that to be a White House Fellow, one has to give up dual citizenship to obtain security clearances. I saw that as a hypocrisy as well (and applied it generally to the presidency and not specifically to Obama): the prevailing view is that one can be a dual citizen and be eligible for the presidency yet a White House Fellow won’t get a security clearance with dual citizenship.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows/faq#11
Charo, how many times does it have to be drilled into you that if Barack Obama had dual citizenship, it has long since expired by the law of the foreign nation whose citizen he was deemed to be — 23 years old, at latest?
If he had applied to be a White House fellow during the early ’80s, before he turned 23, Obama would doubtless have renounced the other citizenship.
It is really annoying when people don’t read.
I find this strange.
First, the person applying for the fellowship may give up his dual citizenship, but the other country is not bound to honor such a request, nor to notify the US authorities. I saw that it said just that of the .gov site, but in the poract8i9ce, they are incapable of enforcing that provision. So it really is kind of moot.
Second, in the case of Obama, he didn’t have dual citizenship; he had the potential of acquiring a second citizenship, which he never did. So the comparison is totally inappropriate.
As often pointed out on this site, Americans of Jewish, Italian, Greek, French etc. ancestries are indeed (just like Obama was) POTENTIAL dual citizens. It doesn’t mean they all have two passports.
This is not complicated to understand.
L’il Red, you’re being disingenuous when you say we have only President Obama’s word that he was born in a hospital. We have indirect confirmation of the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children when it published his letter congratulating it on its anniversary. IF the hospital administration wasn’t sure he was born about a woman who said she lived n Honolulu when Obama was born, and she named the doctor — Rodney T. West — who she said told her that he delivered Obama.
Now you’re certainly free to asset that you doubt the veracity of both these sources, but you can’t honestly say they don’t exist.
Sorry, some of my message was accidentally deleted
L’il Red, you’re being disingenuous when you say we have only President Obama’s word that he was born in a hospital. We have indirect confirmation of the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children when it published his letter congratulating it on its anniversary. IF the hospital administration wasn’t sure that he was born there, would they have published the letter? There was also a newspaper interview published
about a woman who said she lived in Honolulu when Obama was born, and she named the doctor — Rodney T. West — who she said told her that he delivered Obama.
Now you’re certainly free to assert that you doubt the veracity of both these sources, but you can’t honestly say they don’t exist.
Charo wrote: “I saw that as a hypocrisy as well (and applied it generally to the presidency and not specifically to Obama): the prevailing view is that one can be a dual citizen and be eligible for the presidency yet a White House Fellow won’t get a security clearance with dual citizenship.”
There is absolutely no hypocrisy at all. Obama is not a dual citizen. Neither he, nor any past or present Fellows, are dual citizens.
Obama’s dual citizenship ended automatically under Kenyan law on his 21st birthday. He would have been free to apply for a White House fellowship on that date. If he had applied earlier, he could have resolved the dual citizenship issue by renouncing the Kenyan citizenship. Leo Donofrio’s crank constitutional theory is that someone who has dual citizenship at birth is disqualified from the Presidency forever.
Here are some facts.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Source: http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
“I believe Obama was born in the United States.” Leo C. Donofrio
It probably wouldn’t be the first time that government has an unenforceable policy. Your saying how things are, though, doesn’t make it so Security clearance was the reason for the policy. Implementation of the policy makes the security concern moot? That means it was moot to begin with, yet, there it is. Somebody thought it was important.
The comparison is that security is a concern for everyone but the president, and again, I am speaking generically, not specifically. This is an issue that doesn’t die with the current president.
Over on Leo’s site, gorefan said “His military record alone should be enough to satisfy the State Department of his citizenship. Anyone who serves honorably in the military should have their citizenship recognized.”
The problem here is that aliens could enlist and serve back in the 60s. In addition, aliens were drafted along with citizens. When it was time to be sworn in, the aliens were told that they were free to refuse induction, but that they would be escorted to a port of exit for deportation.
There were, and are, ways for aliens in the military to attain citizenship, but it is by naturalization. The Texas vet is a natural born citizen. He just has to get an official delayed birth certificate. I just wanted to clear up this fact.
“I believe Obama was born in the United States.” Leo C. Donofrio
Ps, Leo still has not let Doc’s comment past “moderation.”
And you know this how?
Charo: “‘Vince Treacy: Neither he, nor any past or present Fellows, are dual citizens.’ And you know this how?”
Obama’s dual citizenship expired in 1982, so I know he is not a dual citizen.
The regulation states that Fellow cannot be appointed if they are dual citizens, so I know that they are not dual citizens.
What part of the statement that “Obama is not a dual citizen” is unclear?
“I believe Obama was born in the United States.” Leo C. Donofrio
What part of I NEVER SAID OBAMA IS A DUAL CITIZEN is unclear to you?
What part of THE PREVAILING VIEW IS THAT ONE CAN BE A DUAL CITIZEN AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY YET A WHITE HOUSE FELLOW WON’T GET A SECURITY CLEARANCE WITHOUT DUAL CITIZENSHIP (see my comment at 8:39 a.m.) is unclear to you?
That is WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP
Charo:
you write that ” the prevailing view is that one can be a dual citizen and be eligible for the presidency yet a White House Fellow won’t get a security clearance with dual citizenship” appears to be hypocrisy to you. You said this is specifically not about Obama, but about the presidency in general.
C’mon. Everything alleged about Kenyan birth, no long form, dual citizenship, etc., is really about Obama.
If Obama were not president, none of this would be a topic of conversation.
Charo? Xavier Cugat?
I have established my credibility here with most of the sane commenters.
That’s already been done, more than once. I explained my name almost a year ago.
Not at all. Your president is not and never was a dual citizen. So you are factually incorrect. Apples and Oranges.
You are still missing the point. Please read all of my comments and get back to me.
Again, you are incorrect. You are confusing having the potential to become a dual citizen and actually being one, as in having two passports.
The “prevailing view” was/is about the former, not the latter.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this.
No I am not. You are simply wrong. You are confusing two entirely separate issues.
For those of you familiar with Citizen Wells, a big birther site, the prevailing view there is a great appreciation for Alan West. Herman Cain is also very respected. shhh, they may figure out the race…
Of course Alan West is a hero to them. Anyone who breaks the law and spouts crazy things is considered a hero. West has never been in his right mind.
Not regarding security. They are not two separate issues. You just refuse to see it. A dual citizen does not meet one the current eligibility requirements for a White House Fellow. Potentially, in the near future, there could be a President with dual citizenship who will not be subjected to the same requirement, unless the rule for the fellowship changes.
The reason for the eligibility requirement for the fellowship is security clearance, according to the government website.
If I read the text on the .gov page correctly, they want a person who holds two passports, American + [XYZ], to formally renounce his/her XYZ citizenship before he/she can become a Fellow. So far, so good.
The problem is, XYZ may not have such a procedure. France does not. You cannot renounce French citizenship. (They can, however, kick you out.)
So either your Fellow membership is rejected no matter what at the onset (f they find out you do have two passports), or you go through a meaningless gesture. (Which is actually not explicited; I wonder in the practice what they expect people to actually do.)
I suspect this is probably a PR gesture.
In any event your point is still meritless since no one here ever said that actually holding two citizenships did not raise some potential security issues.
He wasn’t ruled out for his race. True racists wouldn’t care if someone held their same views.
Passports are not specifically mentioned. Security clearance is. I am pointing out the hypocrisy that such a policy exists for White House Fellows, but not the presidency, no matter what the implementation issues. The policy exists as stated.
If you are arguing, for example, that, ON THE ONE HAND, the most top secret US weapon research facility working on the superduper neutron bomb would refuse to hire Ahmed Al Uzi bin Beaujolais because he has a US, a Moldavian, an Iranian and a French passport, and ON THE OTHER HAND AND SIMULTANEOUSLY the same Ahmed Al Uzi bin Beaujolais could successfully run for and be elected President of the United States of America with all his passports intact, I will concede the point but only because it is one of the most theoretical, unrealistic, asinine, pointless points ever made here.
Having an XYZ passport would be compulsory if you were a citizen of XYZ living abroad. (Unless you’re a child.)
Your point is still meritless and proves nothing. You never had and very likely never will have an actual dual citizen president. There would be no need to state such a policy, no more than there would be a need to explicitly subject the presidency to a myriad of other policies directed at lower Government minions.
Furthermore, the fact that it has not happened does not mean that it won’t ever. If you look at the link I cited (and it is in the archives here as well)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions
I will just re-paste:
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation [2].
Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.
***
The above goes more towards Leo’s anger that a vet can’t get his passport based upon explicit documentation, even if it were certified, because his was a home birth, the reason: security. Yet, the president (and I use the term generically where he specifically refers to Obama) is subject to no scrutiny.
That probably sums up the issue well. You don’t believe that the president (generically speaking) should be subject to the any scrutiny reserved for the minions. I think that rubs a segment of Americans, the wrong way. IMO, that is one of the reasons why the percentage of Republicans who have doubts about Obama, is what it is. It may be one of the party differences. As a French citizen, you may not be able to empathize the same. In any case, I haven’t viewed any of your comments on this thread to me as disrespectful or rude, just because we see things very differently.
