Main Menu

Birther provision approved by Arizona House

After a 31-22 vote, the Arizona House of Representatives voted for a provision that would require candidates for President to show documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president to get on the ballot in Arizona. This according to a report from the Phoenix, AZ, Fox News affiliate. A final vote is still to be taken before the chamber formally passes it.

Laughing stock or bellweather?

Certainly the Democrats are clear on their position voiced by Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema who says the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.” I’ve heard nothing from John “JD Hayworth is the birther not me” McCain, who is trying to hold onto his Senate seat. Will other states follow suit if this becomes law on Arizona? I wouldn’t doubt some other “red states” may follow. After all, who want so appear soft on Communism, oops I mean Obama?

185 Responses to Birther provision approved by Arizona House

  1. avatar
    Tomtech April 20, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    The Arizona House has only 60 members an Think Progress is reporting the vote was 31-22. Arizona legislature demands immigrants and President of the United States verify their status.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 20, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    Thanks, I misread the result. Fixed now.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 20, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    I tried to leave a comment on that Fox station’s page, but it kept failing. This is what I wanted to say:

    While anyone who still believes that Barack Obama hasn’t published his birth certificate already or that he’s somehow not eligible to be president has been spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON THE INTERNET, it still seems a good idea generally to check eligibility of candidates. Some ineligible minor party candidates have gotten on the ballot on the past.

    What seems to me to be a sticky issue is defining presidential eligibility. The phrase “natural born citizen” isn’t defined explicitly in the Constitution. Any legal scholar (or high school student who stayed awake in Civics) will tell you that any citizen of the US born in the US is a natural born citizen; however, there is some reasonable dispute about those born US citizens outside the United States (like John McCain who born in the Panama Canal Zone).

    Is Arizona going to define the qualifications of the US President? It hardly seems proper for a state to do that. So what happens in 2012? That’s right, a lawsuit.

  4. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 21, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    That’s the irony of the Arizona law. Had it been on the books in 2008… John McCain could have run into problems in his home state.

    Obama, of course, would have simply provided Arizona with the same piece of paper he kindly allowed Factcheck.org to inspect and photograph. (Not that it would have mattered anyway, since Obama never really had a chance of carrying Arizona.)

  5. avatar
    Dick Whitman II April 21, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    Quoting your linked article …

    “Republican Rep. Judy Burges amendment to Senate Bill 1024 today would require the Arizona secretary of state to verify a presidential candidate’s birth certificate before the candidate’s name is allowed on a ballot in Arizona. A presidential candidate already is required to prove that he or she is a naturally born citizen before they can run for that office.

    Apparently, BHO II has already proven he’s a “naturally born citizen.”

    Case closed!

  6. avatar
    Dick Whitman II April 21, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    Also, McCain was on the AZ ballot as a Presidential candidate in 2008. So, he has proven he is a “naturally born citizen.”

    Consequently, we can conclude a person born anywhere on the planet Earth with at least one US citizen parent is a “naturally born citizen.”

    Now, the case is closed!

  7. avatar
    Kathryn N April 21, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    I hope they pass it because it will be so much fun to watch the birthers’ heads explode in 2012 when President Obama simply provides a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate to the Arizona Secretary of State. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, they will have to accept it. All those Constution-loving birthers will be foiled by the actual Constitution.

  8. avatar
    Scott Brown April 21, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    I hope they pass it too – because I want to see the Obots squirm when Obama has to provide his BC and some of the info doesn’t match what was provided at FactCheck. I’m not suggesting he wasn’t born in Hawaii or that he isn’t eligible – I’m suggesting there is ‘something’ (probably of little importance being concealed) – we just want to know what it is.

    Also, I’m thinking that a BC that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and not ACCEPTED by the registrar won’t be acceptable. Hopefully, someone will want to see the BC that has actually been RECORDED.

    Now that everyone’s eye are open on the matter, I think rather than there just being a provision to require proof, someone will actually be checking that ‘proof’.

  9. avatar
    JoZeppy April 21, 2010 at 9:54 am #

    You really need to buy a clue. Could you cling to any more long since disproven birther mythes? Recieved vs. accepted is random language chosen by the state with little difference. Different states use different langauge at different times. My birth certificate (a long form NJ) says recieved. Just like every other one issued by the state that year.

    Obama hands the exact same document that Factcheck examined, Arizona puts him on the ballot. No footprint, no hospital name, no attendants, no doctors. Same document. Prima facia evidence. Full Faith and Credit Clause. He’s on the ballot.

  10. avatar
    Dave April 21, 2010 at 10:02 am #

    An aspect of this amendment that hasn’t been discussed is that is also requires candidates to document that they meet the residency requirement. I don’t have a clue what kind of documentation would prove this. We don’t document residency.
    And I wonder if the birthers have noticed that this bill has met with no serious Obot opposition. The worst you could say about it is it’s silly. But mostly harmless. I read a comment by an AZ House Rep who criticized it as wasting money, but I don’t even see that. It only calls on the Sec. of State to review the submitted docs and say ok. That can’t cost much.
    My bigger concern with this bill is it’s swindling the birthers. It will be not the slightest impediment to Obama. And when it doesn’t I have no doubt that the swindlers who backed it will point fingers at the Sec. of State. And will the birthers buy that? Probably.

  11. avatar
    Dave April 21, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    Just so you understand — this amendment does not authorize the Sec of State to do any investigation. It specifically says that the Sec of State reviews the submitted documentation. Period. If this is not what you were hoping for, you might want to contact the sponsors of this legislation.

  12. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    Liar liar pants on fire!

  13. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    It will go on the rubbish heap of bills making oral sex and flag burning illegal and all the other loonie-indulging bills crafted by demagogic legislators.

  14. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    I hope they pass it too – because I want to see the Obots squirm when Obama has to provide his BC and some of the info doesn’t match what was provided at FactCheck.

    Actually, if Obama is ever required to produce his birth certificate, he will produce the exact same one which was provided to FactCheck, and the State of Arizona is required by the Constitution to accept it. In fact, the more likely scenario would be for Obama to ask Hawaii DOH to send his COLB directly to Arizona. End of story. No squirming.

    Also, I’m thinking that a BC that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and not ACCEPTED by the registrar won’t be acceptable.

    Wrong again. This idea that there is a difference between a birth certificate being “received” and “accepted” is another birther fantasy. My birth certificate was “filed” many years ago, but neither copy that I have says anything about it being “accepted.”

    Besides, Obama’s COLB doesn’t just say “filed,” and it doesn’t say “received” at all. It says DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR AUGUST 8. 1961.

    You get that? It was filed by the REGISTRAR. Why would the Registrar file a document which wasn’t accepted by the Registrar? For that matter, why would Hawaii issue a COLB – which says right on it that it is “prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding” – if the registration of birth had never been accepted?

  15. avatar
    Dick Whitman II April 21, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    An aspect of this amendment that hasn’t been discussed is that is also requires candidates to document that they meet the residency requirement. I don’t have a clue what kind of documentation would prove this. We don’t document residency.

    Federal Income Tax Returns filed over the previous 14 years should do the trick. As long as those returns don’t include IRS Form 8854, then the residency requirement should be easy to establish.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    I think residency is ususally a matter of public knowledge.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    I’m fully confident that it will be the birthers who sqirm when the document matches exactly. That is inevitable!

  18. avatar
    sponson April 21, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Idaho Congressional candidate running on birther platform. Quoting from him, when he gets to DC he will “scream like a F-4 Jet fighter at full war emergency after burner take off power and demand he produce his birth certificate.”

  19. avatar
    Dave April 21, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    I don’t get this comment. The amendment requires candidates to file documentation proving residency. What do they file?

  20. avatar
    richcares April 21, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    scott brown the liar, insists on proving his ignorance. what a shame, but hating Obama does cause brain damage!

  21. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    Not to mention the fact that the residency requirement is ambiguous.

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

    Does that mean fourteen consecutive years? Does it mean the past fourteen years? On does it just mean fourteen years out of the minimum of thirty-five years a candidate has been alive? And what are the legal requirements for residency status? If you spend six months a year at your condo in Cancun and six months in the U.S., have you been a resident of the U.S. for the entire year or does it only count as half a year?

    It’s worth noting that Douglas MacArthur was thought to be a viable candidate to run for president as a Republican in 1952, notwithstanding the fact that he had not set foot in a state even once between 1937 and 1951. Was he a resident “within the United States” during those years?

  22. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Why should we believe anything “Scott Brown” has to say? She has already proved to the people of this blog to be a purveyor of misinformation….caught up in a web of deceit….So whatever ridiculous nonsense she states is inherently suspect as best. Especially on top of her “story”, she repeats the same debunked birther nonsense pretending that somehow it is factual. She wants to know what is “being concealed” by the President the same way she is concealing the information that will prove her story to be absolute nonsense….

    Either way the so called Arizona bill, if it is ever passed into law will face numerous legal challenges. It may not even be in effect for the 2012 election. The birthers keep allowing their hatred of the President to make them look stupid. The COLB, which was issued by the state of HI is valid. Dr. Fukino has stated that the President was born in HI. If somehow miraclously the bill is in effect, all that will be submitted is the same COLB everyone saw in 2008. No long form or other documents will be released. Whoever thinks so is having a birther wet dream….

  23. avatar
    Benji Franklin April 21, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Dear Dave,

    That’s been the unstated point from the very beginning of this controversy – until a minimal birth-circumstantial check-list of requirements for the “Natural Born Citizen” component of Presidential eligibility is established LEGALLY by a controlling legal authority (ultimately SCOTUS interpreting NBC as used in Article Two, ) that status is claimable by a candidate on any customary basis, including just being born in the country without regard for the parent’s citizenship at the time. I repeat, why else would we have the circumstance prior to now, that no state has listed the MINIMAL requirements to produce a NBC child? Easy answer- no state could put the check-list down on paper, because doing so is amending the Constitution by making the language more exclusively restrictive than the Framers bothered to do.

    Relax; no officer or legislative body of any state will be allowed to interpret Article Two Eligibility, to exclude a candidate for this national office.

    Benji Franklin

  24. avatar
    Dave April 21, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    What legal challenges do you anticipate? To me, this amendment looks like an innocuous nothing. Have you read it? The text is here:

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.doc.htm

    I don’t see anything to challenge there.

  25. avatar
    nBC April 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    You can already find his COLB online. As to the received and accepted difference. I explained how the more recent COLB’s meniotn date filed because that’s when the count ends for late filings.

    Fool.. Unwilling to listen and let the truth set you free, you have chosen a path of enslavement…

  26. avatar
    BatGuano April 21, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    I hope they pass it too –…..

    scott, please, let us know what state you were born in.

    i’m trying to be as sincere, honest and polite in this request as is possible on an internet forum. you made ( and repeatedly defended ) a claim that a COLB from your state was not proof of eligibility for a US passport. all evidence points to the opposite. so……. what state ?

  27. avatar
    BatGuano April 21, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    . so……. what state ?

    mine is CA. born 1967. my 3year old daughter is also CA.

  28. avatar
    G April 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    Gee “Scott Brown”

    -Still no answer on what state you were born in? …You keep coming back here, but have completely avoided answering this simple question for days now.

    Why is that, eh? What are you afraid of? Is it because you made the whole story up?

    As everyone has pointed out, Obama would just provide the exact same document you can find on Fact Check and that would be the end of it.

    You are nothing but a lying birther fool.

  29. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm #

    BG, she won’t answer you. Because if she does she will be exposed for lying earlier when she made that ridiculous statement regarding her COLB looking like Obama’s but it not being suffcient for her to get a passport….She is hoping that people will forget that she did say that and won’t call her on that statement…

  30. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    The birther and Post and Fail spin on this issue….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/20/arizona-house-of-representatives-approves-measure-requiring-proof-of-natural-born-status/#comments

    “The AP news report posted by Fox News tacitly acknowledged the Obama eligibility issue by stating in the first paragraph that he would have to produce proof of eligibility “when he runs for re-election.”

    Today when Lester Kinsolving of WorldNetDaily asked Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, if Obama had seen the Arizona proposal, Gibbs answered, “Lester, I’m the guy – I’m the guy that said, put the president’s birth certificate on the Internet two years ago.” Last August Gibbs had referred to “all preponderance of the evidence, that the president was born … uhm … in … uhh, uhh … was born here and not somewhere else” when questioned by the same reporter about Obama’s origins.

    Obama’s posted “birth certificate” has been labeled a forgery by at least two document experts. Recently The Post & Email has reported that a member of the Kenyan Parliament, Mr. James Orengo, stated that Obama was not a “native American” because he was born in Kenya.”

    The question which comes from this so called “report” is what 2 documents experts called the COLB a forgery. Secondly just because someone says something it doesn’t make it true. They always bring up this Orengo individual, but never explain how he would have knowledge of such event or demand to see the proof that supports his statement regarding Obama like they have regarding poor Dr. Fukino. In the birther world if you say something negative about the President, we believe you, no evidence required. If you suppor the President, you must produce evidence, and even when you do it is assumed to be a forgery. Amazing….

