Main Menu

New Feature – Birther Bills

At the suggestion of a reader of this blog, I am adding a new feature, Birther Bills. It’s found on the top menu under Features. This page will have information about birther-related legislation across the country. If you know of something I missed (probably quite a lot at this point), just comment.

It’s a work in progress and the formatting and content are likely to change.

,

28 Responses to New Feature – Birther Bills

  1. avatar
    Loren February 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Arizona’s bill doesn’t require just a long-form original birth certificate. It also requires:

    “A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”

    As if there wasn’t enough reason to believe that this bill is specifically targeted at Obama. And it’s terms would necessarily exclude him from the ballot.

    On the plus side, if the bill actually passes, a challenge is absolutely guaranteed, and the Birthers will finally get a judicial ruling that dual citizenship at birth does not impact natural born citizenship.

  2. avatar
    Stanislaw February 4, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Loren: Arizona’s bill doesn’t require just a long-form original birth certificate.It also requires:“A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”As if there wasn’t enough reason to believe that this bill is specifically targeted at Obama.And it’s terms would necessarily exclude him from the ballot.On the plus side, if the bill actually passes, a challenge is absolutely guaranteed, and the Birthers will finally get a judicial ruling that dual citizenship at birth does not impact natural born citizenship.

    A bill aimed directly at a specific individual? That raises some very un-Constitutional bill of attainder-type issues. Just one more reason that these bills are all doomed to failure.

  3. avatar
    Jim February 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    [The banned James (John, Jim and a host of other pseudonyms) posts quite a bit here, but I usually trash them. This one was interesting enough to reply to. Doc.]

    Bills that become laws are usually persumed [sic] constitutional until proven otherwise. Timing is important in passage of this bill into law. They need to wait until the latest possible time to pass the bill.

    [So you are saying that you want an unconstitutional bill to affect the election? How patriotic! However, what you don’t know is that cases like this are streamlined, and can be heard very quickly. Think back to Bush v Gore. Your “last minute” ploy won’t fly. Doc.]

    Knowing that Obama has no long-form BC and that he has duel [sic] allegiences [sic], Arizona can hopefully keep Obama off the ballot before the court process runs it’s course.

    [You have no way of “knowing” Obama has no long-form birth certificate. In fact, all the evidence points to him either having or being able to obtain one. Doc]

    Of course, people will want to know why Obama isn’t on the ballot in Arizona.

    [Won’t happen. Doc.]

    Once it becomes clear the Obama can’t produce a long-form BC proving he was born in Hawaii and not merely registered by the grandparents as being born in Hawaii, Obama will finished and will not get reelected.

    [Putting aside the Hawaiian law that requires the parents (not grandparents) to file a birth certificate for a home birth, there is still an original long-form birth certificate; it is just signed by someone different and has a different birth location on it.

    I would suggest to you, as a next step, to get a browser with a spell checker.

    What I find curious is that James’ messages are not being caught by my moderation rules, but by the off-site spam filter. I can only speculate that James is posting at a lot of blogs and being reported as a spammer. I’m not doing that. Doc.]

  4. avatar
    gorefan February 4, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Recently, Charo posted a link to an article about President Lincoln. This was part of the article:

    “the Illinois Constitution forbade a member of the state legislature from running for federal office……The clause ….would later be proven unconstitutional on the grounds that no state may alter requirements for federal office.”

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/pinsker.html

  5. avatar
    Keith February 5, 2011 at 12:45 am #

    Stanislaw: A bill aimed directly at a specific individual? That raises some very un-Constitutional bill of attainder-type issues. Just one more reason that these bills are all doomed to failure.

    Actually this bill is not aimed at a specific individual only. It is aimed at one specific individual [b]and[/b] every American born Jew.

  6. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    I posted elsewhere my profound hope that Arizona’s bill passes and that the very, very white Republican AG of Arizona holds a press conference announcing that the black Democratic candidate is not eligible. Not that there would be any perception by anyone that the issue was both racial and poltical….

    The great political theater that would result would be lovely to watch.

  7. avatar
    Lupin February 5, 2011 at 4:43 am #

    On related news I just learned the Sarah Palin (R) (and Bristol Palin) (R) have just registered their names as trademarks.

    I know Harlan Ellison has done that, and sued Fantagraphics for using his name on the cover of THE COMICS JOURNAL once. (Lots of bad blood between these two.)