This is simply not an argument; sorry but this is more rubbish. There’s no rule prohibiting a horse to be president (after all Caligula allegedly made one a senator in Rome) but is that meaningful?
Your argument remains entirely specious and meritless. My recasting it with Ahmed al Uzi bin Beaujolais just satirizes how ridiculous it is.
As for vetting, others here will step in, but I very much doubt that your candidates are not scrutinized and vetted by your CIA, etc. To believe that there is no vetting because it’s not spelled out on a website is either extremely naive or disingenuous.
my typing is off again.
Not entirely true. Many racists are fine as long as they tout the party line and are subservient to their will. Now see how many of those same people would accept him if he was the nominee for president.
But that is NOT what I said.
What I said was that there would be no need to spell out the policies at that level — not that the would-be president would be immune from them.
Your conflating a rather pointless, unenforceable policy for a minor position on a gov website with the alleged absence of the same for the president — who in reality is likely the most vetted and scrutinized person on Earth, is simply either very naive or disingenuous.
I guess I spoke too soon about rudeness or didn’t see some of your remarks, but nonetheless, I will respond to this:
“To believe that there is no vetting because it’s not spelled out on a website is either extremely naive or disingenuous.”
That information is from a report that was cited by Doc and referred to by the very people with whom you agree.
I’d be amazed if someone here with whom I agree claimed that your CIA or FBI or whatever did not carefully look into the candidates’ pasts. In fact I simply would not believe it.
You can’t get over that your conflation is meaningless and doesn’t prove anything.
Natural born or native born? Yes. But citizen? Emphatically, no!
You are entitled to your opinion, but not to read my mind.
Congressional Research Service punctures birther balloon
Lupin November 7, 2010 at 2:11 am #
This does read like a very professional and outstanding bit of research: clearly worded, exhaustive, just excellent.
There is no hypocrisy involved.
There was no such thing as a “security clearance” when the Constitution was ratified. The founders made it quite clear that the job of vetting candidates for President if left to the people who vote for the President.
Did you know that Ted Kaczynski is eligible to be president? He’s a convicted domestic terrorist, he could never get a security clearance, but he could be elected President. But we don’t worry about that, because we know that there is no chance that he could ever be elected. The founders agreed with Alexander Hamilton that our system for electing Presidents guaranteed that only qualified people would become President.
What would the alternative be? Would you propose that a candidate for President has to first be granted a security clearance? Who would make the decision on whether to grant the security clearance? What a can of worms that would be.
So yes, a dual citizen could conceivably be elected President. But do you really believe that the American people would vote for someone who has elected to retain dual citizenship?
We trust the voters to choose our President. The voters don’t get to choose White House fellows, so that job has different qualifications.
The framers could not have envisioned where we are today regarding technology or advancement. There was no such thing as sexual offender registration either, but thank God we have it now. (I am not equating the presidency with sexual offenders). Verifying the trustworthiness of the president does not change the requirements for the presidency.
Maybe the winner of the primaries for the major parties would be a good idea.
Prove he wasn’t, using constructive evidence, and then (only then) may a conversation about the subject begin.
Wnd headline:
“Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4. ”
This is the old distributed for conference story, you know what that means, DENIAL!
Hey, but it gets paypal pushed! Birthers are born gullible!
a link on that WND story:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/worldnutdaily_gets_a_glimmer_o.php
this is so funny, where’s a birther to laugh at!
It would be a horribly unConstitutional – security clearances are for government employees, NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS. Elected officials can’t be (in my opinion) required to obtain security clearance as a condition of their jobs – as I understand it, members of Congress (and the President) are bound by law as to what secrets they can and can’t reveal, but can’t be held to any more vetting that was given by the voters. The CIA doesn’t get veto power over who sits on the Senate foreign relations council…
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
If Obama wants to claim that he was born in a hospital (as the premise for denying any need to further scrutinze the legitimacy of his birth records) then he should provide adequate support for that claim. Without that proof, rational, intelligent people (including the State Department under Obama) recognize the greater potential for fraud does exist.
I can’t prevent you from denying that the potential for fraud exists, or denying that the Hawaiian COLB would permit such fraud to be concealed. That must be something you come to recognize for yourself.
Sorry, you have it backwards. This isn’t someone filing an insurance claim, you dolt.
This is nuts like you making accusations. .
Obama is just going about his day, being POTUS, just as he was elected to be. He won the election, he’s the default position. Anyone claiming otherwise has to substantiate and base THEIR claims.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser. That is you birther fools.
(Quote edited to reflect the (double) standard the birthers seem to believe should be used…)
President Obama has met his burden of proof (and MUCH more). He says he was born in Hawai’i. The Hawai’i DOH says he was born in Hawai’i (both in official statements and under oath). The Republican former governor says he was born in Hawai’i. Since there is absolutely no evidence that he WASN”T BORN IN HAWAI’I, you’ve totally failed to meet ANY reasonable burden of proof. So what are you CLAIMING again?
You’re correct. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to institute such a requirement.
However, that doesn’t mean background investigations can’t be required or that the legitimacy of their citizenship should not be verified using the same level of scrutiny employed by the State Department for those applying for a passport.
There is no legitimate reason to permit a COLB to serve as proof of citizenship, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge citizenship based on information that isn’t disclosed on a COLB. The State Department has recognized the insufficiency and inadequacy of a COLB.
The level of scrutiny applied to any elected official in regard to legitimacy of citizenship documentation should be at least as high as that applied to those applying for a passport. Anything less is hypocrisy at its finest.
Obama is already president. The time where he would be making a claim has passed and found to be sufficient. You are the one claiming otherwise and so when all available evidence points to him being born in Hawaii it is upon you to president tangible evidence that impeaches what’s currently available. Thus far you haven’t done that. You can claim anything is possible but it is a matter of what’s probable. Probability points to him being born in America. We can also claim there is a possibility of potential fraud that took place with the other Presidents since they never proved they were born in America.
Thank you G, for correcting Lil’ Red. I was going to respond to Red’s misinformed grasp of causality and the legal system, but then I thought, “Hey, just refresh the page–I sure someone else will have already chimed in.”
You have no proof that there was no background investigation. Before being president he was a US Senator where he served on the Foreign Relations Committee, a role which requires a background check. There’s also his role before that as a State Senator. Each of those positions would require a background check.
Obama had a passport and so the same level of scrutiny used by the State Department most likely would have already been used on Obama.
The COLB is sufficient as it is used to get a passport. You now have to prove that others in Hawaii were denied passports because of their COLB.
Lil’ Red:
You wrote, “There is no legitimate reason to permit a COLB to serve as proof of citizenship, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge citizenship based on information that isn’t disclosed on a COLB.” I don’t follow your argument. Could you explain this in more detail or provide some hypothetical examples?
Neither you (nor anyone else) has shown that anyone was denied a passport with a valid birth certificate (as was pointed out up thread, ‘certificate’ in this case means that it was certified by a state government). Your false equivalency is due to either shameless ignorance or rank intellectual dishonesty. Which is it?
G,
Other then a need to demonstrate your inability to rationalize, why do you feel the need to resort to name calling?
You don’t seem to understand that Obama applied for a position in which he claimed to meet the qualifications. Upon being accepted for that position, it is up to him to support his claim of qualification. The document he allegedly presented has been deemed insufficient by the State Department when presented by others.
If you apply for a job that requires you to have a specific degree, and upon acceptance for that position, you are asked to demonstrate proof of your degree, do you expect the employer to need to prove that you lied about having that degree? Or do you think the employer, like I have, will tell you that the burden is upon the claimant?
This.
Also, Charo’s disingenuous act is really wearing thin. If it’s not about Obama, she needs to stop posting about this.
He already did support the claim. He is under no obligation to support it to you. Those who required it got it. It has not been deemed insufficient by the State Department, you are being thoroughly dishonest.
Did you read and understand Leo’s article? If you had, you would understand that other people have said they were born in a certain place. (One can never be a reliable witness to their own birth.) The states that they claim to come from have said that they were born there. That’s why they have birth certificates and COLBs. However, the State Department (who has been be charged with verifying citizenship for a long time) found that neither were correct.
Fact: Some people have been denied passports because the State Department found their COLB to be insufficient proof.
Fact: Information that is absent from Hawaii COLBs has been used to deny passports.
The Office of President is worthy of the same scrutiny as that applied to anyone holding a COLB or Certificate of Live Birth.
You got me. I am trying to discredit Obama because of his race. I go now in shame.
What specific information that was missing from Hawaii’s COLB was used to deny a passport?
I spent last night on Mars. Prove that I didn’t. After all, as you and your friends claim, the burden of proof would be on you.
Show me where a background check is required to be performed before a Senator can serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. If you can’t your claim will be summarily dismissed as fabrication.
Do a little homework. Read the article. Compare a COLB with a Certificate of Live Birth.
(I’ll give you a hint: It has to do with who claims to have attended the birth, and where the birth is reported to have taken place.)
Better and more germane example:
Colin Powell. He served as Secretary of State and was frequently touted as a possible Presidential candidate despite BOTH parents being foreign-born (Jamaican, I believe) and active in his life. This was never once brought up during the time when many, many individuals of both major parties were hoping he’d run for President, either by Republicans or Democrats.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Powell *had* run, only as a Democrat. I doubt that the Republican smear machine would have refrained from bringing up his foreign parents and ties to the British Empire through them.