  31. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    And of course the commenters show their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the law…

    SapphireSunday says:
    Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM
    So in March, 2010, Gibbs said:
    “Lester, I’m the guy – I’m the guy that said, put the president’s birth certificate on the Internet two years ago,” Gibbs joked. (More about this in my next comment.)

    In August, 2009, Gibbs said this:
    “A year-and-a-half ago I asked that the birth certificate be put on the Internet because lord knows, you got a birth certificate and you put it on the Internet, what else could be the story?”
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106804

    Sounds like a prepared speech, huh? Aren’t we supposed to believe that they pay no attention to those crazy “birthers” and their nutty ideas?

    Here’s what seems like a “tell”, if you read between the lines of what Gibbs said less than a month ago:

    “For the crazy idea that … for the crazy idea that somebody might actually look at the birth certificate under the rubric of transparency and come to the conclusion that the state of Hawaii came [to], that the president was indeed born in the state of – say it with me, Lester – Hawaii,” Gibbs joked.

    Why is he always “joking” about this issue, one has to wonder?

    Notice what he said, though: “the conclusion that the state of Hawaii came to,” which was that the “president was INDEED born in the state.”

    Is that how a normal person would describe someone’s birth certificate, issued because a hospital reported the birth at their facility?

    So, for some reason known to Gibbs, in Obama’s case, Hawaii had to COME TO A CONCLUSION about whether or not Obama was born there; and they (according to Gibbs) came to the conclusion that, yes, he was “INDEED” born in Hawaii.

    Tell me. If he really does have a normal, hospital-generated birth certificate, like every other natural born citizen in the great state of Hawaii, then why would the state have to make a determination about whether or not he was “indeed” born there?

    If the hospital notified the DoH of the birth, and that generated the birth announcements, then why would the state have to draw a “conclusion” about whether he was “INDEED” born in Hawaii? Wouldn’t the doctor’s signature and the hospital’s imprimatur be sufficient?

    In Obama’s case, the hospital was allegedly Kapiolani, but they’re not stepping forward to collect the $15,000 that Farah said he’d donate to them if they proved he was born there. Why not? Seems like easy money. Think of all the good they could do with 15 grand.

  32. avatar
    Bob Ross April 21, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    Again fake scott brown. You again claim you’re not a birther yet continue to use birther phrases like “Obots” and birther discredited information to try to say Obama isn’t elligible to be president. Give it up already you’re a birther.

  33. avatar
    Bob Ross April 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Eisenhower also wasn’t in the US for 14 consecutive years before his presidency. He became President a year after being Supreme Allied Commander in Europe of NATO. From 1922 to 1924 he was in Panama. Throughout his military career he was in and out of the US. In 43 he was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and was stationed in the UK

  34. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 21, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    Not to mention the fact that the residency requirement is ambiguous.No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Does that mean fourteen consecutive years? Does it mean the past fourteen years? On does it just mean fourteen years out of the minimum of thirty-five years a candidate has been alive? And what are the legal requirements for residency status? If you spend six months a year at your condo in Cancun and six months in the U.S., have you been a resident of the U.S. for the entire year or does it only count as half a year? It’s worth noting that Douglas MacArthur was thought to be a viable candidate to run for president as a Republican in 1952, notwithstanding the fact that he had not set foot in a state even once between 1937 and 1951. Was he a resident “within the United States” during those years?

    But Eisenhower too did not fulfill the residency requirement if interpreted as “the past fourteen years. Herbert Hoover too did not. It is interesting to note what evidence those who argued he was not eligible provided: the London telephone directory! Nowadays of course, technology exists which actually records when you use your telephone, use electricity and even watch TV. Though counter-technology can be used to prove you are at home while you are not. (±ichel Nihoul)

  35. avatar
    BatGuano April 21, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    BG, she won’t answer you.

    sad. i’ve done some dumb ( or as my scottish dad would say ” daft ” ) things in my day but….. always best to fess up at the first chance.

    scott, if your story is true then give us the state. if you were just caught up in the passion of the moment, fess up.but….. if it was i lie and you avoid addressing it…… you deserve all the contempt that will be directed at you.

  36. avatar
    Black Lion April 21, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    From Mediamatters….

    Below is the promo for Hannity’s show…

    Hannity promo: Hawaii GOP candidate to expose “the truth” about “election turmoil” in “Obama’s hometown district” in HI

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004210050

    So does this mean that Obama was born in HI? I mean if we are taking the word of so called politicans, and this politican is from “Obama’s hometown district”, then that can only mean that Obama was born in HI? That is unless the rules are different for people that say things that are perceived to help Obama as opposed to those that say things that “hurt” him…Interesting…

  37. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    The fact that no one is certain what the meaning of the residency requirement is nor how to document said residency, not to mention the interminable discussions over the meaning of natural born citizen merely points out the silliness and antiquated nature of restricting the peoples’ right to freely choose their leaders. As far as I know, most (if not all) other countries open up their elective offices to ALL citizens and trust the voters to choose wisely. Are American voters really stupider than the voters of other countries (maybe you should just treat that as a rhetorical question)?

    If our legislators are going to make themselves useful in this area, they should amend the Constitution to open up all elective offices, including the Presidency, to any citizen. Time to start treating the American people like grownups. That might cause some of them to actually start acting that way.

  38. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Dave says:

    What legal challenges do you anticipate? To me, this amendment looks like an innocuous nothing.

    I believe that it could be challenged for being overly vague, since it fails to spell out what kind of “proof” would be acceptable. The statute doesn’t define “natural born citizen” and, as I pointed out in another note, the residency requirement is itself vague.

    The law requires the Secretary of State of Arizona to make legal conclusions about these issues. What if the Secretary of State decides to accept the “two-citizen parents” argument? Does that mean that candidates have to submit proof of the citizenship of their parents? What if the Secretary of State decides that the residency requirement means the last fourteen years, and a candidate was an ambassador or soldier abroad for several of those years?

    And of course a legal challenge would almost certainly ensue if the Secretary of State decided to refuse to place a candidate’s name on the ballot.

    On the other hand, Obama could argue that the Secretary of State is estopped from denying him a place on the ballot because Arizona already acknowledged his eligibility by placing his name on the 2008 ballot.

  39. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 21, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    The use of the phrase “that prove” is problematic. They should refer to “evidence”, not “proof” – because there is no indication as to standard of proof or what would constitute such proof.

    A better law would not only require “evidence” (not “proof”), but also set forth the procedures to be followed if the Secretary of State has reason to question the submission.

    The problem wouldn’t come up in the Obama setting — his COLB is clear evidence of place of birth, and it would be easy for him do document US residency going back for years, given his holding public office in Illinois.

    The problem would arise in a situation of an individual like McCain (born abroad to US Citizens), or Clinton or Ford (name changed after birth, so original birth records may be sealed, or may not reflect current name), or with documenting the 14-year residency requirement.

  40. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 21, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    That’s because Arizona law already requires that the candidate file an AFFIDAVIT as to citizenship. An Affidavit is a statement under penalty of perjury — so it would be a felony to file a false one — and as such the affidavit itself is evidence, in the form of a testimonial submission.

    The documentation, like a birth certificate, is stronger evidence than the mere affidavit — but is still only evidence.

    So all the law does is add on a slightly more onerous requirement, but it doesn’t change Arizona’s basic law requiring evidence (now in the form of an affidavit) of eligibility.

  41. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    The Chinese are spending their efforts on growing their economy 8-10%/year and making resource deals throughout the world, rather than wondering whether Hu Jintao has a long or a short form birth certificate.

    Given the mental age of all too many Americans, there is little doubt that the age of American leadership in the world is coming to a close.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Expelliarmus: So all the law does is add on a slightly more onerous requirement, but it doesn’t change Arizona’s basic law requiring evidence

    And I should point out that Arizona is not unique in requiring such an affidavit. South Carolina has a similar requirements (the affidavits for which were published on this blog last September).

  43. avatar
    G April 21, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    LMAO! Good catch and good point!

  44. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Arizona’s Secretary of State is dubious about the constitutionality of the statute:

    Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said creating state-level requirements for a federal office could violate the U.S. Constitution.

    “While everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens run for president, there are obvious issues with states implementing what could become a patchwork of different tests for a presidential candidate to prove his/her citizenship,” Bennett’s spokesman, Matthew Benson, wrote in an e-mail.

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/04/20/20100420birther0420.html

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Sensible fellow.

  46. avatar
    smrstrauss April 22, 2010 at 4:32 am #

    Two reasons. First, it is unlikely that the hospital still has records from 1961.

    Second, they don’t believe that Farah would pay.

  47. avatar
    Black Lion April 22, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    White House responds….

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/21/white-house-slams-latest-birther-move-2/?fbid=ykFGAxVHtX7

    “White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state’s ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.

    “This is a question that has been answered exhaustively,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories.”

    The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.

    When the issue first popped up during the 2008 presidential election, the Obama campaign released the then-senator’s birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. In December 2008, after Obama was elected, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man claiming Obama was ineligible to serve as president.”

  48. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    I hope they pass it too – because I want to see the Obots squirm when Obama has to provide his BC and some of the info doesn’t match what was provided at FactCheck. I’m not suggesting he wasn’t born in Hawaii or that he isn’t eligible – I’m suggesting there is ’something’ (probably of little importance being concealed) – we just want to know what it is.

    It appears that you are just fantasizing and have no clue, just a desperate desire to see things turn out badly for Obama.

    Prove I’m wrong, please, elaborate on what sort of concealed “something(s)” you are hinting towards? Do you have any evidence to introduce here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

    Is this what you call asserting a position in an argument? Because I call it lazy and ignorant gossip.

  49. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 23, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    So long as they don’t try to make the 2008 election null and void because Obama didn’t have a viable opponent in in non-NBC candidate John McCain.

    We are talking about crazy people here, remember?

    On that note, I want to say one reason that I moved to Arizona was to help it turn the state more blue (another reason was more personal), but, I’m afraid there is too much crazy here and my effort will go unnoticed. Apologies, I can only do so much with one vote.

  50. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    Arizona seems to have gone off the rails. Not only with this bill but with the immigration bill that is awaiting the governor’s signature. The bill requires local cops to stop anyone who “appears” to be in the country illegally and ask them to prove their right to be here. So native born citizens will have to prove they are citizens. Will they need to carry a birth certificate with them at all times? A short or a long form? A passport would do, of course, but the majority of Americans don’t travel abroad and don’t have one and no law requires you to have one. And of course the cost is prohibitive for low income folks. The bill also specifically says only certain state’s driver’s licences are adequate, so what does a resident of those states do if they are driving across Arizona?

    And how do the cops decide who to stop on the street? Dark-skinned types speaking Spanish? OK, but unless they also stop Hans and Anneke from Dusseldorf who are chatting in German, get ready for a mega racial profiling lawsuit. And if they decide to harass everyone from all over the world coming to see the Grand Canyon, what will that do to the tourist industry?

    They are really setting themselves up for a big old mess.

  51. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 23, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    As a current AZ transplant, the news about this immigration bill is getting so crazy that I heard someone say on television the other night that you can tell an illegal alien by their shoes, I kid you not.

    I turned the tube off after that, I don’t have time for such crazy nonsense.

    I’m dark haired and dark eyes (European flavor), I’m waiting to see if they try to challenge my citizenship.

  52. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 23, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    Scientist, there is currently a concerted effort to persuade convention organizers to not consider choosing Arizona due to this law.

  53. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    Thanks for all the updates on what is going on in AZ from the inside. Yes, very strange and sad to see some of the woefully misguided laws and actions they are trying to take there.

    I have faith that these crazy things won’t end up being signed into law…and even if somehow they do, that they will end up being overturned in a fairly short order.

  54. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 23, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    G,

    Unfortunately, it isn’t just that Governor Brewer not sign the law, but she has to veto it. If it goes unsigned, all news accounts here are stating the law will still go into effect.

    A recent news article stated she had less than 2,000 people contact her office in support of the bill, but over 11,000 contacts against. This morning our local paper’s front page quoted her as saying demonstrations would not sway her decision (we have a huge Hispanic population here in Phoenix which is making their position very clear in marches and such), so it sounds like she’s still very seriously considering enacting this legislation.

  55. avatar
    Mary Brown April 23, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Scott, Mine doesn’t say either. I think what you need to do before you comment is research the birth certificates each state N provides. Look at the language and see if received and accepted makes a difference. I think you will find you are misataken. It is always best to be sure before you make a comment about language. By the way did you ever answer the question and identify the state you received yours from?