    Now I do know that such a registration would not be be granted in France under our trademarks law. (Which raises the issue whether Palin could enforce her tm outside the US).

    My question to my learned colleagues here is — if Sarah Palin (R) runs for public office (as opposed to merely remaining an entertainer of dubious value), wouldn’t that automatically throw her tm in the public domain?

  8. avatar
    DCH February 5, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    I to hope the AZ and NE bills pass and get signed in by the respective Govs.
    1. I’d love to watch Gov Brewer trying to explain the constitutional basis for it as she is signing it.

    2. Then we just wait until 2012 and watch the candidates send in their various COLB type things and watch the birthers try to explain the nuances of long-forms, Vattel, two parent rules and the rest of drivel to the five-second attention span news news cycle. All the while every mixed race individual and child of immigrant parents will make note of the obvious bigotry on display.

    3. The fun part will be when then get to the HI birth part and have to explain the Kenyan birth myth when holding a COLB from HI. Every failed birther lawyer: Berg, Mario, Orly and Kreep will be fighting for the the same tiny spotlight. It will be a carnival of birther acts.

    4. Keyes will be on the ballot in the BC law states no doubt. He will step up and unload one of his minigun bursts of birther-lunacy as he delivers his BC.

  9. avatar
    DCH February 5, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    “My question to my learned colleagues here is — if Sarah Palin (R) runs for public office (as opposed to merely remaining an entertainer of dubious value), wouldn’t that automatically throw her tm in the public domain?”

    I believe so. It is hard to have it both ways.

  10. avatar
    misha February 5, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Keith: Actually this bill is not aimed at a specific individual only. It is aimed at one specific individual and every American born Jew.

    Amazing coincidence, no?

  11. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    Jim: [The banned James (John, Jim and a host of other pseudonyms)posts quite a bit here, but I usually trash them.This one was interesting enough to reply to. Doc.]Bills that become laws are usually persumed [sic] constitutional until proven otherwise.Timing is important in passage of this bill into law.They need to wait until the latest possible time to pass the bill.[So you are saying that you want an unconstitutional bill to affect the election? How patriotic! However, what you don’t know is that cases like this are streamlined, and can be heard very quickly. Think back to Bush v Gore. Your “last minute” ploy won’t fly.Doc.]

    Unfortunately for James and his various sock puppets, there will abundant time to seek an injunction against the Arizona SOS from putting the unconstitutional provisions of this law into effect. The first day for Presidential candidates to file for the Arizona Presidential Preference Election is December 20, 2011 and the last day is January 9, 2012. Early voting does not begin until February 2 for an election that takes place on February 28, 2012 . That gives Team Obama more than two months to challenge the law and win a place on the ballot.

    Easy peasy.

  12. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Lupin: On related news I just learned the Sarah Palin (R) (and Bristol Palin) (R) have just registered their names as trademarks.I know Harlan Ellison has done that, and sued Fantagraphics for using his name on the cover of THE COMICS JOURNAL once. (Lots of bad blood between these two.)Now I do know that such a registration would not be be granted in France under our trademarks law. (Which raises the issue whether Palin could enforce her tm outside the US).My questionto my learned colleagues here is — if Sarah Palin (R) runs for public office (as opposed to merely remaining an entertainer of dubious value), wouldn’t that automatically throw her tm in the public domain?

    In order to be entitled to registration, a mark must identify the goods or services and distinguish them from the goods or services of others. The mark must not merely identify the individual, it must have become distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services.

    Given the legal standard, Sarah Palin would only be able to enforce her trademark against another who is selling RWNJ pablum. Bristol, though, would have the market cornered on unwed dancing mothers.

  13. avatar
    Sef February 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Unfortunately for James and his various sock puppets, there will abundant time to seek an injunction against the Arizona SOS from putting the unconstitutional provisions of this law into effect.The first day for Presidential candidates to file for the Arizona Presidential Preference Election is December 20, 2011 and the last day is January 9, 2012.Early voting does not begin until February 2 for an election that takes place on February 28, 2012 .That gives Team Obama more than two months to challenge the law and win a place on the ballot.Easy peasy.

    Can I presume that between Dec 20 & Jan 9 they would not be able to change the rules? Say 1 candidate filed Dec 20 under current rules, then they changed them precluding another candidate. Sounds like that could be easily challenged.