“Fact: Information that is absent from Hawaii COLBs has been used to deny passports.”
I call bull pupu on this, calling something a fact does not make it so, give us a reliable denied passport will ya! you sound like WND with this statement
.
This is not a fact, I know many people from Hawaii including my daughters that have been issued passports on their COLB’s.
.
Go read the entire article and get back to me.
(Hint: Esmerelda Cazares for starters. She had the same as “richcares”)
That’s just one. I suggest you do a little investigation before calling someone ignorant or dishonest.
Lil’ Red:
To my knowledge, no one has ever “applied” for office of president, nor is the primary process, the nominating convention, the general election, or the vote of the Electoral College analogous to to any commercial hiring process.
Oh here we go again another birther who claims there’s a difference between a Certification of Live Birth and a Certificate of Live Birth. Hawaii only issues COLBs are you claiming noone from Hawaii has served in the military or gotten a passport in the last 10 years?
richcares,
You are too anxious. Next time read before responding. I never said that someone with a Hawaiian COLB could not get a passport. I said that information that is absent (information that would appear on a Certificate of Live Birth) has been used as the reason for passport denial.
It is this simple, you are held to account for your own statements. Your backwards notion of where the burden of proof lies is so off that it requires chastising. Nor is it new. It is the same wrongheadedness displayed by birthers over and over again for well over 2 years.
The 2008 election is long over. He’s got the job and Obama is over half-way through SERVING his first term. You folks really have issues when you are still fighting a campaign for an election that has been over for several years.
Sorry, your latest analogy is all wrong as well.
I’ve had to review a lot of resumes and I address hirings from time to time. Often, those positions have degree requirements, which is only a base qualifier used to help judge someone’s potential capability to do the job properly. Any questions or issues I or others may have about their degree or other requirements are brought up DURING the interview process, not afterwords.
Once we’ve hired them, they are judged based on their ability to do the job, not by rehasing their resume.
Again, your analogy is weak. The ONLY time someone’s degree would become an issue once they were hired is IF SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE contradicting their resume came forward, which then MIGHT lead to a possible inquiry into fraud, which could be grounds for termination, if it was considered sufficiently relevant.
Nobody would spend any time on a “fishing expidition” looking into those requirements after the hiring process. Totally irrelevant and a waste of time and resources for a business that needs to focus on the tasks at hand.
The electorate made their vote in November of 2008. They OVERWHELMINGLY elected Obama by a significant margin.
NO EVIDENCE ever emerged during that campaigning time that contradicted Obama’s story of his background and birth…NOR has any surfaced since then. In fact, any bits evidentiary relevance gleamed have ALL reinforced his position and ALL provide the same conclusion – Born in HI, therefore NBC.
There is no further convincing he has to do. He’s POTUS and will be until at least the next election. At that point, the only thing he needs to convince voters is that he’s done a sufficient job to justify getting 4 more years and is a better choice than whatever alternatives are competing for the spot. His prior resume before being POTUS has very, very little relevance anymore at all.
Everything posted above is completely wrong. It is the responsibility of those who challenge a candidate to vet that candidate and expose any flaws in the candidate’s qualifications.
Here’s what a US District Court Judge, appointed by President George W. Bush who actually ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit (Rhodes v MacDonald) had to say on this subject: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling compaign for this party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Futhermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii statehood and stating “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.)”
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
–US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, MIddle District of Georgia, Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009
To carry Lil Red’s employment analogy further, if the employee has already been hired, its up to the employer who has doubts about the employee’s qualifications to produce evidence to fire the employee, or else the employee can be fired for cause when the term of the employment contract expires.
Lil Red must not be an American because all Americans know that no one here is guilty until proven innocent, our system of jurisprudence is innocent until proven guilty. Anyone who doesn’t have enough proof of Barack Hussein Obama II’s eligibility has the option of voting against him in the next election
Lil’ Red,
You wrote,
“Fact: Some people have been denied passports because the State Department found their COLB to be insufficient proof.”
If you are basing this assertion on a recent article by Leo Donofrio, you need to examine an objective summary of the case. As Dr. C. points out, a document given by a doctor to parents after the birth of their child is not a COLB, and a person whose birth has not been registered with a state’s Department of Heath cannot use an unofficial birth record to apply for a passport.
Apples and oranges. There is no comparison between requiring a security clearance for an appointed official and requiring one for a candidate for office. Requiring candidates to have security clearances invites political mischief into the process. Besides, it would be unconstitutional to enact such a requirement for Federal candidates. If it’s not required by the Constitution, it can’t be required.
Yes because for some people, dual citizenship does not matter.
And you really believe that there are enough of those “some people” for a dual citizen to be elected? There’s not a chance of that happening.
Hey Folks:
Isn’t anyone going to explain to Lil’ Red the logical fallacy behind argumentum ad ignorantiam, as in, “I spent last night on Mars. Prove that I didn’t. After all, as you and your friends claim, the burden of proof would be on you.”
Well we’re talking about probability and possibility again. I find it highly improbable she spent the night on Mars, contrary to what VP Dan Quayle believed, humans cannot breathe on mars.
Your analogy falls flat. Obviously, logical thinking is beyond your capabilities.
Let’s put it in simpler and general terms for you – the burden of proof for both credibility and action falls on those making a request for such.
In Obama’s case, during 2007-2008, he was campaigning to be elected as President. During the time of the campaign, the burden on his was a simple threshold – convince enough voters to cast their ballots and elect him over his competitors. He successfully and quite decisively did that and he was duly sworn into office in Jan 2009, following all of our procedures for such.
Now he is POTUS. He no longer needs to take actions or make statements to get the job – he HAS it. His actions now need to focus on carrying out those duties.
YOU birthers want ACTIONS to REMOVE him or challenge his EXISTING position. The burden of proof is simply now on YOU to justify both your credibility and desired actions.
He’s actively serving as POTUS, so that is now the default position. To challenge or remove him would require following our laws and procedures to take such action. In our legals system, the burden of proof rests on the ACCUSER – those that want to change the existing status and take new action.
Your “I was born on Mars” statement fails, because it serves no purpose and has no goal to achieve, except being meaningless words spilling out of your mouth and onto your keyboard. Merely saying anything doesn’t make it true. No matter how many times you say it. Nor does it have any relevance to anything at all.
The only action before you in which it would have relevance is establishing your credibility, which you have none here. So the burden of proof would still fall back to YOU to substantiate your statements…that is, if anyone even cared about what you had to say.
You’re comparing apples and oranges – in other words, you are making a false equivalency to try and imply that President Obama’s COLB (which has had its legitimacy verified by its custodian) is no more credible than documents which have been refused as proof of citizenship before. Show me someone who was denied a passport after the official state custodian verified that their birth certificate was valid (and I would note that Ms. Cazares had a delayed birth certificate from a midwife in a border state – where fraud is known to have occurred in such cases) or admit that you’ve made a false equivalence. I read Leo’s whole article (wasted time I will never get back…) and the only difference between him and you is that he cannot lay claim to ignorance. I’m sorry if you don’t like being called ignorant or a liar, but until you either educate yourself or stop saying things that you know aren’t true, I’m guessing that it will keep happening…
Ask, and ye shall receive–thanks G and Dr. N.
Oh here we go with another Obot who claims they are the same thing. They look different and one contains much less information, and the State Department says “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes” but Bob Ross and his ilk will continue to claim they are the same.
They must think that if they repeat it enough it will be true.
When it comes to being a birth certificate they are the same thing. They are just different forms of a birth certificate. Knowing which hospital one was born in does not prove what is needed to be POTUS.
How does showing witnesses and being born in a hospital prove:
1. 35 years of age
2. Born in America
Those two conditions have already been shown in the COLB that Hawaii issues. Note the keywords “some”. Thus far you have shown no official Hawaii COLB being denied let alone official Birth Certificates from the other 48 states being denied by the State Department.
Ah, using projection now, are we? That’s all birthers have to go on. Repeat the same debunked or meaningless nonsense, thinking they can cast doubt in the minds to the clueless over and over again. Run away when caught and debunked. Return a few months later spewing the same tired nonsense as if it were somehow any more relevant now than it was then.
Rince & repeat ad nauseum….and to absolutely no success whatsoever.
You forgot to mention they will then start using sockpuppets
Every birth certificate bearing a stamp and signature of the custodian is considered to be verified by the custodian. That’s the purpose behind it.
Are you claiming that richcares’ birth report is fraudulent because it is a delayed report?
Are you claiming that birth certificate fraud has never occurred in Hawaii? Are you claiming that it is impossible?
Lil’ Red,
If you have evidence that a passport office refused a COLB that was issued and certified by a state, I like to know about it. On the other hand, I don’t doubt that unofficial photocopies, hospital souvenirs, of fraudulent reproductions, have failed to pass muster.
No birther has been able to present a case of Birth Certificate fraud occuring since Hawaii became a state of the United States of America.
Lil’ Red (Hint: Esmerelda Cazares for starters. She had the same as “richcares”)
no skippy, not the same however my daughter initially submitted her
hospital BC for a passport, that was turned down(it’s souvnenir they said),
she had to get a Hawaiian COLB then the passport, that’s more like Esmerelda Cazares
keep trying, you may learn yet, but I doubt it!