  56. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Mary, she never did. Meaning she was lying when she made the statement regarding her supposed COLB looking exactly like Obama’s but it not being suffcient to get a US Passport….The problem is that the birthers never do any research before they make ridiculous statements. And most of their sites don’t allow opposing views. So they think anything they say is true. However her at Dr. C’s site of course she would be called on her obvious nonsense. So she figures if she continues to ignore the question people will forget about it. Kind of like Linda over at tROSL used to do when she was caught in a lie.

  57. avatar
    Black Lion April 23, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    The President has weighed in on the AZ bill….

    “This is pretty big: Obama just now sharply condemned the controversial anti-illegal immigration effort in Arizona, calling it “misguided” and “irresponsible” — and even said his administration could insert itself into the fight if civil rights are found to be violated.

    This could cause the issue to heat up to full boil on the national level, with untold consequences for the midterm elections.

    The effort in Arizona would require anyone suspected of being in the country illegally to produce “an alien registration document” or other proof of citizenship. The Governor of Arizona is expected to decide within days how to act on the legislation — and Obama today pushed the issue hard.

    “Our failure to act responsibly at the Federal level will only open the door to irresponsiblity by others,” Obama said. “That includes for example the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

    Obama added that his administration could join the fight. “I’ve instructed members of my admininstration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation,” he said, adding that it was “misguided.”

    The move comes amid signs that Dem leaders are moving forward more rapidly than expected with immigration reform, upending the political calculus of both parties heading into the midterms. By moving forward, Dems risk exacerbating the anger of the Tea Party brigade and alienating white swing voters, but they also energize a key portion of their base. The move also forces Republicans to choose between angering the Tea Partiers and alienating Latinos.

    Obama has now pushed the Arizona issue to the front burner, perhaps forcing a more serious national conversation over it. Interesting.”

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/immigration/obama-blasts-arizona-illegal-immigration-effort/

  58. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    The governor has just signed the bill….

  59. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    By the way, I’m not attempting to minimize the problems along the border, which are real and very serious. At this point, most of them are related to the drug trade, rather than illegal immigrants, and I doubt this law will deter drug smugglers at all.

    Maybe we need to consider legalizing drugs and having them sold by Merck and Pfizer. They tend to shoot at each other with words, not bullets.

  60. avatar
    SFJeff April 23, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Oh think rational people can agree there is a border problem- just we can’t all agree what the problem is.

    Personally, I am convinced that no politician really wants to have a rational, comprehensive Immigration reform. Politicians love to have immigration as one of those problems they can rant about without solving, while business want a continued supply of low cost labor, which not only costs them less but depresses over all employment costs.

    I am very cynical about all immigration reform efforts. I really do think we need some serious immigration reform, and I really think we should be controlling who should be crossing our borders, but I also recognize that illegal aliens pay taxes(yes, they do), provide the labor that allows us to have low cost food prices and are mostly really good people.

  61. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 6:45 pm #

    I think Obama is serious about immigration reform, as are a number of politicians (not all of them of course). I think Senator Lindsey Graham has always been sincere on this issue of wanting it addressed properly.

    As bad as what they are doing in AZ is, the one good that might come out of it is that it is helping to push the Federal legislature to address the problem more urgently and we could finally see real Immigration Reform signed into law this year.

    For a mid-term election year, where politicians are normally afraid / too busy focused on their campaigns to do much, this could turn out to be one heck of an exceptional year of seeing major reforms get accomplished, which is a really exciting prospect.

    It is about time that major issues that have been dragging on for years or decades are finally addressed! So far, Health Care is law, a significant nuclear arms reduction treaty is in progress with Russia, major financial reform is in the works, jobs bills are being worked on, immigration reform is now seriously back on the table, energy reform is in the wings…that’s pretty amazing for just one year, when you compare it to the past several years & decades!

  62. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    Oops! Well, that was quick & I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve got egg on my face in my prediction. What a dangerous precedent and bad law and I don’t think that even the people who pushed for the bill realize the hazardous unintended consequences and danger of major civil rights violations on legal citizens and legal immigrants they’ve opened up here…

    The only possible good is that now there is more pressure on the federal level to put through a serious Immigration Reform bill into law this spring.

  63. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Why should the Dems fear “riling up” the tea-baggers and similar crowds – these folks are already about as enraged, engaged and committed to come out to vote as it is going to get, so you’re not really losing any votes that aren’t already against them.

    Time to be bold and address reform properly because it is long past due needing to happen. This is not the time for politicians to cower in the shadows, fearful of their election prospects in the fall.

    If anything, bold, fair action will be rewarded by those who value solutions over politically calculated obstruction and cowardice.

  64. avatar
    JoZeppy April 23, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    I don’t think the Dems even need to do anything here. It is going to challenged, and held unconstitutional. It’s an attempt to legalize racial profiling….unless someone can explain to me how what evidence gives rise to a suspicion that someone is here illegally that doesn’t involve racial profiling?

  65. avatar
    thisoldhippie April 23, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    Hospitals are only required to keep records for 10 years and most destroy those that are older. Try requesting your own birth records from the hospital you were born in if you are older than 10 and more than likely you’re going to get a letter that says those records are no longer available. Also the “hospital generated” birth certificate isn’t a legal document.

  66. avatar
    thisoldhippie April 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    I feel ya’. I’m in Georgia. No hope here.

  67. avatar
    Little Dreamer April 24, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    Well, I guess it’s a good day for Joe Arpaio.

    I was asleep and didn’t see that the bill was signed until I woke up. Now we reap what we have sown here. UGH!

    Time to get ready to go out and deliver the news (I’m a carrier for The Arizona Republic).

  68. avatar
    SFJeff April 24, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    I hope you are right G.

  69. avatar
    northland10 April 24, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    Apparently:

    Stopping somebody who looks like they may be in the country illegally=Good.

    Stopping somebody with a a group who has expressly stated they were going to conduct citizen arrests (and failed to stop)=Bad.

  70. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Is Arizona going to define the qualifications of the US President? It hardly seems proper for a state to do that.

    Neither, of course, is that what SB 1024 does. It merely codifies into law what states are already implicitly required to do, as is any entity which plays a constitutional role in a presidential election, which is to exercise minimal due diligence so as to ensure that only qualified candidates can be elected to office.

    So what happens in 2012? That’s right, a lawsuit.

    On what grounds, pray tell?

  71. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    yguy:
    Neither, of course, is that what SB 1024 does. It merely codifies into law what states are already implicitly required to do, as is any entity which plays a constitutional role in a presidential election, which is to exercise minimal due diligence so as to ensure that only qualified candidates can be elected to office.

    Are there now “implicit requirements” in the Constitution? I guess that position is the opposite of “strict constructionism.”

    Here’s a question for you, a sort of gedankenexperiment: suppose in 2012 everybody in CA just decides to write in Schwarzenegger. Heck, suppose everybody in the country decides to write him in. What do you imagine the states are supposed to do about that? Do you think they are supposed to investigate whether the winner in Constitutionally eligible before they send off the electoral votes? What do you imagine they should do with votes for candidates they find ineligible? And what if different states come to different conclusions?

    The correct answer is, states have absolutely no requirement, indeed are not permitted to investigate the qualifications of candidates voted for. They certainly may make requirements for candidates to appear on the ballot. But voters may vote for candidates not on the ballot, and the states are required to count them without any editing.

    Eligibility is, in practical terms, enforced by the voters. Failing that, it is legally enforced by Congress. If you don’t like it, get yourself a Constitutional amendment.

  72. avatar
    Greg May 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    yguy: On what grounds, pray tell?

    If Arizona denies ballot access to a candidate based on this, you think they’re just going to say, “Oh well, I don’t need to win Arizona?”

  73. avatar
    SFJeff May 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    What if California decides to define “Natural Born Citizen” as anyone who declares that they were feel like they were born in California?

    If Arizona can exclude people from the ballot, my thinking is other states can include who they want. But I suspect that the States would end up in court.

  74. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Dave: Here’s a question for you, a sort of gedankenexperiment: suppose in 2012 everybody in CA just decides to write in Schwarzenegger. Heck, suppose everybody in the country decides to write him in.

    A common misconception is that people directly vote for a Presidential candidate. They don’t. They vote for persons pledged to a candidate for the Electoral College. In your scenario a write-in candidate would need to have identified delegates to the EC prior to the General Election. Maybe you can rethink your scenario.

  75. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Is Arizona going to define the qualifications of the US President? It hardly seems proper for a state to do that.

    Not just improper, but also unconstitutional. AZ’s gonna be in biiig trouble if this happens. Anyway, I thought this bill died.

  76. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Dave:
    Here’s a question for you, a sort of gedankenexperiment: suppose in 2012 everybody in CA just decides to write in Schwarzenegger. Heck, suppose everybody in the country decides to write him in. What do you imagine the states are supposed to do about that? Do you think they are supposed to investigate whether the winner in Constitutionally eligible before they send off the electoral votes?

    Yes, since state officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which limits eligibility for the Presidency to natural born citizens.

    What do you imagine they should do with votes for candidates they find ineligible?

    Declare them invalid.

    And what if different states come to different conclusions?

    In Schwarzenegger’s case, I don’t how they could do so without violating the law; but patently legitimate controversies along those lines would have to be resolved in federal court.

    The correct answer is, states have absolutely no requirement, indeed are not permitted to investigate the qualifications of candidates voted for.

    I don’t know where you get that idea, but the Constitution says otherwise.

    Eligibility is, in practical terms, enforced by the voters. Failing that, it is legally enforced by Congress. If you don’t like it, get yourself a Constitutional amendment.

    Since the Constitution nowhere delegates the authority of vetting the constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates to Congress, I don’t need one.

  77. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Sef:
    A common misconception is that people directly vote for a Presidential candidate.They don’t.They vote for persons pledged to a candidate for the Electoral College.In your scenario a write-in candidate would need to have identified delegates to the EC prior to the General Election. Maybe you can rethink your scenario.

    I agree that that is a common misconception.
    I am under the impression that states have different ways of selecting electors, which are to some extent constrained by Federal law. And I confess that I am no expert on this. But I am under the impression that in at least most states, it boils down to allowing the winner to pick the electors. If I am right about that, then I don’t see how the scenario needs to be rethought, and if I’m wrong then perhaps you could take pity on me and explain.

  78. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    Sef:
    Not just improper, but also unconstitutional.AZ’s gonna be in biiig trouble if this happens.Anyway, I thought this bill died.

    The bill did die, so yes, the discussion is moot. Welcome to the internet.

    But I don’t agree that it’s unconstitutional. States are allowed to set rules for candidates to qualify for the ballot. I don’t see why this rule would be disallowed.

  79. avatar
    JoZeppy May 25, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    Dave: The bill did die, so yes, the discussion is moot. Welcome to the internet.But I don’t agree that it’s unconstitutional. States are allowed to set rules for candidates to qualify for the ballot. I don’t see why this rule would be disallowed.

    Normally, elections fall under the control of the states under the 10th amendment. Bush v. Gore did muck that up a bit, and although the decision was so horrible that the Court tried to say it had no precidential value, we all know courts can’t help but cite to SCOTUS decisions (and Bush v. Gore has been no exception). Even if the Arizona bill passed, it probably wouldn’t get challenged until they tried to block someone from the ballot. So in all likelihood, if it passed, president Obama would file the same COLB that he posted on his website, and they would say, OK, you’re on. The second they tried to pull any birther argument, the law would get shot down in a heartbeat.

  80. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    Dave:
    The bill did die, so yes, the discussion is moot. Welcome to the internet.But I don’t agree that it’s unconstitutional. States are allowed to set rules for candidates to qualify for the ballot. I don’t see why this rule would be disallowed.

    States can’t say anything which contravenes the Constitution, Federal laws or Federal Judicial rulings. So, they cannot define NBC, they cannot add or subtract from any Presidential qualifications explicit in the Constitution, they must abide by the Full Faith & Credit clause.

  81. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    States can set their own rules for ballot access, so the dead AZ bill wouldn’t be unconstitutional. But they cannot unduly restrict access for federal candidates — so what would happen is the law would be challenged only when and if a candidate was wrongfully disqualified under the law, and that candidate sued to be placed on the ballot.

    For example: Candidate A. is born abroad, to US citizen parents, presents US Consular Report of Birth. Rejected, as SOS rules that Consular Report does not establish “natural born” status. Candidate A goes to court to compel being placed on ballot. (Candidate A. probably wins).

    Candidate B. is a naturalized US citizen, born abroad to non-citizen parents. (Clearly ineligible). Candidate B. cannot prove eligibility for the ballot, sues SOS — Candidate B. probably loses.

    As to Obama — he would produce the COLB and be placed on the ballot — so there never would have been an issue for him under the AZ law. The COLB clearly is a legal birth certificate, and Obama could easily have proven the 14-years residency — so the law would not have created much of a hurdle for him. Just a minor inconvenience, at most, for his staff — but I think far more trivial than various financial reporting requirements in elections.

  82. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    The second they tried to pull any birther argument, the law would get shot down in a heartbeat.