  14. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    Sef, generally the laws enacted by the Arizona Legislature go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, which means that the effective date will likely be between late July and early September.

  15. avatar
    Sef February 5, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Sef, generally the laws enacted by the Arizona Legislature go into effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, which means that the effective date will likely be between late July and early September.

    If the 90 days occurred within the filing window, wouldn’t that be a problem?

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 5, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: there will abundant time to seek an injunction against the Arizona SOS from putting the unconstitutional provisions of this law into effect.

    I would also note, from comments made by the Arizona SOS, that a full-throated defense of this law if it is passed and taken to court is far from assured…

  17. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I would also note, from comments made by the Arizona SOS, that a full-throated defense of this law if it is passed and taken to court is far from assured…

    But you have to figure into this the fact that the defense is provided by the state attorney general and at the direction of Gov. Jan Brewer. AG Tom Horne is a man who will contort legal argument until it resembles a pretzel.

  18. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 5, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    But you have to figure into this the fact that the defense is provided by the state attorney general and at the direction of Gov. Jan Brewer. AG Tom Horne is a man who will contort legal argument until it resembles a pretzel.

    Thanks for the correction. That makes me feel better about the impending show… (more fireworks! ;-))

  19. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I would also note, from comments made by the Arizona SOS, that a full-throated defense of this law if it is passed and taken to court is far from assured…

    But you have to figure into this the fact that the defense is provided by the state attorney general and at the direction of Gov. Jan Brewer. AG Tom Horne is anti-immigration — a man whose last act as Arizona’s superintendent of education was to declare the Tucson schools in noncompliance with law (HB 2281) because the school district refused to abolish its Ethnic Studies curriculum. Coincidentally, Judge John Roll was to hear a case brought by 11 ethnic studies teachers challenging HB2281, which Horne co-authored. If you pull back the curtain on the birther bill you’re likely to find Horne’s handiwork.

  20. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Sef:
    If the 90 days occurred within the filing window, wouldn’t that be a problem?

    Nothing to be worried about. Arizona has a part-time legislature that meets from the second Monday of January until late April in most years. The job pays $24,000 annually plus a per diem while in session that comes nowhere near the cost of living in Phoenix, so most of the legislators are anxious to see the session close so they can get back to their better compensated regular vocations.

  21. avatar
    Sef February 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Nothing to be worried about. Arizona has a part-time legislature that meets from the second Monday of January until late April in most years.The job pays $24,000 annually plus a per diem while in session that comes nowhere near the cost of living in Phoenix, so most of the legislators are anxious to see the session close so they can get back to their better compensated regular vocations.

    Sounds like a model for some other states.

  22. avatar
    Steve February 6, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: But you have to figure into this the fact that the defense is provided by the state attorney general and at the direction of Gov. Jan Brewer. AG Tom Horne is anti-immigration — a man whose last act as Arizona’s superintendent of education was to declare the Tucson schools in noncompliance with law (HB 2281) because the school district refused to abolish its Ethnic Studies curriculum. Coincidentally, Judge John Roll was to hear a case brought by 11 ethnic studies teachers challenging HB2281, which Horne co-authored. If you pull back the curtain on the birther bill you’re likely to find Horne’s handiwork.

    Has Brewer taken a position on the bill?

  23. avatar
    Sef February 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Is there any provision in the HAVA that would cut these bills off at the knees?

  24. avatar
    John February 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Missouri link:

    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/biltxt/intro/HB0283I.HTM

    Simple bill, just adds these two lines into the election law

    Such certification shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each nominee.

    Such written request shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each candidate

    No weird stuff about NBC, Parents BC or place etc.

  25. avatar
    Majority Will February 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    “Such certification shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each nominee.

    Such written request shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship for each candidate . . .”

    For President Obama, that’s a done deal. Nice.

    Moving on.

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast February 8, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    Hold on Will – Missouri is entitled to a shiny new COLB for their efforts! They deserve to get what they asked for… 😉

  27. avatar
    Majority Will February 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    “a shiny new COLB”

    Absolutely. Governor Abercrombie will probably hand deliver it too.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

    The Maine Secretary of State, Charles Summers, has testified in favor of the proposed enhanced citizenship verification bill in his state. One problem with the bill cited by opponents is that it requires a birth certificate as proof of US citizenship for naturalized citizens running the US House and Senate.

    http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/983810