Why do I have a feeling that Lil’ Red is actually the recently banned NdH?
then you haven’t yet mastered “reading”; nor have you done any research.
Watch this “Time” report.
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,32326197001_1914854,00.html
“anyone born by a midwife is paying the price”.
No show me documented proof that Obama was not born by a midwife.
Are you a racist? Do you consider Mexican-Americans to be less of a citizen?
Naw I was thinking draggingcanoe. It’s pulling the same stuff from freerepublic
You said that you were born at home and have a delayed birth certificate. That’s what Cazares has. What makes you any different than her? Oh. I forgot, she doesn’t have a daughter who can push thru the application.
Lets try this again since you weren’t paying attention I asked about the other 48 states. I noticed all your reports were talking about California and Texas, states that have a history of a high amount of fraud because they are border states. Hawaii is not a border state it would be a bit harder to smuggle yourself into Hawaii illegally and get a birth certificate. So I ask you again since your level of reasoning is an insult to people who actually have Downs Syndrome what cases can you point to where a Valid State issued COLB or short form certificate was denied a passport in the other 48 states?
Are we being asked to prove a negative? I’ve never claimed Obama was born to a midwife.
Show me documented proof that you didn’t help Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990.
How do we know Lil Red isn’t the girl Glenn Beck raped and murdered in 1990? This seems to rank up there with its “reasoning”
The operative word in the State Department quote is “some.”
Do you have evidence that the State Department has ever rejected a Hawaii COLB as proof of citizenship? If so, let’s see it.
I can’t prove that I was born in a hospital. I’ve never even seen any proof that I was born in a hospital. I believe that I was born in a hospital, because that is what my parents told me. You wouldn’t know it from my New York birth certificate, though. It shows my name, date of birth, city and state of birth, and the names of my parents. That’s it. No hospital name, no doctor name, no indication if I was born in a hospital or at home or in a taxi.
A funny thing – it was good enough for the State Department. I have the passport to prove it.
Are you really that dense? COLB’s are not “certified copies”. They are abstracts.
The State Department has denied passports to people who presented certified copies of their birth certificate, and people who have presented COLBs (abstracts). They were denied because those state government issued documents identified them as having benn born by midwives.
Now prove to me that Obama wasn’t born by a midwife and the matter will be settled. If you can’t prove that, I will consider you to be racist against Mexican-Americans.
As do I. My california certificate was good enough for a passport. What I see on mine is my father and mother’s names, date I was born, city state. They even misspelled my mother’s maiden name.
Actually a COLB is a certified type of birth certificate. It verifies the long form. You have yet to show the State Department has ever denied passports to anyone in Hawaii. Let alone the other 48 states.
That’s exactly why it should be understood to be insufficient. You can’t question what is not available.
Maybe that’s why more fraudulent birth reports are discovered to come out of Texas. The Texas birth certificate provides enough information to identify a need for further scrutiny.
Or there’s the problem that Texas and California have a high number of illegal immigrants and have had a history of Fraud. No it can’t be that can it?
Lil’ Red:
You wrote,
“The State Department has denied passports to people who presented certified copies of their birth certificate, and people who have presented COLBs (abstracts). They were denied because those state government issued documents identified them as having benn born by midwives.”
Please identify the source of your assertion. Also, please identify those states that issue COLBs which identify whether a child was born by a doctor or midwife. The whole thing seems highly improbable.
Your argument makes no sense. No one here is claiming that Obama was born by a midwife. Thus, there is no burden of proof on anyone here to do so. Nor is there any logical direct connection between that statement and your two follow-ups. Completely an absurd and disconnected argument.
Why don’t we ask you to show documented proof that Leprecauns don’t exist? What do you have against the Irish?
…see how stupid and unrelated both of those statements are?
If you wish to stop being treated like a fool and being made fun of, stop acting like one.
Lil’ Red,
You wrote,
“That’s exactly why it should be understood to be insufficient. You can’t question what is not available.”
Certainly you realize that individuals cannot reject an official state document because it fails to contain information that they think it “should” contain. What else do you want included on a COLB? The time the mother’s water broke? The length of the labor? Whether the child was born vaginally?
Arthur,
For Pete’s sake. Do a little research. Here. I’ll get you started.
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-12-18/news/hispanics-delivered-by-border-midwives-are-having-trouble-getting-u-s-passports/4/
“In the eyes of Texas, this was enough. Her birth certificate was validated.”
Just because they are not photocopied from the original document, doesn’t mean they are not “certified copies”…
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
Lil’ Red: “COLB’s are not “certified copies”.
Obama’s COLB was certifed by Alvi T. Onaka,state registrar, also the necessary raised seal is clearly shown, why do you argue from foolishness
There are no documents issued by any government which identify President Obama as having been born with a doctor in attendance. You only have his word. Ask the progressives who voted for him how good his word is.
Once again you are making yourself look ridiculous. It has been pointed out that the ones that were denied were in Texas and California which has a history of fraud amongst midwives. There is no history of fraud amongst midwives in Hawaii, nor have you shown Obama was born by a midwife. There is no comparison here to be made.
I’m sorry but where in th Constitution does it say that the President has to be born with a Doctor in Attendance? I’d say you’ve just disqualified a fair majority of our presidents.
I love the way they pretend that they are agents of the State Department, as though in a position to deny a passport that has been applied for, or agents of the DMV in some position to deny a drivers license. They pretend as though they are in this position and being asked to accept a JPEG image of birth certificate. They take this hypothetical and delusional scenario to an extreme as a basis to deny the eligibility of President Obama to hold office.
There is no possible way to demonstrate a comparison because Hawaii has chosen to conceal the relevant information.
Had Texas and California chosen to conceal the same relevant information the State Department would be left with issuing passports to those born of midwives or to deny passports to all persons born in that area.
If you were in any position to approve or deny a passport application yourself, you would potentially be in a lot of trouble for making this kind of public statement. Of course you are in no such position, and your opinion on the matter has no weight whatsoever.
Can you show one example of midwives getting fradulently registered COLBs in Hawaii since Hawaii became a state of the United States? Yes or no?
Do tell Red,
Where does the Constitution mention a doctors attendance at birth as being either required or relevant to stand, run or sit as President?
It’s real simple, simple enough even for a Birfoon.
The law, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Amendment, Supreme Court, Supreme Court rulings and English Common Law of the period of the Founding Fathers state….
Born on the soil, irrespective of parentage or parental nationality makes you an NBC.
The original of the Presidents COLB, posted on line, is wholly legal and sufficient to demonstrate such birth on the soil.
The bottom of the COLB states in words, again simple enough for the terminally stupid…..
The Constitution says, again in words even a brain damaged rat can understand
Therefore the original COLB/BC provided is all that is required to
a. Demonstrate birth on the soils and therefore NBC status
b. Be required to be accepted by all other states and the Federal Government
Since the only other REQUIREMENTS of the Constitution are 35+ years old (shown by the COLB/BC and 14 years a resident of which not even Birfoons have tried to question.
So do tell, EXACTLY where is there insufficiency in Law and Constitution.
Where does it say that U.S. citizens must be born with a doctor in attendance? That sure didn’t stop the Obama Administration from submitting passport applications to heightened scrutiny and denying some of them solely on the basis of their birth being reported by a midwife.
You must consider national security to be an out of sight, out of mind business.
You should go bury your head in the sand.
Lil Red is conitnuing to make the same losing argument that was made here last year regarding this same issue. She is attempting to use fraud among home births in border states to make some sort of ridiculous argument that all home births should be considered fraudulent. Really? She never gives us even one example of fraud committed in the state of HI, nor has she even proved that somehow the President was born at home and not at a hospital. This is why her argument is so silly. First of all there is no requirement that the President be born in a hospital. Second there is not even one documented example of midwife or birth certificate fraud in the state of HI. Third she has not even given one shred of evidence that the President was not born in a hospital. But you eliminate those key facts then her arguments makes some kind of sense because it boils down to the following….Because there was examples of midwife fraud in states thousands if miles away from HI, a state with no evidence of such fraud, and the fraud discussed occurred well after the birth of the President, his COLB information should be questioned? Really?
Are you too stupid to read the Department of State website?
What part of “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes” do you have a problem understanding?
I think what you are saying is that the status of the COLB, in general, as prima facie evidence should be questioned. If that’s not what you are saying, then my question for you is “insufficient to do what?”
You live in a paranoid fantasy world, seeing connections that do not exist.
For the last time, the TX & CA situations were born out of existing cases of fraud occuring and tied to issues of border immigration, which led to further scrutiny. THAT was the basis for those two state situations.
Your connect-the-unrelated-dots delusions have no relevance to HI or the standard certified COLB that HI proivdes as its STANDARD when any person born their request their BC.
HI has been doing this process for well over a decade. Their HI COLB, same form as what Obama’s looks like, is accepted everywhere.
I understand your point. It’s unfair that White House Fellows cannot have dual citizenship. That rule should be changed to allow any citizen to qualify, and maybe even permanent legal residents.
His word? He is not a witness to his own birth. The standard you are attempting to apply here is neither realistic nor legally meaningful.
Yet there is NO evidence connecting that statement to the HI COLB whatsoever at all.
Sorry, you FAIL again.