    You have just re-asserted that this ballot qualification is unconstitutional without explaining why.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    yguy: On what grounds, pray tell?

    Of course this is all moot since the Arizona law didn’t pass. But if it had passed, and Obama were excluded from the ballot because his father was British, then Obama would sue and say that the law was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed the state to define a constitutional term or he could say that the state official who made the declaration acted in error.

    Something similar happened before. A candidate was excluded from the ballot because he was too young. He sued. The state supreme court upheld the exclusion. However, in that case there was no dispute over what the Constitution meant by age.

  84. avatar
    JoZeppy May 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Dave: You have just re-asserted that this ballot qualification is unconstitutional without explaining why.

    Because states cannot add requirements or restrictions to federal office. You will recall back in the mid-90s several states imposed term limits on their Congressmen. Those restrictions were struck down as adding restrictions to Constitutionally defined offices. Likewise, adding their own definitions to office of the President, that run contrary to the well established definitions would be seen as a de facto additional requirement, since it adds additional restrictions above those already well established, and unquestioned in the real legal community.

    And even if they pulled a “we want the long form” b.s., it would still run amock of the full faith and credit clause, as they are now telling other states they will not accept the established forms of the state, that contain all the necessary information to determine location of birth.

  85. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Of course this is all moot since the Arizona law didn’t pass. But if it had passed, and Obama were excluded from the ballot because his father was British, then Obama would sue and say that the law was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed the state to define a constitutional term or he could say that the state official who made the declaration acted in error.Something similar happened before. A candidate was excluded from the ballot because he was too young. He sued. The state supreme court upheld the exclusion. However, in that case there was no dispute over what the Constitution meant by age.

    This is exactly why AZ’s attempt was so silly. Maybe someone in the AZ Senate had enough smarts to realize that it wouldn’t do what the birthers wanted it to do. They may have even realized that they would not have had a Favorite Son in 2008 had this law been in effect. That would really have been a ROTFLMAO situation!

  86. avatar
    JoZeppy May 25, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Let me further qualify, if they merely ask for a birth certificate, and don’t cause any waves, the provision probably won’t get challenged, in that states generally are permitted to run their elections as they please under the 10th Amendment (although Bush v. Gore has opened this up to challenge under an equal protection claim). The second they try to block someone from the ballot on even slightly questionable grounds, that is where the law will lose as adding requirements to the office as defined by the constitution.

  87. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Sef:
    [States] must abide by the Full Faith & Credit clause.

    That provision is of dubious relevance here. In particular, if the AZ SoS insisted that Obama provide a certified copy of the original, HI could only object by essentially disavowing the validity of its own records of decades past; and in general, that clause patently applies to states (those giving full faith and credit) acting on their own authority, whereas in this case a state would be acting under constitutional authority.

  88. avatar
    Bovril May 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    yguy: That provision is of dubious relevance here. In particular, if the AZ SoS insisted that Obama provide a certified copy of the original, HI could only object by essentially disavowing the validity of its own records of decades past; and in general, that clause patently applies to states (those giving full faith and credit) acting on their own authority, whereas in this case a state would be acting under constitutional authority.

    Buzzzzzz, Fail

    The COLB is all that is issued by Hawai’i
    It is a self authenticating documennt denoting all the required information to demonstrate place of birth
    The COLB is one of the categories of document that fall directly under the provisions of Full Faith and Credit
    If AZ deny it as sufficient they fall due to the above

    Ergo FF+C is DIRECTLY of relevance

    Wanna try again…?

  89. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    yguy:
    That provision is of dubious relevance here. In particular, if the AZ SoS insisted that Obama provide a certified copy of the original, HI could only object by essentially disavowing the validity of its own records of decades past; and in general, that clause patently applies to states (those giving full faith and credit) acting on their own authority, whereas in this case a state would be acting under constitutional authority.

    Please inform us out of which orifice you pulled that one.

  90. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 25, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    Sef: States can’t say anything which contravenes the Constitution, Federal laws or Federal Judicial rulings.

    But as I recall the Arizona bill, it didn’t try to do that — it merely required that the candidate submit written documentation to support the qualifications set forth in the Constitution (birth certificate + proof of residency).

    The problem could arise with interpretation of the bill by the SOS — but on its face, I think the bill would have simply required a candidate like Obama to submit the same type of COLB he posted on the internet, along with some sort of documentation of residence. I do think that the bill was vague as to the residency part (based on my memory of the bill — I don’t have the text in front of me).. I mean, I don’t think it would be acceptable for the state to require candidates to produce 14 years’ worth of utility bills, but I’m assuming that had it passed, the SOS would have promulgated regulations under it that would not have been unduly onerous.

  91. avatar
    Scientist May 25, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    yguy: in general, that clause patently applies to states (those giving full faith and credit) acting on their own authority, whereas in this case a state would be acting under constitutional authority

    So states can violate the Constitution, provided they do so on constitutional authority? I suppose I can violate the law as long as I do so under legal authority.

  92. avatar
    Scientist May 25, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    Expelliarmus: think the bill would have simply required a candidate like Obama to submit the same type of COLB he posted on the internet

    That would cover it completely. To be quite precise, we don’t actually know that he didn’t do so in 2008, nor do we know that other candidates did not do so in 2008 or previously.

    I think for residency if one had been a member of Congress and/or state or local legislative bodies that would establish residency. That would cover the vast majority of people running. Someone from the private sector could have his employers write a letter that he was employed in the US.

  93. avatar
    Sef May 25, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    But as I recall the Arizona bill, it didn’t try to do that — it merely required that the candidate submit written documentation to support the qualifications set forth in the Constitution (birth certificate + proof of residency).
    The problem could arise with interpretation of the bill by the SOS — but on its face, I think the bill would have simply required a candidate like Obama to submit the same type of COLB he posted on the internet, along with some sort of documentation of residence. I do think that the bill was vague as to the residency part (based on my memory of the bill — I don’t have the text in front of me)..I mean, I don’t think it would be acceptable for the state to require candidates to produce 14 years’ worth of utility bills, but I’m assuming that had it passed, the SOS would have promulgated regulations under it that would not have been unduly onerous.

    I think the reason the AZ Senate dropped it was their recognition of McCain’s “little problem” & the embarrassment it would cause them if anyone decided to take a closer look. Or maybe McCain, himself, had a chat with them.

  94. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Bovril:
    The COLB is all that is issued by Hawai’i

    Why do you think the DoH operates in violation of HRS §338-13?

    It is a self authenticating documennt denoting all the required information to demonstrate place of birth

    Cite the statute which you think would require AZ to accept it as satisfying the requirements of SB1024, since FF&C does not.

    The COLB is one of the categories of document that fall directly under the provisions of Full Faith and Credit

    How about the original, which DoH supposedly had in 2008? Isn’t that in the same category? And if yes, why would the AZ SoS be unable to require it?

  95. avatar
    Bovril May 25, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Yguy,

    The bill never passed so fail in any case however as an intellectual exercise

    HRS 338-13 has nothing to do with the BC that Obama would provide if required, nothing nada, bugger all. You know, everyone else you have tried this charade on knows it on all the (non Birther) web sites yiu’ve posted this inanity

    You can keep on pulling it out of your rear and it still won’t change what the statute is and provides for.

    Assuming you ACTUALLY read the bill, the text below is the pertinent piece

    The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice-president.

    Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

    So, we supose that this piece of Birther idiocy passed in time for the next election with Obama on the ticket.

    Obama needs to prove

    He is a natural born citizen of the United States
    He is at least thirty-five years old;
    He has been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

    Obama provides a certified copy of his COLB, you know identical to the one that is available to view on line

    That’s it.

    FF+C says, I assume you have read the Constitution..?

    Article 4 Section 1

    “ Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    This is supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1738

    The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

    The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

    Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

    The BC issued by Hawai’i meets all the requirements to be accepted as a BC by the Federal Governmnet

    If Arizona does not accept the BC as sufficient to define Birth and Age, it is therefore direct violation of FF+C as delineated both by the Constitution and USC.

    Get it or do you need some more hand holding..?

  96. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    Because states cannot add requirements or restrictions to federal office.You will recall back in the mid-90s several states imposed term limits on their Congressmen.Those restrictions were struck down as adding restrictions to Constitutionally defined offices.Likewise, adding their own definitions to office of the President, that run contrary to the well established definitions would be seen as a de facto additional requirement, since it adds additional restrictions above those already well established, and unquestioned in the real legal community.And even if they pulled a “we want the long form” b.s., it would still run amock of the full faith and credit clause, as they are now telling other states they will not accept the established forms of the state, that contain all the necessary information to determine location of birth.

    I just can’t see this argument working. Nothing in the AZ amendment defined eligibility. It just said you had to document you were. And in any case, it didn’t say who could hold the office, it only addressed who would be on the ballot.

    I have no doubt that had that law passed, and had a SoS pulled a birther, and in the nearly unimaginable case that the state courts upheld it, that it would have gone to federal court. And at that point, I have no doubt that the federal judge would read AZ the riot act on how it was to interpret eligibility in the future. But none of that involves finding the law unconstitutional.

  97. avatar
    Dave May 25, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    … But if it had passed, and Obama were excluded from the ballot because his father was British, then Obama would sue and say that the law was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed the state to define a constitutional term or he could say that the state official who made the declaration acted in error.

    I’m thinking your second option is the more likely one. Because the law did not define eligibility, but only referred to eligibility as defined in the Constitution, I can’t see how anyone could argue that it is unconstitutional. Instead, you would argue that the SoS was misinformed and that it was the job of the federal courts to straighten him out.

    This is the one (and only) aspect of this otherwise ridiculous amendment that I think of with regret. The above is the only scenario I know of in which the legal issues this blog is devoted to could ever find their way into court in a non-hypothetical way.

  98. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 10:11 pm #

    Bovril: HRS 338-13 has nothing to do with the [COLB] that Obama would provide if required, nothing nada, bugger all.

    I never said it did. You, OTOH, claimed HI doesn’t issue anything BUT a COLB, which of course is baloney.

    “Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”

    What you seem to be missing is that SB 1024 requires the documentation to be supplied by the candidate’s party, not the state of his birth; so that in this case HI, in order to deny Obama the original BC the AZ SoS could require, would have to find some way to ignore his status under HRS §338-18 (b) (1). So neither FF&C nor the echoing statute would have any bearing, since AZ would be taking the original to have the same probative value it has under HI law, and since nothing you’ve cited requires any state to treat as dispositive a state record which serves no other purpose than to testify to a previous state record.

  99. avatar
    Bovril May 25, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    [Insult deleted, spelling corrected. Doc.]

    As a minor point have you ever looked at the COLB….as opposed to babbling about it.

    If you had you would see in itty bitty letters at the bottom

    This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings [HR 338-13(b), 338-19]

    Ooops there goes your precious 338-13, muppet

  100. avatar
    Bovril May 25, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Sorry for the poor spelling, typing from my Android phone, keyboard is a bit cramped….

  101. avatar
    JoZeppy May 25, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    yguy: I never said it did. You, OTOH, claimed HI doesn’t issue anything BUT a COLB, which of course is baloney.What you seem to be missing is that SB 1024 requires the documentation to be supplied by the candidate’s party, not the state of his birth; so that in this case HI, in order to deny Obama the original BC the AZ SoS could require, would have to find some way to ignore his status under HRS §338-18 (b) (1). So neither FF&C nor the echoing statute would have any bearing, since AZ would be taking the original to have the same probative value it has under HI law, and since nothing you’ve cited requires any state to treat as dispositive a state record which serves no other purpose than to testify to a previous state record.

    The COLB is an official state record. The Full Faith and Credit clause doesn’t put limits on which official state documents they have to credit, they have to give full faith and credit to all official state documents. Thus under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Arizona would be bound by the Constitution to accept it. There is no wiggle room. As much as you seem to like making up the law as you go along, your statements run against the plain text of the constitution, and don’t have an iota of support in the law. The COLB is an official Hawiian document, and is prima facie evidence of birth. End of story, Arizona is bound by the Constitution to accept it.

  102. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 25, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Sef: Dr. Conspiracy:
    Of course this is all moot since the Arizona law didn’t pass. But if it had passed, and Obama were excluded from the ballot because his father was British…

    I don’t see any possibility of that happening. The whole 2-citizen-parent thing is an obscure argument that eludes most of the elected officials willing to pay lip service to the birthers. Most of the legislatures who supported the Arizona bill (or others like it), probably still think the issue is the birth certificate, not the parentage.

    What could happen is that under the Arizona bill, an opposing candidate could bring some sort of lawsuit trying to knock someone of the ballot, raising the 2-citizen parent argument.

    It may be that the bill died when rational people realized that it was simply going to open up the Secretary of State to frivolous lawsuits by fringe candidates taking issue with all sorts of documentation. (I mean… along the lines of Orly’s efforts to knock Damon Dunn off the California ballot).

