Acting as a committee of the whole, the Arizona Senate gave preliminary approval to HB2177 April 5, a bill requiring eligibility documentation from candidates for President and Vice President. The Phoenix NewTimes says the governor is likely to sign it when passed.
I’m still looking for the text of the amended bill. The latest I have is from March 11. That version requires presidents to be born in hospital.
I’d like to see the wording of the bill too.
Jeff Lichter claims to written some of the bill or the revised versions. He told me also that Orly Taitz wrote one of the Arizona eligibility bills (not sure what edition/revised). And of course Arizona state legislature Judy Burges is always lurking in the background.
Btw, Arizona is a strange and desolate place. If it were up to me I would give Arizona back to the indigenous people so that they could have a large chunk of their land back.
If the indigenous people did not want the land (I wouldn’t blame them for that) I would then give Arizona to Mexico.
LOL!
Strange bill, at least before whatever amendment was applied. Again – it doesn’t really define “long form” and requires the candidate to be born in a hospital. “Any witnesses” is rather vague, but I guess the dictionary definition can be met by just one.
This one doesn’t make note of “INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE CITIZENSHIP OF BOTH PARENTS”. I don’t know of any birth certificate that does that, although it could exist. I have a hard time following how Arizona publishes their amendments.
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/s.2177gr.doc.htm&Session_ID=102
Also – doesn’t Arizona use electronic birth registration now?
Yep. Irinicly any arizonan below the age of 14 would be ineligible to run in arizona if this thing asses. Even the white folx
Well then it’s probably the worst-written bill in the history of Arizona, and will have the floor falling all over itself laughing when they get around to actually reading the contents.
I think there might be a paper form for unattended or home births, but would it be the basis for a certified copy? Also – what birth certificates indicate whether or not the parents are US citizens? The most I’ve seen would be place of birth of one or both parents and perhaps usual residence. That precludes proof if a parent was born overseas to citizen parents, or if one/both are naturalized US citizens.
This bill as written also doesn’t say whether or not the submitted documents are held or returned. That could be important if the issuing government agency won’t provide new certified “long forms”.
I’m also guessing you mean anyone under 14 today, but when they reach the age where they would meet the age requirements to be President.
Birth Certificates are based on the National Center for Health Statistics standards. Those standards have never required reporting of the parents citizenship.
So I looked up HB2177 and found that in the initial version (the web site doesn’t show me whether this has been revised or not) there is a requirement: “A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PRECEDING FOURTEEN YEARS.” So what is the purpose in that? The Constitutional requirement is for 14 years of residence in the U.S., not just the most recent 14 years.
Eisenhower might have had problems w/this qualification. Of course since he was on active duty when he was in Europe we may have counted his U.S. address as his residence.
Actually below the age of 21. Arizona doesn’t issue long forms to anyone born after 1989
I’ve noticed that many state birth certificate forms (at least the ones filled out on paper and either filed and/or scanned to a database) have gotten shorter and shorter over the years. At the very least, I recall that Georgia’s birther bill was crafted with requirements that a person born in Georgia could meet with their standard certified BC. So many of these birther bills seem to include language/buzzwords from the birthers that are ill-defined or don’t correspond to the reality of how modern births (or even older ones) are recorded. It does sound a lot like they’ve allowed several birthers to draft these bills with a generic birther mandate.
An amusing view. Hating on Arizona for wanting of Presidential candidates that they are upholding the Constitution.
Bob
Odd, all these comments here seem to be operating under the assumption Obama would *not* have the original long form birth certificate.
Bob
No one is operating under that assumption but you. There is no need to release a long form. Obama has already released more than any previous president.
Funny how this bill is being passed after their favorite son John McCain ran for president without being born in the country.
Here’s how you find the rest of the Senate action. Go to http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=hb2177&Session_Id=102 and then click the section on the page for “adopted amendments”
You will see that there are 3 amendments that were adopted.
The first floor amendment provides:
The 2nd floor amendment adds a severability clause: if part of the law invalidated by the courts, the rest still stands.