So you have requested this information from the state of HI? I mean you have just made a claim against a state that they are concealing something. Do you have proof? Can you provide us with an example of this occuring? No. Why? Because you are making this up. You have no proof nor leg to stand on. If the President was born in TX or CA, then you might have an argument. So are you questioning the birth of Nixon? He was born in CA probably to a midwife. The bottom line is that your argument is crap. You have no proof that such fraud has ever happened in HI or that the state of HI is concealing anything. But continue on. Your wildly implausable scenarios are getting more entertaining…
Lil’ Red,
Thank you for providing a link to a newspaper article that you have fundamentally misrepresented.
The article describes the trouble that some older Americans of Hispanic descent are having in getting passports. The problem arises from the fact that when these people were born, their parents did not register their births with the state. While they have evidence of having lived and worked in the United States, they unfortunately do not have official evidence of American birth. What they have instead are documents provided by midwifes. These documents do not qualify as official birth records; moreover, there is evidence that some midwives fraudulently reported births in Mexico as occurring in Texas.
The predicament described in the article is not, as you falsely assert, about individuals being refused passports because they presented a COLB; nor is it about COLBs being refused because they identify birth by midwife. Rather, the article describes people who do not have a COLB and are hoping to use unofficial records, (including baptismal certificates, school records, and military records) to establish their citizenship status.
Lil’ Red, I asked you to provide evidence because I couldn’t find any that supported your claim. The material you presented in response to my request is invalid because it doesn’t support your claim. You misread the article and formed a faulty argument.
Please show that the State Department started increasing scrutiny under Obama and that this wasn’t the existing practice before. The denied passports had nothing to do with doctors being in attendance. Have you shown any proof that this happened in any of the other states besides Texas or California? You seem to be a bit lost of what exactly you’re arguing for, more scrutiny of the President or less scrutiny in California and Texas?
So you have requested this information from the state of HI? I mean you have just made a claim against a state that they are concealing something. Do you have proof? Can you provide us with an example of this occuring? No. Why? Because you are making this up. You have no proof nor leg to stand on. If the President was born in TX or CA, then you might have an argument. So are you questioning the birth of Nixon? He was born in CA probably to a midwife. The bottom line is that your argument is nonsense. You have no proof that such fraud has ever happened in HI or that the state of HI is concealing anything. But continue on. Your wildly implausable scenarios are getting more entertaining…
You know I felt like I’ve had this same discussion before, now that you mention it I recall this discussion last year… Doc do you have any thoughts?
But it has not been understood to be insufficient. Quite the contrary. My birth certificate, with absolutely no information about whether I was born in a hospital, has been good enough for me to obtain a passport, register to vote, get a Social Security Card, get a driver’s license, and enlist in the U.S. Navy. No government agency has ever deemed it to be insufficient. To this day the government does not know if I was born in a hospital.
I’m still waiting for you tell us when the State Department has ever declared a Hawaii COLB to be insufficient.
Maybe that’s why more fraudulent birth reports are discovered to come out of Texas. The Texas birth certificate provides enough information to identify a need for further scrutiny.
More fraudulent birth reports come out of Texas because it’s relatively easy to smuggle a foreign newborn into Texas. Has there ever been a documented case of a foreign newborn being smuggled into Hawaii? None that I’m aware of.
You are stretching that to include Hawaii COLBs. Hawaii COLBs are perfectly acceptable by State Department standards, and are as they declare, prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.
I believe you have already sunk to the level of ad-hominem attacks, which as far as I am concerned removes you from this discussion and from my world. Goodbye.
Some meaning Texas and California where there is a history of Fraud. Some does not mean the other 48 states in the union.
Once again, you’re comparing apples and oranges. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about qualifications for a passport. The Constitution does say what the qualifications are to be President.
I don’t have to ask the progressives who voted for President Obama, I am one. I’d say that he is better than average at keeping his word for a politician (I’d hoped for more, but I’ll take what I can get…). Also, I think he’s accomplished more in the way of significant legislation in his first two years than any President since FDR in a more rancorous political environment than has been seen in this country since the Civil War. On top of that, he’s kept us out of a depression (although Republican obstructionism prevented the stimulus from speeding up the recovery like it should have). I’d like his civil rights record to be better (assassinating US citizens is wrong) and I wish he’d stood up for a public option (there are other actions/policies of his that I dislike as well), but he likely has my vote in 2012 (barring a massive outbreak of sanity on the part of Republicans…) and if Caribou Barbie is his opponent he will have my help and everything I can afford to donate as well.
As for your opinions – the views of a know ignorant liar who is suspected of being an accessory to rape and murder that has spent thousands of times as much money (billions, even) as President Obama to conceal their records carry about as much weight as a helium ballon – which is to say that your statements are evidence that your claims are false (based on your past behavior).
Relatively speaking, breathing on mars is not really any much more difficult a problem for humans to overcome than breathing on the moon and we had few problems there.
Perhaps what you are getting at would be more effieciently achieved by pointing out that even with all known artificial assistances it is presently completely physically impossible for a human who is on earth today to have been on Mars last night.
Just sayin……lol.
Man, this could be a master class on defective logic! “Some COLBs aren’t acceptable…” becomes “no COLBs are acceptable…”
We’ve got the continuing requirement to prove bona fides long after Obama was sworn in. We’ve got some fraud in Texas meaning that all midwife births in Hawaii are suspect. We’ve got the state department distrusting midwife births because of COLBs instead of them distrusting COLBS because of documented fraud that is simply not evident in Hawaii. And, apparently, the State Department is too dumb to recognize midwife fraud in states like Minnesota because they’ve gone with the short form birth certificate.
Obama is president. The voters looked at his COLB and the birth announcements and found them sufficient. You lost! Now, if you want to upset the status quo, you beatthe burden of proof. And the state department accepts the COLBs of Minnesota and Hawaii because there’s no evidence of fraud in those states. They settled their lawsuit and haven’t implemented new procedures to penalize states like Minnesota who have chosen the short form. The courts have said it isn’t racist to let Minnesota and Hawaii use the short form, why should we believe you? Why isn’t it perfectly rational and race-neutral to look with greater suspicion at the documents from states with documented fraud?
I just found that somebody already discussed the issue of dual citizenship of White House Fellows last year. (It links to one of Doc’s “ugly” sites so don’t bother- the site that links it would probably be added at least on his “bad” list )
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.com/category/hypocrisy-in-the-white-house-obama-won%E2%80%99t-allow-fellows-to-be-what-he-is/
Also, I found the list of White House Fellows this year and a little bit of research leads me to the conclusion that the WH is completely unaware of that FAQ, doesn’t care or has not updated it. The application process is closed for this year, but I’ll try to make a mental note to look at it in the fall and see how it is handled on the actual application. That will provide the best answer.
There really isn’t hypocrisy in the treatment of dual citizenship between the President and the fellows. The President is Constitutionally eligible, even if a dual citizen. If the people, in their infinite wisdom, decide it troubles them, they’ll not vote for the dual citizen. The Fellows are not elected. Their boss is the federal government. There is no constitutional bar to their serving, but their boss, the government, in it’s flawed wisdom has decided that dual citizenship troubles them. You, as a voter, have the same recourse if you don’t like it – vote out those who put the policy in place.
Even if the government decided that dual citizenship troubled it in the Presidency, it could do nothing more than it has. It has no power, other than amendment, to add or subtract requirements.
What an absurd basis to build an argument upon.
If the state of, let’s say Montana, had uncovered hard evidence of certificate fraud having been committed by several doctors and administrative staff employed in hospitals in the state between say 1985-1990 in order to assist people not born in USA to obtain state certified birth certificates stating they were born born in those hospitals in Montana…….and if as a result of that hard evidence there was a current unwillingness to approve passport applications supported by long form birth certificates issued between 1985-1990 by those rogue doctors/hospitals, without conducting rigorous further enquiries into the truth of the information on each applicants birth certificate……and if Obama had already released an original Hawaian long form birth certificate in a format that identified both the hospital of his birth and the attending doctor in Hawaii……would you presently be claiming that there is an inconsistency or hypocrisy in the Obama administration considering his own birth certificate perfectly valid and the Obama administration simultaneously supporting decisions not to automatically approve applications supported by long forms issued by the relevant Montana doctors/hospitals between 1985-1990?
If not, why not?….because by applying the logic you have displayed above, you absolutely should be making that claim.
In reality there would of course obviously be nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about Obama or the administaration in that scenario, just as there is nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about the actual current situation viz-a-viz their concurrent attitudes to Obama’s COLB and the investigation of certain passport applications from the two states concerned.
Well his word and the hospital and WND.
Including a quote from the hospitals director of marketing and communications saying they treasure the letter. Why would they treasure it if it was fraudulent?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104146
I know that you disagree. It is a matter of security: as the requirement is written (but I don’t believe followed), a dual citizen must renounce the other citizenship to obtain clearance. I don’t know what else to say about the matter. Even on anti-birther sites, I have read that people believe the President is fully vetted. The Congressional Report cited above states that is not true. If the public were informed in this matter, I think many people would be shocked to know that is not the case. I think it is arguable whether a security clearance actually adds a requirement, but how about if results of a security clearance were made public? (As in passed). I mean only the winners of the primaries and their VP’s (Rickey thinks this would be a huge nightmare- I disagree without more facts) to undergo clearance. Then the public would have knowledge that the person did indeed get cleared. If there was a lack of cooperation? Well, the public should know that. If there were issues? The public should know that also and make an informed decision. If someone did not get clearance, don’t bar the person from running but let the public know this person has security issues. Who would dare run if they believe there could be problems because of their associations or whatever would make a “regular” person not able to get clearance? If there is something unfair that occurred, the person could address the issue, just as of another candidate confronted them with any adverse information that could be explained away. I think if you polled people, many people believe that presidents have always been vetted this way. Why is the office of the presidency given a pass in this regard? Do you really think the public has any way of discovering whether a candidate truly poses a security risk?