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    yguy: You, OTOH, claimed HI doesn’t issue anything BUT a COLB, which of course is baloney.

    I would point out that no one has yet to publish a Hawaiian “long form” issued since June of 2007. I have seen comments by persons born in Hawaii or who have relatives born there that they intended to get one, but I’ve never seen the results (or a claim of success for that matter).

    So this is an interesting question, and one that waits for a definitive answer.

  104. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Bovril: This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings [HR 338-13(b), 338-19]

    And you think a certified copy of the original has less evidential value?

    Ooops there goes your precious 338-13

    Read §338-13 (a), Sherlock.

  105. avatar
    yguy May 25, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    The COLB is an official state record.The Full Faith and Credit clause doesn’t put limits on which official state documents they have to credit, they have to give full faith and credit to all official state documents.

    Which is exactly what they’d be doing in requiring the original, so no problem.

    Thus under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Arizona would be bound by the Constitution to accept it.

    Beside the point until a rationale can be found for denying them the original and compelling them to put him on the ballot anyway. So far, no one here has gotten within light years of that.

  106. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    yguy: Beside the point until a rationale can be found for denying them the original and compelling them to put him on the ballot anyway. So far, no one here has gotten within light years of that.

    So by your logic there’s no law against robbing a bank until you are being tried for the crime. Great thought process.

  107. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    JoZeppy: The COLB is an official state record. The Full Faith and Credit clause doesn’t put limits on which official state documents they have to credit, they have to give full faith and credit to all official state documents. Thus under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Arizona would be bound by the Constitution to accept it. There is no wiggle room. As much as you seem to like making up the law as you go along, your statements run against the plain text of the constitution, and don’t have an iota of support in the law. The COLB is an official Hawiian document, and is prima facie evidence of birth. End of story, Arizona is bound by the Constitution to accept it.

    Exactly & well said!

    yguy is just one of those folks who is completely impervious to reality and makes up arguments for the sake of arguments, with no true understanding of what he’s talking about. In his mind, he’s very upset about Obama and wants to rant on here endlessly, but there is no getting around the COLB & Full Faith & Credit Clause for him or any of the birthers and so all they are doing is futile shouting against the wind.

  108. avatar
    Mike May 26, 2010 at 2:58 am #

    yguy:
    What you seem to be missing is that SB 1024 requires the documentation to be supplied by the candidate’s party, not the state of his birth; so that in this case HI, in order to deny Obama the original BC the AZ SoS could require, would have to find some way to ignore his status under HRS §338-18 (b) (1). So neither FF&C nor the echoing statute would have any bearing, since AZ would be taking the original to have the same probative value it has under HI law, and since nothing you’ve cited requires any state to treat as dispositive a state record which serves no other purpose than to testify to a previous state record.

    It looks like you’re using words that make sense, but when I actually read them, they turn into arrant nonsense.

    All records, not just those you or any other misguided wingnut decide they like; not to mention that the current Hawaii birth certificate does not testify to a previous state record. It testifies to facts in the State’s possession.

    You’re flailing.

  109. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    yguy: Which is exactly what they’d be doing in requiring the original, so no problem.

    When they order another state to print a form they haven’t used in years, that’s okay?

    What if they ordered Hawaii to create a new form, containing additional information not on the former “long form,” would that also be okay?

    You don’t seem to understand state comity, yguy. Not surprising.

    Anyway, I’m not seeing anything in 1024 that requires a particular form over another. Can you point to the language that calls for the long form? Here’s the language about documents:

    WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,

    So, Obama signs an affidavit stating that he is a natural born citizen, and appends the COLB, which proves that he was born in Hawaii.

    On what grounds does Arizona reject the COLB?

    I can only see one – if they had a reasonable suspicion that the COLB was forged.

  110. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    Mike:
    It looks like you’re using words that make sense, but when I actually read them, they turn into arrant nonsense.

    I suppose it is a blessing to have a mind that makes such a conversion on the fly, to a certain kind of person.

    All records, not just those you or any other misguided wingnut decide they like;

    Including the original, right?

    not to mention that the current Hawaii birth certificate does not testify to a previous state record.It testifies to facts in the State’s possession.You’re flailing.

    Seeing you’ve succeeded only in making a distinction without a difference, I’d say the flailing is all yours.

  111. avatar
    Bob Ross May 26, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    yguy:
    I suppose it is a blessing to have a mind that makes such a conversion on the fly, to a certain kind of person.
    Including the original, right?
    Seeing you’ve succeeded only in making a distinction without a difference, I’d say the flailing is all yours.

    You do know an original long form is easy to forge. I can just see it if the long form is ever released you guys will be claiming forgery. This is why the birthers have come up with a long list of documents and new non sensible arguments.

  112. avatar
    JoZeppy May 26, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    yguy: All records, not just those you or any other misguided wingnut decide they like;
    Including the original, right?

    You seem to be entirely missing the point. When the State of Arizona is presented with a COLB, they have no choice but to accept it. It is the current form the State of Hawaii uses to establish birth in the state. Arizona does not get to choose what prior forms they like or prefer. The COLB is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. It is an official state form used by the State of Hawaii to establish birth in Hawaii. When presented for whatever reasons to an office of the State of Arizona, the full faith and credit clause requires the State of Arizona accept it as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. Arizona cannot, under the Constitution, dictate to the Hawaii what form of documents they produce. And even if you could readily get both versions (New Jersey still gives you that option), as both forms are prefectly legal, official state forms, that contain enough information to establish the facts of natural born citizenship, a state cannot reject either form. They are both official state documents, and the full faith and credit clause requires both versions be accepted.

  113. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Greg:
    When they order another state to

    They wouldn’t be ordering any state – or anybody, for that matter – to do anything.

    print a form they haven’t used in years [provide a document to which Obama is every bit as entitled as he is to a COLB under HRS §338-13 (a)], that’s okay?

    fify

    Anyway, I’m not seeing anything in 1024 that requires a particular form over another. Can you point to the language that calls for the long form?

    There is none. That is left to the discretion of the SoS.

    So, Obama signs an affidavit stating that he is a natural born citizen, and appends the COLB, which proves that he was born in Hawaii.

    No it doesn’t, as it represents itself as only prima facie evidence.

    On what grounds does Arizona reject the COLB?

    They don’t need to reject it to reqiure the original.

  114. avatar
    JoZeppy May 26, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    yguy: No it doesn’t, as it represents itself as only prima facie evidence.
    On what grounds does Arizona reject the COLB?
    They don’t need to reject it to reqiure the original.

    You still don’t seem to under stand what prima facie evidence means. Until someone can provide admissable evidence rebutting the COLB, it is sufficient to prove the everything on that document. As no one has yet done so, the COLB is all that is required to prove Obama’s Hawaiian birth.

    Secondly, the COLB is an original state document. Arizona is required by the constitution to accept it for the purposes it was created, to prove the facts of birth contained on it. Arizona does not get to pick and choose which documents they want. If Arizona requires proof of birth, they are required to accept all official forms a state uses to establish the fact. The COLB is the form currently used by Hawaii, thus Arizona must accept it to as proof of birth.

  115. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    JoZeppy:
    You seem to be entirely missing the point.When the State of Arizona is presented with a COLB, they have no choice but to accept it.It is the current form the State of Hawaii uses to establish birth in the state.Arizona does not get to choose what prior forms they like or prefer.The COLB is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.It is an official state form used by the State of Hawaii to establish birth in Hawaii.When presented for whatever reasons to an office of the State of Arizona, the full faith and credit clause requires the State of Arizona accept it as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.Arizona cannot, under the Constitution, dictate to the Hawaii what form of documents they produce.And even if you could readily get both versions (New Jersey still gives you that option), as both forms are prefectly legal, official state forms, that contain enough information to establish the facts of natural born citizenship, a state cannot reject either form.They are both official state documents, and the full faith and credit clause requires both versions be accepted.

    What you say here is correct. Let me just add that under the HI statute that yguy loves to quote there is a provision for the HI officials to provide index data to verify a previously produced document if it is questioned. That is the extent of their ability to produce anything.

  116. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    yguy: it represents itself as only prima facie evidence.

    Which means what in yguy world? In my world, the world of the law, it means that if there is no evidence contradicting it, it suffices for to prove the asserted position.

    What evidence contradicts the COLB? No, not rumors, innuendo, suspicion, etc. What evidence!

    Here’s a clue, yguy. The long form is also “only” prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. See HRS 338-12:

    Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

    Long form = prima facie evidence of facts therein stated
    COLB = prima facie evidence of facts therein stated

  117. avatar
    Mike May 26, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    yguy: I suppose it is a blessing to have a mind that makes such a conversion on the fly, to a certain kind of person.

    More word salad? [Personal attack in violation of site editorial policy deleted. Doc.]

    Including the original, right?

    Including the original if it were offered to them. Don’t try to be any more obtuse than you are by nature. The document per se is not relevant. What is relevant is that the issuing authority has vouched for the facts on it, not what piece of paper it happens to be written on or when it was issued.

    Seeing you’ve succeeded only in making a distinction without a difference, I’d say the flailing is all yours.

    [Personal attack in violation of site editorial policy deleted. Doc.] It is certainly not a distinction without difference to say that the form and format of the birth certificate is irrelevant versus your and the other birthers’ obsession about the “long form”; [Personal attack in violation of site editorial policy deleted. Doc.].

  118. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Greg:
    Which means what in yguy world? In my world, the world of the law, it means that if there is no evidence contradicting it, it suffices for to prove the asserted position.

    So essentially, the way to prove something is to present prima facie evidence, and to keep under seal pertinent evidence known to exist which is potentially contradictory.

    Have I got that about right?

    The long form is also “only” prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. See HRS 338-12:

    I don’t need a statute to tell me that. In the strictest sense the long form isn’t proof either, but it clearly has greater probative value than the COLB; and SB 1024 is meant to set a minimum level of due diligence required of the SoS WRT eligibility, not to confer investigative powers.

  119. avatar
    SFJeff May 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    “So essentially, the way to prove something is to present prima facie evidence, and to keep under seal pertinent evidence known to exist which is potentially contradictory. ”

    If something is prima facie evidence, then it is assumed that there is no contradictory evidence. If you assume that the COLB is not correct, then to be consistant you would have to assume the original form is not correct either. If you can’t trust the agency that issues the COLB then how can you trust the agency to provide a correct original form?

    “but it clearly has greater probative value than the COLB”

    No, it doesn’t.

  120. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Mike:
    Including the original if it were offered to them.

    What HI offers in this regard is defined by §338-13 (a), which means a copy of the original is offered to Obama. So it is not HI that would have a gripe with the SoS but Obama, who would have to somehow contrive a grievance for being asked for documentation that is just as available to him as the COLB.

    What is relevant is that the issuing authority has vouched for the facts on it, not what piece of paper it happens to be written on or when it was issued.

    It matters plenty when it was issued, because the COLB is based on the original documentation and not the reverse.

  121. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    yguy: So essentially, the way to prove something is to present prima facie evidence, and to keep under seal pertinent evidence known to exist which is potentially contradictory.

    Here’s an idea – present evidence that suggests that there is contradictory evidence.

    There is no evidence that anything on the Long Form will contradict the information on the COLB, or even call it into question.

    The DOH has confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu, like the COLB says. The newspaper reports confirm that the Long Form will say that Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. were his parents. They also confirm that the Long Form will say he was born on August 4, 1961.

    Your hopes? That the long form says it was amended or witnessed by Grandma, right? Even with those, you’ll need to go beyond the Long Form to prove that Obama was born somewhere else, since neither of those facts defeats the evidentiary value of a properly certified birth certificate.

    And, since nothing on the Long Form could reasonably be expected to defeat the prima facie value of the COLB, you have no reasonable reason to request it, in the absence of some other PROOF.

    yguy: it clearly has greater probative value than the COLB

    Not so much. 338-13(b)

    Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original

    No more and no less probative value.

  122. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    yguy: it clearly has greater probative value than the COLB

    Methinks that yguy has discovered Taft or some other online jargon school.

  123. avatar
    JoZeppy May 26, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    yguy: So essentially, the way to prove something is to present prima facie evidence, and to keep under seal pertinent evidence known to exist which is potentially contradictory.
    Have I got that about right?

    In the world of law, you are not required to keep re-proving something that no one has been able to, or even attempted rebut. Just because you think it is potentially contraditory does not make it so. As the person challenging the COLB, YOU need to provide some evidence as to why it would be contradictory. Once a party provides prima facie evidence, the burden of persuasion is on the party challenging it to provide actual evidence as to why it should not be relied upon. The mere possibility that you THINK another document POTENTIALLY may be contraditory does not place the burden back onto the party that has provided prima facie evidence. The law does not heap the burden to prove facts beyond every possible hypothetical, no matter how remote, an opposing side may think up. The prima facie line is one that is determined to be sufficient, absent rebuttal evidence, to prove a fact. One that does not put abusrd burdens on any one side, and permits it to be challenged with rebuttal evidence. It also protects the side offering the evidence from being bombarded with an endless litany of “what ifs” that have no basis in fact or support by evidence. Just because you want to see a document, doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it, or that it is necessary to prove a fact. The COLB has been offered, you have not provided rebuttal evidence, therefore the COLB is sufficient to prove President Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.

  124. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    yguy: somehow contrive a grievance for being asked for documentation that is just as available to him as the COLB.

    It’s not really so contrived.

    The COLB is legally sufficient to prove Obama’s citizenship and in the absence of additional information, it would be arbitrary and capricious to request additional paperwork.

    yguy: It matters plenty when it was issued, because the COLB is based on the original documentation and not the reverse.

    It’s a good thing you’re not a real lawyer. What matters for FF&C and Arizona Rule of Evidence 902 is that the State vouched for the document – that they put their seal on it and signed it attesting that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the information contained in their files.

  125. avatar
    SFJeff May 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    I think what Yguy is saying is that eligibility will be like drivers licenses.

    Just as now, States are not required to accept the drivers licenses of other states, but may require them to also provide the driving test results, and supporting original documents that they used to prove their identity(because it is possible that these documents might have contradictory information) so each state will be able to require any degree of evidence it might find necessary to prove that the candidate was born in that state.

    Oh wait- states are required to accept other states drivers licenses.

    Sorry- my bad.

  126. avatar
    Bovril May 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    Even when Yguy is provided with legal, logical and (dare I say it) “Common Sense” rebuttals he/she will never change their opinion.

    As such and based upon the continuing, fundamentally flawed premises that Yguy persists in trotting out, especially when rebutted, I would suggest to folks that further feeding this Troll is an exercise in wanton futility.

    Let he/she wander off into the sunset chortling about how they “won”, by being ignored.

    YMMV, I will simply ignore the mosquito whine from now on.

  127. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 26, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    I’d just draw this analogy: In many states and many elections, the process of getting placed on the ballot may involve payment of some sort of filing fee.

    Presumably in most cases, such fees are paid by check, but it is likely that payments in cash dollars would be accepted as well.

    Yguy’s assertion about the COLB is the equivalent of arguing that such payments can be made only in gold. Obviously a check is a mere symbol or proxy for cash — so yguy would argue that it could not be accepted. Moreover — US Dollars were historically backed by gold — so just as yguy wants to ignore Hawaii’s shift to digital records, an argument could be made that the US’ abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 should be disregarded. After all, how can you really know the value of a dollar if it is not backed by a precious metal?

    The point is, even though a check is not legal tender — it is going to be accepted by just about any agency because of what it represents. A dollar is legal tender, by force of law, whether or not it is taken to correspond to a given amount of gold. A government issued, certified record of birth is going to be accepted — because of what it represents. And it will be accepted at face value, whether or not the state that issues it has maintained or is able to produce hard copy records to back it up.

  128. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Greg:
    Here’s an idea – present evidence that suggests that there is contradictory evidence.

    I’ve done it a dozen times…but to put a little finer point on it, Obama is content to let Lakin be court martialed, along all the time and expense that entails, rather than vouchsafe him even a private viewing of a certified copy of the original. That’s more than enough prima facie evidence for anyone with any intellectual honesty.

    There is no evidence that anything on the Long Form will contradict the information on the COLB, or even call it into question.

    Neither is any necessary for the SoS to require the original.

    The DOH has confirmed …

    How many more times are you gonna rehash the obvious?

    Your hopes?

    It’s not my hopes that matter, but your fears. πŸ˜‰

    Not so much. 338-13(b) No more and no less probative value.

    The COLB does not qualify for equivalence under that provision, because while it is obviously certified, it is just as obviously not a copy of the original.

  129. avatar
    Mike May 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Before I start – sorry, Doc. I got irritated by yguy’s antics. My apologies to you.

    yguy:
    What HI offers in this regard is defined by §338-13 (a), which means a copy of the original is offered to Obama.

    That’s a lie or misinterpretation; pick one. The statute states:

    (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    In other words, a COLB. The following (b) and (c) also provide the context, in that they allow for identical data to be substituted for the original document and for the Director of Health to specify the copying mechanism, respectively. That means that the Hawaii DoH is entirely at liberty to refuse to supply photocopied original documents at its own discretion, an option which it has taken for several years. Why should the President be treated any differently? As I understood it, the USA is a country of laws, not men.

    So it is not HI that would have a gripe with the SoS but Obama, who would have to somehow contrive a grievance for being asked for documentation that is just as available to him as the COLB.

    Except that it isn’t, because you’ve misunderstood or lied about the statute. Neither possibility lends your arguments a great deal of credibility.

    It matters plenty when it was issued, because the COLB is based on the original documentation and not the reverse.

    Except that it isn’t; it is based upon reported facts independent of the format said facts come in. The long form birth certificate is no more legitimate than the short form – what legitimises them both is that the issuing authority has certified the facts upon them as accurate.

  130. avatar
    Scientist May 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    yguy: but to put a little finer point on it, Obama is content to let Lakin be court martialed, along all the time and expense that entails, rather than vouchsafe him even a private viewing of a certified copy of the original.

    The President of the United States does not arrange private viewing sessions for individual soldiers. Not even in birfestan. Are you suggesting that if Pvt Smith thinks the battle plan for taking out that machine gun nest sucks he can demand to be flown from the battlefield to the Pentagon for a pow-wow wirh the Joint Chiefs? Because that is where you are going-to an army where anyone who disagrees with an order can take his disagreement to the highest level. Then you would have a gun club, not an army.

  131. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    yguy: I’ve done it a dozen times…but to put a little finer point on it, Obama is content to let Lakin be court martialed, along all the time and expense that entails, rather than vouchsafe him even a private viewing of a certified copy of the original. That’s more than enough prima facie evidence for anyone with any intellectual honesty.

    You and I have different definitions of evidence then.

    You know, there is generally no duty to render aid. It’s not negligence to walk past someone who is drowning. It is not evidence of anything that Obama didn’t show his birth certificate to someone with frivolous claims about his eligibility.

    I’ve shown before that no matter what Obama’s legal status is, Lakin is going to be convicted of missing movement. So, even if there was some legal duty to help Lakin, showing Lakin his birth certificate would do nothing for the man.

    The COLB does not qualify for equivalence under that provision, because while it is obviously certified, it is just as obviously not a copy of the original.

    Follow along, yguy:

    Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original

    Are you going to contend that the COLB is not a copy of the contents of the long form?

    When interpreting the law, yguy, you have to interpret the words of the law, not what you wish was in there. The equivalence is not based on a copy of the original but the contents of the original!

  132. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    yguy: Greg:
    “Here’s an idea – present evidence that suggests that there is contradictory evidence.”

    yguy’s response:I’ve done it a dozen times…but to put a little finer point on it, Obama is content to let Lakin be court martialed, along all the time and expense that entails, rather than vouchsafe him even a private viewing of a certified copy of the original. That’s more than enough prima facie evidence for anyone with any intellectual honesty.

    LOL! Really? A dozen times? Than surely you can quote this “fictional” evidence that you claim to have provided? You really just make things up without thinking or knowing what you are talking about, don’t you?

    Either you have not even a basic kindergarten level understanding of what “evidence” is or you are so untethered from reality that you don’t realize the nonsense you type.

    Obama has nothing really to do with Lakin’s situation, when it comes down to what he is charged with. He intentionally refused deployment orders and will be held accountable for such and no birther circus tricks will be able to save him from his own poor judgment.

    Just as your unhappiness with Obama being elected is neither standing nor evidence, neither is his. I know that is hard for you to accept, but tough. Welcome to the real world.

    And no, none of us “fear” any actual document release. In fact, many of us would rather a legit, legal scenario that wasn’t pandering to idiocy came forward and it was shown, because all it would do is put further egg on the face of you silly birthers. As several of us have said, such a scenario is possible during the 2012 election cycle. Until then, I don’t see any legal or reasonable way of it happening, nor should it.

    Still waiting for your nonexistent “evidence”. Of course you have none and can’t provide any, because your boasts are hollow and empty as are you.

  133. avatar
    SFJeff May 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    its useless really. Yguy has his own definitions of evidence, his own standards of what order soldiers should be allowed to disobey. It doesn’t matter what actual evidence we produce to refute Yguy’s assertions, he will never change his mind.

  134. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    Greg:
    What matters for FF&C

    Please. Nothing could be more obvious than that what you care about is not states respecting the acts of other states, but states respecting the acts of the current HI DDoH.

    and Arizona Rule of Evidence 902

    If you’re actually referring to some AZ rule, I need a cite. If you mean FRE 902, self-authentication under that rule only implies admissibility in court – not to mention that the FRE are only binding on federal courts anyway.

  135. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    SFJeff: its useless really. Yguy has his own definitions of evidence, his own standards of what order soldiers should be allowed to disobey. It doesn’t matter what actual evidence we produce to refute Yguy’s assertions, he will never change his mind.

    But the corollary to this is even more true:

    As yguy’s definitions & standards are all fictional and only exist in his own mind, it doesn’t matter what birthers like him babble, it will never change or affect Obama’s presidency, no matter how hard they whine, stomp their feet or dream their fevered dreams.

    They are at best, an annoyance and and completely discredited movement that will be consigned to the dustbin of history, only invoked in name as a term of mockery and derision.

    They are at worst, a danger to themselves and others as many of them seem to be either at the edge or already past the point of mental stability & sanity.

  136. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Mike:
    That’s a lie or misinterpretation; pick one.

    The misinterpretation is all yours.

    That means that the Hawaii DoH is entirely at liberty to refuse to supply photocopied original documents at its own discretion, an option which it has taken for several years.

    And just what the hell do you think I meant by “copy of the original”, Braniac?

    Except that it isn’t, because you’ve misunderstood or lied about the statute.

    Not at all. You somehow managed to misunderstood what I said. Either that or you don’t understand the difference between a COLB and a copy of the original.

  137. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    yguy: Please. Nothing could be more obvious than that what you care about is not states respecting the acts of other states, but states respecting the acts of the current HI DDoH.

    When the HI DOH is divorced from the state of Hawaii, then we can talk.

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    The actions of the HI DOH are public acts of the state. Do you think they’re private acts?

    The COLB is a record published by the state of Hawaii. It is stamped with the seal of the state of Hawaii. It is signed by the registrar of the state of Hawaii, who attests that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract.

    actually referring to some AZ rule, I need a cite

    Uh, duh, Arizona Rule of Evidence 902. That’s the cite.

    I guess you want me to teach you how to use Google, too? Arizona Rule of Evidence 902.

    You’re right that it applies only to courts, however, an Arizona Agency must have evidence that is “substantial, reliable and probative” to support its decision to deviate from the Rules of Evidence or it risks its decision being overturned. Arizona Administrative Procedure Act § 41-1062. Any subpoenas issued by an Arizona agency must be done so according to the rules of court in a civil action. (id.)

  138. avatar
    Mike May 26, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    yguy:
    The misinterpretation is all yours.
    And just what the hell do you think I meant by “copy of the original”, Braniac?
    Not at all. You somehow managed to misunderstood what I said. Either that or you don’t understand the difference between a COLB and a copy of the original.

    I’ve given you the plain meaning of the Hawaii statute as commonly understood and as applied by the State of Hawaii – and yet I am the one who misunderstood it?

    At this point, I decline to go along the bunny trails of your nonsense anymore.

  139. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    Greg:
    Are you going to contend that the COLB is not a copy of the contents of the long form?

    That is too obviously true to bear contending, since the long form contains data that the COLB does not; so if you believe they are equivalent, you can just as readily believe a<b implies a=b.

  140. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    yguy:
    That is too obviously true to bear contending, since the long form contains data that the COLB does not; so if you believe they are equivalent, you can just as readily believe a<b implies a=b.

    It makes absolutely no difference that the “long form” might contain more info than the published COLB. It might say that he was born with green hair or what his mother had for breakfast, but all that matters is that the info contained in the published COLB is proof of his birth in Honolulu, HI (not Honolulu, Kenya) on Aug, 4, 1961 & that it is signed & sealed by the relevant HI officials. Nothing else matters. This is the document that is provided by the HI DOH & MUST be accepted by all other states, subject to verification by HI DOH providing index data attesting to its validity.

  141. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Sef:
    It makes absolutely no difference that the “long form” might contain more info than the published COLB. It might say that he was born with green hair or what his mother had for breakfast, but all that matters is that the info contained in the published COLB is proof of his birth in Honolulu, HI (not Honolulu, Kenya) on Aug, 4, 1961 ; that it is signed & sealed by the relevant HI officials. Nothing else matters. This is the document that is provided by the HI DOH & MUST be accepted by all other states, subject to verification by HI DOH providing index data attesting to its validity.