When our Founding Fathers penned the Constitution, the world was not as complex as now.
Someone or some group decided at some point that dual citizenship for White House Fellows was troubling. I didn’t make that up.
Contrary to the opinion of at least one person on this thread, I find these issues fascinating for discussion, even if they don’t relate to Obama per se. This whole theme came to mind because of Leo’s assertion of hypocrisy regarding the bar set for home births and passports and the bar set for the requirements of eligibility for the presidency. It has been an interesting discussion, at least for me.
The president isn’t given a pass unless the people GIVE him a pass!
The Fellows have to have outstanding grades. Bush didn’t. Why? Because the people looked at his grades, which were released against his will and said they didn’t care. They gave him a PASS. and we didn’t have to pass a law to vet his smarts. Is it a security risk to have someone with a dual citizenship? Or a hidden paramour? Or a heart that is this close to exploding? Maybe it does, but none of these are things that require a new law to fix. As long as the National Enquirer exists, as long as candidates hire oppo-researchers. As long as the voters eat up any whiff of scandal whether real or Madrasa-myth, our system is fully prepared to deal with this stuff.
And Obama was vetted. 65 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM! Read the damn Federalist Papers – that is EXACTLY the vetting our founders intended. Why do you think it was good enough for the founders but not good enough for you? Why do you hate the Founders? Do you also hate apple pie?
Most security clearances can take months to do, so it would need to be started well before the conventions. And the criteria and guidelines would need to be carefully crafted. For example, President Bush’s alcoholism in his early life might have disqualified him from getting a security clearance. There are mitigating factors that would be taken into account.
Here is President Bush’s 1991 directive on Background Investigations.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/nsd63.html
This article deals with President Obama specifically,
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp
How about Senators and Congressman, don’t they get automatic clearance by virtue of being elected?
Lupin: Again, you are incorrect. You are confusing having the potential to become a dual citizen and actually being one, as in having two passports.
I do have to disagree with your analysis, even though I agree that Obama’s previous status under British or Kenyan law is irrelevant to his status under US law.
Someone is a national of a country if that country says he or she is. Many countries state that they automatically grant their citizenship at birth to various classes of people without the need to request it or exercise any rights of it. In the US, the most obvious example is the automatic grant of citizenship to all those born in the country.
While some countries say that certain people born in or outside their borders are automatically citizens, some others may say that people in the same or similar circumstances will simply have a right to become citizens by going through a process or or showing intent to be a citizen. This is the case of most Jews living outside Israel, who are able to obtain an oleh visa and then become Israeli citizens on taking up residence using that visa; as people who are not yet considered citizens under Israeli law, their situation is very different than, for example, that of people who are automatically US citizens at birth by virtue of birth to one or two US citizen parents who had resided long enough in the US for the jus sanguinis provisions of US law to apply.
Holding a passport of a given country is evidence that one holds a given nationality, but it is not a condition or inherent characteristic of having the relevant nationality. Most US citizens have never held passports.
Assuming that Obama’s parents’ marriage was valid and recognised under British law of the time, Obama was automatically a citizen of the UK and Colonies by virtue of section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948. In cases such as his, where the father was a citizen of the UK and Colonies otherwise than by descent, the grant of citizenship by descent was not conditioned upon consular registration. Obama’s acquisition of Kenyan citizenship in 1963 occurred automatically by virtue of the operation of Kenyan law. However, the acquisition of British and Kenyan nationality was completely irrelevant in practice because neither Obama nor his parents ever did anything about his British or Kenyan nationality. (Both of his non-US nationalities were lost in 1963 and 1983, respectively, by operation of British and Kenyan law.)
The acquisition of either nationality could have become relevant had Obama visited either country whilst a national, as he could have found himself subject to to the obligations of citizenship of either country. Had he been arrested in the UK or Kenya whilst a citizen of either country, he could have found the police in either country refusing to allow the nearest US consulate to intervene on his behalf. Such situations happen to various people who do not know of their second nationality or wish to have it. In Obama’s case, however, it appears that he only visited the UK and Kenya after he had lost his citizenship of each.
Grades don’t have anything to do with security risks. Hidden paramour? That would depend on who it is. Medical information? Serious heart condition would be important, but how would that be found out by legal means? So opposition researchers break the law to find that out? I read today information about one of the White House Fellows, that if true, would be disturbing. I have no way to verify the information. If I knew for sure that the Fellow had been cleared, I wouldn’t take much stock in the allegations. What you are relying upon for security is that someone will break laws to report. I don’t mean trashy stuff, like the John Edwards’ affair. That kind of National Enquirer stuff is discoverable by legally intruding into someone’s life. Why don’t we just assign the National Enquirer and opposition researchers to conduct security clearances then for government officials who are required to be cleared?
Are all of them privy to all of the information that the President is? I did read that certain committee staffers need clearances.
Okay, we’re back to Obama again and you just can’t accept that he was nominated crapola. It’s too late for that discussion about clearances for him. That seemed rather obvious to me.
Staffers generally have to get a security clearance, even though their bosses do not.
There are different levels of security and I suspect the President gets more information then any indivdual senator. Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee might receive information specific to the duties of that committee but not others.
Does the President have the highest level of security? Is it possible that career security analyst (CIA, NSA) view the Presidence as a temporary position? Are there secrets that are too secret for even the President to know?
Charo,
A Congressional staffer SHOULD need a security clearance before being trusted with sensitive material while members of Congress MUST NOT be denied the information they are entitled to by law (ask yourself who has the right to deny them that information). Why is this? Because members of Congress (and the President) have already been vetted by an agency superior to those which grant security clearance – the people of the US (while staffers have not). I think that requiring candidates (for any elective office whatsoever) to undergo security screenings is chilling to our Liberty – I’d be tempted to vote for any candidate who refused to cooperate or failed such a test and I would actively support any candidate who called such a policy shameful, authoritarian, and unAmerican – because they would be right. The policy you suggest would have been abhorrent to the founders (my opinion based on that thing they wrote once… you know – the Constitution).
If you were personally in a role where you had the responsibility of granting or denying security clearance to the President, you would not be posting here.
Since you have no such responsibility, I suggest you say nothing else about the matter at all.
So if the National Enquirer doesn’t find it out and the opposing party doesn’t find it out, no information exists. They are so good that they need to do the clearances for the staffers.
Can we agree that unless both the President and VP die in office the PEOPLE vote for every President who serves? Every president has to face the scrutiny of the PEOPLE!
As for the Enquirer versus the FBI, tote up the millions (billions) that media spends scrutinizing our candidates. Then add in the millions our candidates spend vetting each other. The FBI could NEVER vet a candidate as well as our political process. Unless we give up on crime fighting and terrorism – just vetting the candidates!
And you’re not very imaginative if you think laws had to be broken tonfond out Cheney ha a heart problem. The media ran story after story speculatin about his health until he released his medical records.
But I do as a voter, according to the above reasoning. I have that responsibility, with no power. I have to read the National Enquirer and consult with the both parties’ opposition teams to make sure all bases are covered.
Start asking people if presidents are vetted by the FBI/CIA. See how many people believe that already occurs. Lupin believes that but I think he/she believes it is clandestine vetting.
Those are exactly the sort of questions that lead from Charo’s suggested policies to contradictions and absurdities… shame on you! 😉
Charo,
I accept that you are arguing this issue in the abstract (rather than in regard to President Obama), but I still think your position is horribly wrongheaded (for the reasons I have stated) and if the policies you are advocating were ever implemented I would consider it an extremely bad sign for our Republic – I don’t want you to think I am attacking you personally, I’m just attacking your ideas passionately. You are clearly right that there is something to discuss here – thanks for raising the debate. 😉
I wasn’t sure if you were talking about Cheney or just using him as an example. The vetting done by opposition candidates does not have to stop if clearances are done. It sound slike you believe that they would find the dame information with opposition candidates in a position to know even more than a federal agency.
same information… sounds like
The information exists (in the abstract) no matter what – there are empirically true facts even if we don’t know them. The founders envisioned candidates being vetted through the adversarial campaign process. This process has worked extremely well for over 200 years and you can’t cite an example where it has failed, yet you seem to want to augment it via an authoritarian certification by an unspecified agency. Why? I contend that you’re trying to trade Liberty for false security in exactly the way Benjamin Franklin warned of – is that really what you want?
Oh NOES! You have to be an informed voter!
Instead, you rather have the government do the work for you!
The benefit to my method, besides it being the one explicitly described by the founders in the Federalist Papers, is that you and I can disagree on what we find important. You distrust people with dual citizenships? Well, I think DUMB is a security threat. What if I’m in charge of the security clearances and I give them to dual citizens but withhold them from
The stupid?