    Exactly. That info doesn’t change and yguy can’t get around that simple, basic fact. That’s why all of his rants are just meaningless attempts to confuse the issue.

    He can’t get around the COLB stating born in Honolulu, HI on Aug 4, 1961. End of story.

  142. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Greg:
    When the HI DOH is divorced from the state of Hawaii, then we can talk.

    When the HI DDoH becomes one with the state of HI, your reasoning may have some merit.

    The actions of the HI DOH are public acts of the state.

    Sure, like the creation of Obama’s BC in 1961. What you want, of course, is for current state officials to be able to effectively overrule the public acts of previous state officials.

    Uh, duh, Arizona Rule of Evidence 902. That’s the cite.
    I guess you want me to teach you how to use Google, too? Arizona Rule of Evidence 902.

    I don’t know why I should consider a site run by a private individual as authoritative in this regard.

    … or it risks its decision being overturned.

    Which of course implies no limitation on the SoS WRT what he or she could require under SB1024.

    Any subpoenas issued by an Arizona agency must be done so according to the rules of court in a civil action.

    The SoS wouldn’t have to issue a subpoena. No tiki, no washee. πŸ™‚

  143. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Mike:
    I’ve given you the plain meaning of the Hawaii statute as commonly understood and as applied by the State of Hawaii – and yet I am the one who misunderstood it?

    I didn’t say you misunderstood the statute, I said you misunderstood what I said about it.

  144. avatar
    JoZeppy May 26, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    yguy: When the HI DDoH becomes one with the state of HI, your reasoning may have some merit.

    How does one argue with someone who knows so little about law and government that they don’t even know that state agencies are part of the state?

  145. avatar
    Sef May 26, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    yguy: I don’t know why I should consider a site run by a private individual as authoritative in this regard

    And yet you rely on birther sites, which are all, everyone of them, run by private individuals, for your talking points.

  146. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    yguy: What you want, of course, is for current state officials to be able to effectively overrule the public acts of previous state officials.

    Huh??? That doesn’t even make sense in any context of what has been discussed here.

  147. avatar
    SFJeff May 26, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    “That doesn’t even make sense in any context of what has been discussed here”

    I think i might just copy and paste that sentence and use it over and over in this thread.

  148. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Yguy, your responses to me have been so completely without merit as to make it an insult to our intelligence. The actions taken by the doh are acts of the state. If you disagree, find me a single case that suggests that. Copies of the contents doesn’t imply a copy of ALL the contents. The long form doesn’t contain all the information submitted by the hospital. Finally, I’m still confused – does Google not work on your computer? If you are so incapable of figuring out what ARE 902 says, why should we believe anything you say. Why should I trust any statement of someone who can’t even do rudimentary web research – to say nothing about legal research?

  149. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 26, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    yguy: the long form contains data that the COLB does not

    But none of that extra data is relevant to determining date and place of birth.

  150. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    Yguy, your responses to me have been so completely without merit as to make it an insult to my intelligence. The actions taken by the doh are acts of the state. If you disagree, find me a single case that suggests otherwise. Copies of the contents doesn’t imply a copy of ALL the contents. The long form doesn’t contain all the information submitted by the hospital. (Hint: long form = prima favie evidence of facts therein = COLB) Finally, I’m still confused – does Google not work on your computer? If you are so incapable of figuring out what ARE 902 says, why should we believe anything you say. Why should I trust any statement of someone who can’t even do rudimentary web research – to say nothing about legal research?

  151. avatar
    nbc May 26, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    He can be annoying but it does help one to hone one’s arguments. Once Yguy will accept that the COLB is sufficient to prove natural born status, he will slowly have to abandon his position. But we all know from the scientific research in the area of cognitive dissonance that abandoning a belief is extremely hard, despite the facts, or perhaps in spite of the facts.

    Greg: Yguy, your responses to me have been so completely without merit as to make it an insult to my intelligence. The actions taken by the doh are acts of the state. If you disagree, find me a single case that suggests otherwise. Copies of the contents doesn’t imply a copy of ALL the contents. The long form doesn’t contain all the information submitted by the hospital. (Hint: long form = prima favie evidence of facts therein = COLB) Finally, I’m still confused – does Google not work on your computer? If you are so incapable of figuring out what ARE 902 says, why should we believe anything you say. Why should I trust any statement of someone who can’t even do rudimentary web research – to say nothing about legal research?

  152. avatar
    nbc May 26, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    People familiar with military law appear to be wondering the same about Yguy at CAAFlog πŸ™‚

    JoZeppy: How does one argue with someone who knows so little about law and government that they don’t even know that state agencies are part of the state?

  153. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Greg: Yguy, your responses to me have been so completely without merit as to make it an insult to our intelligence.

    I know the feeling, and you guys rarely fail to provide a reminder of it.

    The actions taken by the doh are acts of the state.

    Sure they are, in whatever decade they occurred.

    Copies of the contents doesn’t imply a copy of ALL the contents.

    Yes, it does. Otherwise a COLB that had nothing more than Obama’s name on it would qualify as equivalent to the original under that provision.

    Beyond that, §338-13 (a) says the qualified applicant can have a copy of any part of any certificate, so the DoH can’t withhold the extra info in the long form if the registrant requests it.

    The long form doesn’t contain all the information submitted by the hospital.

    So what?

    If you are so incapable of figuring out what ARE 902 says

    I know exactly what it says – or at least what Joshua S. Davidson says it says – and it doesn’t contravene anything I’ve said.

  154. avatar
    Scientist May 26, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    yguy- This discussion is quite pointless. No SoS would do otherwise than accept whatever official birth certificate the candidate provided. Your idea that they would conduct some kind of 3rd degree based on rumors and innuendo is simply fantasy. The proposed law (you do know it didn’t pass?) was simply grandstanding and wouldn’t be the slightest hindrance to Barack Obama or any serious candidate for President. In fact, I think Obama was actually hoping it would pass, so he could ridicule the Republicans.

  155. avatar
    yguy May 26, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Scientist: yguy- This discussion is quite pointless

    You are welcome to cease addressing me any time. Really. πŸ™‚

    Your idea that they would conduct some kind of 3rd degree based on rumors and innuendo is simply fantasy.

    Actually the fantasy lies in your characterization of the basis of my contentions.

  156. avatar
    G May 26, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    SFJeff: “That doesn’t even make sense in any context of what has been discussed here”I think i might just copy and paste that sentence and use it over and over in this thread.

    LOL! You are welcome! Feel free to use it as often as you wish. πŸ™‚

  157. avatar
    Greg May 26, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    yguy: Otherwise a COLB that had nothing more than Obama’s name on it would qualify as equivalent to the original under that provision.

    It would be equivalent.

    For the facts contained THEREIN. It would be sufficient to prove that an Obama was born.

    The COLB is not sufficient to prove that Obama was born at such-and-such a hospital, you’d need the long form to do that. But, for the facts that they both contain, they are both prima facie evidence and of equal probative value!

    Read the bottom of the COLB. Seems the State of Hawaii is once again interpreting their statues differently than yguy. It says:

    This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

    So, yeah, the COLB is a copy as interpreted by the Hawaii DOH. Administrative interpretations of the statutes they regulate are given deference by the courts. Interpretations of statutes made by anonymous internet guys who can’t figure out how to work Google to find the Arizona Rules of Evidence (click on the court rules on the left hand side, which will take you to WestLaw’s publication of the rules of evidence) are given no deference.

    Beyond that, §338-13 (a) says the qualified applicant can have a copy of any part of any certificate, so the DoH can’t withhold the extra info in the long form if the registrant requests it.

    Why would he request it?

    Obama sends Arizona a COLB. The Secretary of State has to accept it unless there is substantial reason to doubt its veracity. So, the SoS asks Obama for additional paperwork. He refuses. Then what? The SoS subpoenas the information? Obama moves to quash the subpoena as it seeks duplicative and irrelevant information. The SoS determines that Obama has failed to prove he’s eligible and seeks to have Obama stricken from the ballot? Obama sues to block the ruling as it is an arbitrary and capricious decision not supported by substantial evidence (which the Arizona courts have interpreted to mean a preponderance of the evidence).

  158. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Greg:
    It would be equivalent. For the facts contained THEREIN. It would be sufficient to prove that an Obama was born.

    So a document sufficient to prove nothing more than birth is equivalent to a document sufficient to prove birthplace, birthdate, parentage, witness to the birth, etc..

    Right.

    The COLB is not sufficient to prove that Obama was born at such-and-such a hospital, you’d need the long form to do that. But, for the facts that they both contain, they are both prima facie evidence and of equal probative value!

    How about if one of the facts the long form contains is that it was late or altered? Do they still have equal probative value?

    Read the bottom of the COLB. Seems the State of Hawaii is once again interpreting their statues differently than yguy.

    They’re citing those provision in support of the statement that the COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, not of your preposterous claim that it’s a copy of the original.

    Beyond that, Doc C himself says:

    I would point out that no one has yet to publish a Hawaiian “long form” issued since June of 2007.

    Since §338-13 was last amended in 1978, what would have changed in 2007 that justified them interpreting the statute to your liking?

    Why would he request it?

    Because he wants his name on the ballot.

    Obama sends Arizona a COLB. The Secretary of State has to accept it unless there is substantial reason to doubt its veracity. So, the SoS asks Obama for additional paperwork. He refuses. Then what? The SoS subpoenas the information?

    No, the SoS doesn’t put his name on the ballot.

    Obama moves to quash the subpoena as it seeks duplicative and irrelevant information.

    No, Obama requests a certified copy of the the original under §338-13, and if the DoH refuses, he sues them. Either that or he sues the AZ SoS on the basis of being asked to provide a document to which HI law entitles him access.

  159. avatar
    Greg May 27, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    So a document sufficient to prove nothing more than birth is equivalent to a document sufficient to prove birthplace, birthdate, parentage, witness to the birth, etc..

    It would be equivalent FOR THE FACTS CONTAINED THEREIN.

    Let’s look at the COLB:

    Name: Equivalent
    Date of birth: Equivalent
    Place of Birth: Equivalent
    Name of Parents: Equivalent
    Name of Hospital: Not Equivalent
    Name of delivering doctor: Not equivalent

    It is equivalent for all the information that is required to determine whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

    How about if one of the facts the long form contains is that it was late or altered? Do they still have equal probative value?

    Any suggestion that the COLB does not also contain that information if the long form does? HRS 338-16 says that late or altered birth certificates must say late or altered. When you request a “birth certificate” from the state, you get the COLB. I look forward to the contortions you’ll twist yourself into to explain how the COLB isn’t a birth certificate as defined in 338-16 and therefore doesn’t have to say late or altered if it is late or altered.

    They’re citing those provision in support of the statement that the COLB is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, not of your preposterous claim that it’s a copy of the original.

    Have you looked at it? They state that it is a copy. What do you think it’s a copy of?

    Since §338-13 was last amended in 1978, what would have changed in 2007 that justified them interpreting the statute to your liking?

    What do you think has changed? It is clear that they do interpret it the way I’ve described. Without further evidence, I’m going to assume there has been no change and you’ve been wrong since 1978.

    Because he wants his name on the ballot.

    The AZ law in question doesn’t say “submit a long form,” it says submit paperwork sufficient to prove eligibility. The COLB is sufficient.

    No, the SoS doesn’t put his name on the ballot.

    An arbitrary and capricious decision. Arizona administrative decisions must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and you cannot present any evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, much less prove it to be more likely than not!

  160. avatar
    Scientist May 27, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    yguy: Because he wants his name on the ballot.

    Maybe he doesn’t. Let’s look at it from the purely political standpoint. Obama is unlikely to win Arizona unless he got a huge national landslide, in which case he would hardly need Arizona. Much of the Democratic base will not be happy if Obama spends money advertizing in Arizona, in violation of the boycott over the immigration law. That money could be better deployed in other states anyway.

    So, perhaps it might be smart for Obama to refuse on principle to be on the ballot in AZ and campaign against the un-American Arizona Republicans with their birther and rascist proclivities.

  161. avatar
    SFJeff May 27, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Yguy- I just want to point out “That doesn’t even make sense in any context of what has been discussed here”

  162. avatar
    NbC May 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    So a document sufficient to prove nothing more than birth is equivalent to a document sufficient to prove birthplace, birthdate, parentage, witness to the birth, etc..

    Still ignoring what Greg is saying so clearly? Oh denial…

  163. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Greg:
    It would be equivalent FOR THE FACTS CONTAINED THEREIN.

    I realize how desperate you are to shift the argument onto more comfortable ground, but the fact remains that a COLB is not a copy of the original, to which Obama is entitled access.

    Any suggestion that the COLB does not also contain that information if the long form does?

    Not a suggestion, just an observation that it can be devoid of that information, though not legally.

    Have you looked at it? They state that it is a copy. What do you think it’s a copy of?