If informed voters vet their own damn candidates we can have 139 million different standards. Add em all up and you’ve got democracy!
You’re forgetting about Ford & Rocky. Maybe it was before your time.
Thanks. Clearly, I hold no sway anywhere. 🙂 The policy I am advocating is vetting, which you believe is already done by the American people, who are just so knowledgeable all the time. Have you seen man on street interviews?
I agree completely! I do not, however, like apple pie…
This is additional vetting that the public can accept or not. The kind of vetting I am talking about has nothing to do with mistresses or Down Syndrome babies. Leave that to the opposition and Enquirer.
The only ones whose liberty could be affected (they could refuse under the charo policy) are the ones who win the parties’ nomination and their VP’s. I don’t find that so egregious.
I think you ideas hold no sway here because they are wrong and dangerous. Individually people are uninformed – collectively that is not true (although the misinformation of a large segment of the population is a serious problem). You are suggesting that we hand an unelected, unspecified agency the power to effect elections in the US – are you serious? How can you fail to see what a bad idea that is? What happens when one of the shadowy people that you propose blindly handing power to uses it in a partisan manner? Why not stick to a process that is known to work? (because it depends on people acting in their own partisan self-interests rather than in accordance with some undefined and unenforced democratic ideal) You may choose to naively give your freedom away, but I don’t.
Yes, I’ve seen them. If most people didn’t know better, these interviews wouldn’t be funny, and you wouldn’t see them on TV. The producers select only the really dumb answers.
There are plenty of dumb Americans (see “birthers”), but there are plenty of others who are not.
When one person loses their Liberty, we all do – that’s sort of the point. Rights and Freedoms are meaningless if they fail to protect the minority from the majority.
People are already vetted: staffers. You are acting as if this process has never before occurred.
It was a joke.
The first step on a slippery slope never seems egregious – I’m sure the path you want to take is paved with good intentions as well…
Staffers must be vetted via security clearance or other means because they are not vetted by the superior method of an adversarial electoral process. You’re trying to break a part of our government that currently works well – why don’t you take aim at one of the parts of our government that is broken instead? (like the SCOTUS re Citizens United…)
Slart,
I remember discussing with at least one person on this blog that President Obama was not vetted (my source was questioned) by the FBI. I use Obama in this instance for the sake of discussion. No one took my side that he was not vetted. This was last year sometime when I was still fairly new here.
For the sake of argument, there is no evidence that the vetting process of President Obama failed in any way (there WAS a vetting process even if you think it wasn’t rigorous enough). Can you name anything that we should have known about any of our previous presidents (excluding President Obama) before they were elected that would have been revealed by a security clearance investigation? Would it have affected their election? If you can’t come up with a substantive answer to the first question and a yes in answer to the second question, then why should we even consider your idea?
By the way – this argument just addresses why your idea is bad from a practical point of view. Even if you can answer these questions affirmatively it will remain a bad idea from a philosophical point of view…
The convenient birther lie is that in the 1960’s Hawaii was a birth certificate mill fraught with vital records fraud. My reply is “name one.” Hawaii is not exactly a “border state.”
I doubt anything damaging would ever be revealed now, but your question assumes that the clearances WILL show problems. Government officials who will be exposed to sensitive information are vetted for a reason. The clearances of a presidential candidate and VP may never show that any candidate is a security risk. The purpose of a security clearance isn’t to be fruitful. I really have to go for now. I have three kids who will take advantage of my inattention here.
I need to go and do work now as well, but I will just note that there are reasons for elected officials to have a different (and I believe – and I think the Founders would agree – superior) vetting process. Also, you are advocating giving an unspecified person or agency a large amount of power with no checks or balances – why is that other than a terrible idea?
Good night.
The question is not the qualification for citizenship, but what is the documentation required to prove citizenship for a passport.
There were a couple of midwives in south Texas that fraudulently issued a large number of registrations. It is legitimate to require the documentation as to who the midwife was so as to exclude these fraudulent documents.
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend, firstly, why anyone would assume that those who go to work for us in DC would not be vetted by the proper authorities and, secondly, why anyone would think that the results of that process would be released to the general public, especially after 9/11. Reports done by FBI and the CIA, as well as other federal agencies, are CLASSIFIED and are not for public consumption. It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong in the report, it’s just how these agencies conduct and have conducted themselves since their inception. If any one of these agencies finds anything wrong, they just don’t overlook it either; by nothing coming to our attention, it’s just a proper inference that these reports turned up nothing significant in someone’s background.
More correctly, “no published documents.”
The COLB is not a certified photocopy but it a certified copy of selected (abstracted) information from the original. In the vital statistics business, the COLB is called a “certified copy.”
This is even more obvious now that over 95% of births are electronically submitted by hospital. There aren’t any more long forms to copy, but the data is copied, printed and certified.
And let us take a moment to remember exactly who was President of the United States on December of 2008 when that story was written.
While you might reasonably be displeased with the policies of previous administrations, Barack Obama is not Mexican-American, nor someone born in Texas or California.
If Americans felt Obama’s birth certificate was inadequate, they didn’t have to vote for him.
I am not aware of anyone producing an argument that showed that any federal agency did a “background investigation” of presidential candidates. Without such an argument, we cannot assume that such an investigation took place. And even if this did happen, I cannot imagine them looking for the long-form birth certificates and kindergarten records that the birthers demand.
Well I never thought it occurred officially–the FBI getting involved in such a thing seems decidedly un-American. Unofficially, who knows?
There are the stories, of course, of J. Edgar’s files on JFK. Why he wasn’t fired I’ll never know
As an officer in the army I held a fairly substantial security clearance. In order to obtain it I was subjected to intense scrutiny by government agencies responsible for foreign and domestic security. I have no doubt that no POTUS in history hat to go through as rigorous scrutiny as I.
Double standard? Not at all.
You see my security clearance was afforded to me by the will of the army. As such I was subject to the rules surrounding security clearances as required by the army, and by other agencies responsible.
I suspect the same is true for the Fellows, of which you speak.
The POTUS, on the other hand, is seated by the will of the people, not the army, or the FBI etc. The agencies responsible for security are responsible to the people, as represented by the POTUS. The security clearance afforded to the POTUS comes with the job, and is not subject to scrutiny. In short, the POTUS gets a security clearance only as an administrative convenience. IN reality, his actual security clearance is “POTUS”, which, while it isn’t listed in the clearances rankings, is the highest there is, for all intents and purposes
[bada-bing]
Thank you.
Just like Keyes.
That post was intended to be addressed to Charo specifically.
Doc, if you would be so kind to make the alteration?
My accountant told me that president and VP candidates and their spouses, are given the highest level IRS audit, of their past five years. It starts with a birth certificate and SS card. He said, “it’s very uncomfortable.”
They are subjected to intrusive background checks.
Would you please learn when to use an apostrophe? Thank you.
Leo: if you read this, please stick to poker. In poker, you can only hurt yourself.
And Hoover despised Bobby Kennedy. Imagine if it had been up to Hoover’s FBI to decide if Bobby Kennedy should have been given a security clearance.
He. Yes I can’t imagine a scenario where a major candidate (Rep, Dem) is not investigated by your CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, whatever. The notion of a “Manchurian Candidate” being able to be put forward by either of the two major parties strike me as wildly unrealistic.
Keep in mind that there are some (I do not include myself) who believe your CIA was somehow involved with the Kennedy assassination.
@ Jules. I don’t think we disagree though I will confess to using a short cut.
If Joe Blow, a US citizen, is entitled to French citizenship, but does not apply for it (which will result in him getting a French passport), while France may count him as one of his citizens, that citizenship would only be enforceable upon him if he visited France.
So while you are correct that technically he is already (against his will, as it were) a dual citizen, the other citizenship has no effect and indeed would not be recognized in the US, which is why I made a difference between “actual” dual citizens and those whom I said have the potential of being dual citizens” even though as you pointed out they may in fact be dual citizens, but only as far as the other country is concerned.
Unofficially- okay. As long as we don’t have to know about it. It is the knowing about it that makes it un-American.
As to the issue of whether someone’s dual citizenship will be “recognised” by the US, I do have to point out that US does not say who is and is not a French citizen. The US does say who its own citizens are and will say that the status of someone under French law does not change the rights and responsibilities of someone as a US citizen. The only situation where the fact of whether someone is French comes into play in the US is where the person is an alien and the person’s exact nationality is relevant to the question of permission to enter or remain in the US; the word of the French government made in the form a valid French passport is conclusive in that instance.
Automatically acquiring rights that then have to be documented to be exercised in practice is, I admit, a subtle and usually practically unimportant distinction between having a status allowing you to acqire rights on completing some paperwork.
This is, of course, the distinction between a non-British woman who married a British man until 1948 and a British woman who married a British man between 1949 and 1983.
The women marrying a British man before 1949 was automatically British from the moment she said “I do” at her wedding, regardless of whether she wanted to be British or knew that she was becoming British by virtue of her marriage. Any passport application would simply document a fact that was already the case.
From 1949 to 1983, a woman marrying a British man would not become British at the moment of her marriage. The marriage would give her the right to become British if she chose to apply for registration as a British national. Her acquisition of British nationality only took affect upon her registration.