    It’s a hard copy of a file on a hard drive, obviously.

    What do you think has changed?

    Doc C’s statement suggests they may have stopped issuing long forms after 2007.

    It is clear that they do interpret it the way I’ve described.

    So if the DoH was issuing long forms in 2007, that means between then and 1978 they were interpreting it so as to justify not issuing the long form. Have I got that about right?

    The AZ law in question doesn’t say “submit a long form,” it says submit paperwork sufficient to prove eligibility. The COLB is sufficient.

    SB 1024 leaves that determination to the discretion of the SoS.

    An arbitrary and capricious decision.

    Then let him spend thousands suing the SoS rather than apply to DoH for a document he could probably have for $50 – and justify it to the American public. That oughta be a riot. πŸ™‚

  164. avatar
    Greg May 27, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    yguy:

    the fact remains that a COLB is not a copy of the original

    I never said it was a copy of the original. It’s a copy of some of the contents of the original with the same probative value of the facts it contains as the original would have of the facts it contains!

    Not a suggestion, just an observation that it can be devoid of that information, though not legally.

    It could have been planted by the CIA.

    You seem to think that your speculations and imaginings have some relevance.

    Prove that it’s likely, then you’ve got a case.

    SB 1024 leaves that determination to the discretion of the SoS.

    It’s not unlimited discretion, the SoS is still bound by other Arizona laws, one of which is the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act which requires that decisions made by an Agency must be supported by substantial evidence, which the Arizona courts have interpreted to mean a preponderance of the evidence – in other words, more likely than not.

    Then let him spend thousands suing the SoS,

    Well, it’s not going to happen, because, unlike you and Lakin, the Arizona Secretary of State would follow the law. Following the law leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the COLB is sufficient proof that Obama is a natural born citizen.

  165. avatar
    Sef May 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    yguy:
    I realize how desperate you are to shift the argument onto more comfortable ground, but the fact remains that a COLB is not a copy of the original, to which Obama is entitled access.
    Not a suggestion, just an observation that it can be devoid of that information, though not legally.
    It’s a hard copy of a file on a hard drive, obviously.
    Doc C’s statement suggests they may have stopped issuing long forms after 2007.
    So if the DoH was issuing long forms in 2007, that means between then and 1978 they were interpreting it so as to justify not issuing the long form. Have I got that about right?
    SB 1024 leaves that determination to the discretion of the SoS.
    Then let him spend thousands suing the SoS rather than apply to DoH for a document he could probably have for $50 – and justify it to the American public. That oughta be a riot.

    yguy, let me explain. If this AZ law had been approved it asked for proof of Constitutional eligibility. The COLB which HI provided contains most of that information (excepting residence). The COLB is signed & sealed by the state & by the FF&C clause it must be accepted by every other state. The proposed law does not ask for a specific document, only information. It does not matter that some other document might exist. The only thing that matters is the information contained therein. This is like you saying you need not obey a law because you do not have in your hot little hands the original signed by the Governor or the President.

    To your last point, he would do this because of precedent. To acquiesce to illegal demands is blackmail. Why do you think the state expends thousands & thousands of dollars to apprehend, prosecute & incarcerate criminals whose monetary impact was originally negligible?

  166. avatar
    SFJeff May 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Or as Doc suggests- Obama might actually move to produce the original if an official agency requested the original BC instead of a bunch of racist malcontents whining about it. I don’t believe for a moment that President Obama has any reason to refuse to provide any documents to a legitimate government request.

  167. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    yguy: So a document sufficient to prove nothing more than birth is equivalent to a document sufficient to prove birthplace, birthdate, parentage, witness to the birth, etc..

    All President Obama would be required to prove is his qualifications to hold the office, where and when he was born (of course they could require proof of residency, but that would not come from either form). As the COLB contains his location of birth, and date of birth, and is an official State of Hawaii form for establishing location and date of birth, and is prima facie evidence of the event, Arizona is bound by the Full Faith and Credit clause to accept that document as prima facie evidence of the birth event. Requirements to prove what hospital he was born at, witnesses, etc., are placing additional requirements on a Constitutionally defined office, and are unconstitutional, and would be stuck down. All the information required to establish Constitutional eligibility appear on the COLB. Arizona is bound by the Constitution to accept the document.

    yguy: How about if one of the facts the long form contains is that it was late or altered? Do they still have equal probative value?

    Again, unless you have real rebuttal evidence (and no, refusal to produce more documentation is not rebuttal evidence) that the information on the COLB is unreliable, this is mere conjecture that does nothing to undermine the COLB as prima facie evidence of the facts on it. The legal system isn’t designed to promote fishing expetions. If you have some rebuttal evidence, offer it. If not, sit down, and get out of the way, and stop wasting everyone’s time.

  168. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Greg:
    I never said it was a copy of the original.

    Then your argument is irrelevant to Obama’s ability to obtain a certified copy of the original.

    It could have been planted by the CIA.
    You seem to think that your speculations and imaginings have some relevance.

    You’re the only one saying anything about the CIA, pilgrim. πŸ˜‰

    It’s not unlimited discretion, the SoS is still bound by other Arizona laws, one of which is the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act which requires that decisions made by an Agency must be supported by substantial evidence, which the Arizona courts have interpreted to mean a preponderance of the evidence – in other words, more likely than not.

    I have every confidence that there is no shortage of judges who are, like so many here, blissfully oblivious to the glaringly obvious.

  169. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    Sef:
    It does not matter that some other document might exist.

    It does if the document is alleged to exist by the DDoH, and the candidate is entitled to access to it.

    To acquiesce to illegal demands is blackmail.

    Think Obama has something to hide, do you? πŸ™‚

  170. avatar
    nbc May 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    yguy: Then your argument is irrelevant to Obama’s ability to obtain a certified copy of the original.

    Why should he or would he when the data he did provide show him natural born?

    Remember that all the President has to do is show that he is natural born, not to lay to rest your ‘concerns’…

  171. avatar
    Greg May 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    yguy: Then your argument is irrelevant to Obama’s ability to obtain a certified copy of the original.

    I don’t know, nor care whether Obama can get a copy of the original. The COLB is sufficient to prove that Obama is natural born. There exists no evidence that can prove that he is not. There is nothing that any birther has yet presented which makes it more likely than not that the long form will contradict anything material on the COLB.

    It does if the document is alleged to exist by the DDoH, and the candidate is entitled to access to it.

    So, if the Department of Health alleges that they have a record of Obama’s vaccination, and Obama is entitled to access it, that’s also relevant?

  172. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    yguy: Then let him spend thousands suing the SoS rather than apply to DoH for a document he could probably have for $50 – and justify it to the American public. That oughta be a riot.

    Except that is your scenario, not Obama’s. He doesn’t have to play your games or do this contrived request process you so desire.

    He has no motive or reason to request anything other than the standard state document issued as proof of his birth certificate.

    Therefore, if he requests another copy of birth certificate from HI and they say here’s the COLB, he doesn’t care about your silly birther arguments or have any personal reason himself not to accept that exact same COLB document and present it to any state that asks.

    And no state can refuse to accept that COLB. End of story.

  173. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    yguy: It does if the document is alleged to exist by the DDoH, and the candidate is entitled to access to it.

    No, it does not matter. Even if both are readily available, like in New Jersey, both documents are covered by the full faith and credit clause, and Arizona would be required to accept either version.

  174. avatar
    nbc May 27, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    G: yguy: Then let him spend thousands suing the SoS rather than apply to DoH for a document he could probably have for $50 – and justify it to the American public. That oughta be a riot.

    He has already shown the document that justifies him being the President.

    Why cater to some who would never accept any evidence that contradicts their beliefs?

  175. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    Greg:
    I don’t know, nor care whether Obama can get a copy of the original.

    No doubt…but then again, you don’t much care whether he’s eligible for office either.

    The COLB is sufficient to prove that Obama is natural born.

    Sure it is, if one relies on certain assumptions…well except that there isn’t any such thing as a proof based on assumptions…

    There exists no evidence that can prove that he is not.

    …such as this one, which relies on nothing so much as the suppression of known and possibly contradictory evidence.

  176. avatar
    Bob Ross May 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    yguy: No doubt…but then again, you don’t much care whether he’s eligible for office either.Sure it is, if one relies on certain assumptions…well except that there isn’t any such thing as a proof based on assumptions……such as this one, which relies on nothing so much as the suppression of known and possibly contradictory evidence.

    Funny how proof based on assumptions is what you’re suggesting you have. All of your assumptions are meaningless as they have no evidence to back it up. When I write to my home county for a copy of my birth certificate and I receive a COLB. I don’t go off the assumption that this document must be a fake and that this is not proof that I was born in California. See this is your assumption with Obama. Instead of looking at the evidence you start with a conclusion and then disqualify all the existing evidence to fit around your conclusion. There is no contradictory evidence. Once again you’re making an assumption. All that is needed to be known is in the COLB. City and State where Obama was born. This is all the information that is relevent.

  177. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Bob Ross: Funny how proof based on assumptions is what you’re suggesting you have. All of your assumptions are meaningless as they have no evidence to back it up. When I write to my home county for a copy of my birth certificate and I receive a COLB. I don’t go off the assumption that this document must be a fake and that this is not proof that I was born in California. See this is your assumption with Obama. Instead of looking at the evidence you start with a conclusion and then disqualify all the existing evidence to fit around your conclusion. There is no contradictory evidence. Once again you’re making an assumption. All that is needed to be known is in the COLB. City and State where Obama was born. This is all the information that is relevent.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head completely. Good post.

  178. avatar
    JoZeppy May 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    yguy: The COLB is sufficient to prove that Obama is natural born.
    Sure it is, if one relies on certain assumptions…well except that there isn’t any such thing as a proof based on assumptions…

    Yes…some silly assumptions like we are a society based on laws, and things like prima facie evidence actually mean something.

    yguy: don’t know, nor care whether Obama can get a copy of the original.
    No doubt…but then again, you don’t much care whether he’s eligible for office either.

    Or perhaps we just choose to live in the reality based world rather than buying into the world of entirely baseless, and fact free world of conspiracy theories?

    yguy: There exists no evidence that can prove that he is not.
    …such as this one, which relies on nothing so much as the suppression of known and possibly contradictory evidence.

    Execpt for the fact that there is no reasonable reason to believe the evidence is contradictory.

  179. avatar
    Bob Ross May 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    G: You’ve hit the nail on the head completely. Good post.

    In yguy’s world a cop pulls you over and after being asked for license and registration he then asks for a detailed list of every place you’ve parked your car, where you have your oil changed, what your mechanic’s name is, the name of the children of the dealer you bought the car from, etc, etc, etc.

  180. avatar
    Sef May 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    yguy: Sure it is, if one relies on certain assumptions…well except that there isn’t any such thing as a proof based on assumptions

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Except that ALL of mathematics, logic, etc have at their root things known as axioms: statements which cannot be proven, but which are the basis for everything else. So, we provisionally accept these axioms & build our systems. From this framework we get self-consistency & we build our world. Maybe you live in a world where these axioms are not valid; if so please let us know.

  181. avatar
    Bob Ross May 27, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    Sef: Ha! Ha! Ha! Except that ALL of mathematics, logic, etc have at their root things known as axioms: statements which cannot be proven, but which are the basis for everything else. So, we provisionally accept these axioms & build our systems. From this framework we get self-consistency & we build our world. Maybe you live in a world where these axioms are not valid; if so please let us know.

    I have to say Sef it must suck living in a world like [personal reference deleted, Doc.] the birthers where there is no authority that can ever be trusted. I assume these people don’t go to police when someone breaks in their home, go to the doctor when they’re sick, nor go to the grocery store because they’re relying on someone else saying something is okay for them.

  182. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

    Sef:
    Ha! Ha! Ha!Except that ALL of mathematics, logic, etc have at their root things known as axioms

    I see the distinction between axioms (self-evident truths) and assumptions (propositions which are not known to be true) escapes you.

  183. avatar
    SFJeff May 27, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    “No doubt…but then again, you don’t much care whether he’s eligible for office either.”

    I care whether any President is eligible, and in coming to my conclusion that President Obama was indeed eligible, I used the same rational that I used when I determined that Clinton and Bush were eligible.

    Just as American Voters did. Of course you may believe that American voters don’t care about eligiblity, that you, and your small group of unbelievers are more enlightened than the voters are.

  184. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    yguy: I see the distinction between axioms (self-evident truths) and assumptions (propositions which are not known to be true) escapes you.

    The notion of “self-evident truth” in mathematics is quaint idea, but not particularly useful in modern mathematics. As soon as self-evident truth is discarded one gets non-Euclidean geometry, for example.

    Why don’t you guys stick to on-topic stuff.

  185. avatar
    yguy May 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    SFJeff: you, and your small group of unbelievers

    If you insist on casting yourself as a “believer”, far be it from me to say otherwise.