In UK immigration law, there is more practical effect in the distinction between automatically acquiring a right of residence and being eligible to be granted such a right. Whereas the latter is usually the rule for immigration applications submitted under UK immigration law, those submitted to the UK authorities under EEA law often apply for residence cards that confirm a right of initial or permanent residence that has already been gained under the free movement directive. Automatically gaining a right of residence can be relevant where one’s status at a given time was not accompanied by documentation from the Home Office and one wants to show, for example, that he or she was not in the UK illegally or had permanent residence long enough to be eligible for naturalisation.
The procedure for vetting those applying for a security clearance in the US takes account of the distinction between automatically being granted foreign citizenship and choosing to become a foreign citizen. It also takes account of whether one takes advantage of the foreign citizenship or demonstrates particular concern to the responsibilities of that citizenship. The “exercise” of dual nationality rather than the existence of dual nationality can be an issue. Additionally, choices that demonstrate loyalty or preference for a foreign country can be an issue for security clearance purposes even if one is not a dual national.
Renunciation of dual nationality where it exists is not a strict requirement of obtaining a security clearance in the US. (It can, however, be used to mitigate any concerns that arise.) One reason for this is that not all countries allow renunciation of nationality or make it at a practical option.
Even if Obama had been applying for a security clearance whilst a Kenyan citizen, he would have been very unlikely to have any problems whatsoever because:
1. his acquisition of Kenyan nationality was not by his choice (or even the choice or either parent);
2. he never took advantage of any of the rights, benefits, or privileges of his Kenyan citizenship; and
3. he never joined the Kenyan military or did anything else that would demonstrate a sense of loyalty or obligation to Kenya.
In any event, modern US law, policy, and procedure on security clearances is not instructive about Presidential eligibility. Whereas Congress and the executive branch can adopt employment policies that impose new suitability requirements for federal employees, the eligibility criteria for the Presidency is set forth in the constitution rather than standard employment policies. There are many factors that go into eligibility for federal employment and a security clearance, such as whether one has a criminal record, that are not part of the criteria for Presidential eligibility. The main reason not to have a constitutional or legal impediment based on these factors is that voters can take them into account and decide whether they should render a candidate unworthy of being elected.
The inconsistency between Presidential eligibility and eligibility for a security clearance is not unique to the US. MI6 has strict limitations as to which individuals can apply, which include rules rules as to length of residence in the UK and whether one’s parents have substantial links to the UK. Not only do these requirements not apply to the Prime Minister, but it is also possible for an Irish or Commonwealth citizen who is not a British citizen but lawfully resident in the UK to be elected to Parliament and become Prime Minister.
Huh? The birthers and the Tea Party keep saying, follow the Constitution, yet, now you are saying, do not follow it the world has changed. Which way is it? (I am not necessarily placing you in the 2 groups I mentioned, but since you are arguing part of their side, I used it for comparison).
So to follow up on Greg:
From The Federalist No. 68:
If you read the essay, you will note that the founders specifically did not want the determination of who is qualified to be done by one person or pre-existing group at one place (minus the tie-breaker if necessary). Only by splitting the process across the several states could they ensure the independence of the selection.
Of course, the key for the whole process and the Constitution was the founders’ faith in the people to make the correct choice. Unlike the absolute monarchies and other dynastic states of Europe, this was the newer, radical approach. Yet, even after 200 years of proof this faith in the people to make the selection was well placed, some are afraid to take the harder, but more rewarding path to preserve our liberty.
Thank you for the amazing précis.
Uh, hate to tell you this, but it was well known that Dick Cheney’s heart was a mess before W put him forth as a vice presidential candidate. That alone was reason enough for me not to vote for W, given that approximately one quarter of American presidents have died in office; it is irresponsible at best to select as one’s backup someone with a known history of serious health problems, and plain stupid at worst.
I stated on another response that I wasn’t sure if the heart example was specific to Cheney or to any candidate having a heart condition. I agree that health is an important consideration for both the presidential and VP candidate.
You’re probably correct, because the government gives intelligence briefing to the major candidates during the campaign, I can’t imagine that they would do this without some kind of security check.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=38&f=00&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//lostintransition.nationaljournal.com/2008/11/letter-national-intelligence-s.php
However, that is quite different from requiring a candidate to obtain a security clearance. Such a requirement clearly would be unconstitutional.
Not all congresscritters have the same access to classified info. And the ones who are briefed can’t even talk about their briefings. Maybe committee chairs get looked at more. Which makes one wonder why members do some of the crazy things they do if they know it’s going to go into a file somewhere.
Crock of crap. I’m from Hawaii and I used an even less than information filled version of my COLB to get a passport
http://img192.imageshack.us/i/hawaiicolbbirthregistra.jpg/
I got my passport in 97 when I went to Japan. I renewed in 2007 and never once did the Passport Agency question my Birth Registration card.
You are, talking out of your rear orifice
Agreed. But we still have to distinguish between what we would like to know, even what we consider extremely important to know, and what we are entitled to know.
The Constitution does not require candidates for President and Vice-President to open up their medical records or make their income tax returns public. They do those things because the electoral process has gradually made it such that there is an expectation that those things will be made public. It’s not absolute, though. McCain opened up only a portion of his medical records and he only made them available to certain reporters for a limited period of time.
Birthers want to see Obama’s school records. Well, I wanted to see McCain’s Navy fitness reports. I have always wondered why, as a decorated war hero and the son of two admirals, McCain was never given a sea command in the years after he returned to full active duty. Were the top brass concerned that McCain didn’t have the temperament to command a ship? We don’t know, because McCain never released his service record. And if he had won the election, he still wouldn’t have to release it. I could yell and scream about it all I want, but I am never going to get to see that service record.
That’s how it goes. If you don’t believe that a candidate has been sufficiently forthcoming, vote for someone else. If you don’t believe that a candidate has been adequately vetted, vote for someone else.
Sarah Palin may have received an intelligence briefing, but it didn’t stick.
I agreed that it was an important consideration, but not that I demand the information. If it is not discoverable through the kind of security clearance that a staffer would have to go through, then it will not be known, unless someone discloses it. This is all theoretical.. You do realize that I hope. Of course I’ll vote for whom I want; I always do.
(Also, I wanted to say that my son just learned to serve the traditional Latin Mass; he says “Suscipiat” like the priest, just as you did.)
I had a Top Secret clearance when I was in the Navy. I have no idea what information they turned up about me. All I knew is that I was granted the clearance. Some of the people I worked with heard from neighbors that they had been questioned, but for the most part the entire process is shrouded in secrecy.
(Also, I wanted to say that my son just learned to serve the traditional Latin Mass; he says “Suscipiat” like the priest, just as you did.)
Good for him. It’s not easy to learn. When he becomes confident that he has it down pat, he should strive to speak as loudly as the priest. The priest will like that. Altar boys who weren’t real confident had a tendency to mumble their responses, so the priests appreciated the ones who enunciated clearly.
Big deal. I can ask the Four Questions in Hebrew.
I would expect the process itself to be shrouded in secrecy, but the results were not. If you ran for president, you could make that one of the bullet points about yourself: I have security clearance! 🙂
My son does have to speak up more. I have been teaching him Latin for a few years now (learning as I go along) but pronunciation is not addressed. Being an 11 year old boy, he doesn’t put the time into it that I would like, but he has a good start for his age. Okay, no more mom stuff.
“Rickey: I had a Top Secret clearance when I was in the Navy. I have no idea what information they turned up about me. All I knew is that I was granted the clearance. Some of the people I worked with heard from neighbors that they had been questioned, but for the most part the entire process is shrouded in secrecy. ”
There is no need to wonder about this.
Rickey, make a request for your security clearance file under the federal Privacy Act. It will be released to you (but not to anyone else while you are alive). The forms and reports of investigation will be redacted, that is, the names of the sources and some other information may be blacked out. It is often possible to infer their names from the context. For example, many interviews are with persons listed as character references or employers.
I think you will find that an investigator reviewed official birth records to verify date and place of birth.
If there had been a security background investigation for Obama (I do not think there was one), then the investigator would have verified from the available records that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, according to the index data available to all.
Get back to us on this.
Lil Red, you introduced an irrelevancy above when you said that some birth documents have been rejected for passports for lack of adequate information. So what?
That would be relevant only if the COLB of the type Obama’s campaign posted was so rejected. But his COLB contains slightly more info than the Texas birth certificate my son presented to obtain a passport — and all items of information on my son’s Texas BC were on Obama’s COLB, though not vice versa. My son is headed to Paris next month.
I never thought of that. I’ll give it a try and see what happens. I hope I don’t have to wait as long as Doc!
I used a Certification of Birth issued by NYC to obtain my first US passport. I have misplaced the particular document that I used, but the replacement that I have since ordered is in much the same format and has the same information and can be seen here (with personal details and the document number redacted): http://www.flickr.com/photos/8504333@N02/5217197097/
As you can see, NYC Certifications of Birth have slightly less information than Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. However, the State Department considers them perfectly acceptable proof of US citizenship.
I laugh at the whole strawman: The COLB (being nothing but a JPEG on the internet and not a genuine document) would not be sufficient to obtain a drivers license or a passport. Of course, the JPEG is not the issue, but more importantly, there is no evidence that President Obama was ever denied either a drivers license or a passport, so the whole argument is irrelevant.