The third, which is called “strike everything” – is dated 3/23/11 and appears to be the committee amended version before the matter was debated on the floor. That requires a hospital birth certificate:
Bob, why do you have such a bad habit of putting your foot in your mouth without realizing it?
When you don’t know what you are talking about, sometimes it is better to keep quiet than to say something foolish.
Lucas D. Smith is the forger behind the one of the fake Kenyan BCs that has become an infamous part of Moments in Birther History. He is obviously no fan of Obama. If you would try to listen and read up on things before always spouting off, you might realize that he has been commenting over here for awhile now.
Therefore, I think it is quite clear that his snarkily stated opinion of AZ has nothing to do with their attempts at Birther Bills and is more likely based in his personal views of experiences he’s claimed to have had when he spent time in that state.
For the record, I found Lucas’ phrasing of his opinion of AZ to be funny and entertaining, but I do NOT share his view of that state.
This is the 2nd time (beyond all your Birtherism FAILS) that you’ve commented on something without having a clue of what you are talking about.
Whatever you thought you saw funny about Slartibartfast’s name was off in the wrong direction too. That is merely the name of a well-known character in Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series. Whatever you came up with on your own is just that – all something in your own head and not connected to his moniker.
Again, you draw conclusions that you make up in your own head and that are completely disconnected from reality.
No such assumption is being stated or made, except by you.
The issues on these laws is quite simple – No state can add extra-constitutional requirements to the application or definition of NBC. That is within federal purview alone. Every state must adhere to FFAC and accept the legal birth certificate document of another state.
Only the federal government can set the minimum standards definition of what fields of info must be present on those state BC documents, whether that state choses to call their document a “long form”, a “short form”, a “certificate” a “certification” or something else.
(Hint: There is NO consistent usage between the states of what is “long” vs “short”, so those titles are really completely IRRELEVANT. ALL that matters is that the state has an official document that meets those federal minimum requirements and they can call that form whatever they please)
For HI, that official form happens to be the COLB and has been for a decade. That HI COLB conforms to the federal standards and therefore, by FFAC, every other state MUST accept it and cannot create pseduo-laws to try to exclude it.
The problems with the bill have nothing to do with Obama’s ability to comply with it.
1. The bill requires Presidential candidates to prove that they have resided in the United States for the previous 14 years. That is a requirement which is not found in the Constitution. There is a 14-year residency requirement, but the Constitution does not say that it has to be the previous 14 years or even consecutive 14 years.
2. The bill gives the Arizona Secretary of State the authority to determine if a candidate is qualified to be President. Individual states do not have the authority to make that determination.
3. The bill invites litigation which could overwhelm Arizona’s courts by giving every citizen of the state standing to initiate an action to enforce the statute. It also fails to state when it would be proper to file such an action, or why it would even be necessary to file such an action. In addition, as worded someone who is not even registered to vote in Arizona could file an action.
So you’re saying this person posting on this forum under the name “Lucas D. Smith” is in favor of such Arizona presidential eligibility laws?
Bob
You really need to ask Slarty man what that joke I made in quotation marks about his name was referring to.
Note: I get the feeling I’m a bit older than you. Here’s one of the things I found to be the case from rueful experience over the years:
“The more hashly you ridicule someone else, the more likely you are to be wrong yourself.”
Bob
How about the more often one gets ridicules by multiple reasoned people the more likely that the person being ridiculed is dead wrong. So many people can’t be wrong and you be right Bob. Thus far you’ve shown a penchant for not knowing what you’re talking about like most birthers
“So you’re saying this person posting on this forum under the name “Lucas D. Smith” is in favor of such Arizona presidential eligibility laws?”
Holy crap. LMAO
🙄
I think the amusing thing will be the Republican primary in Arizona. I wonder how many GOP candidates will actually be able to secure a “certified copy” of a “long form” certificate containing the name of the hospital, attending physician, and witness signatures.
There is no need whatsoever for Obama to be on primary ballot in AZ — after all, he did just fine the last time around without being on the ballot in Michigan or Florida — so he could sit things out until September of 2012, or he could simply submit his COLB along with an affidavit of residency (easy enough for him, as an Illinois State Senator he had to establish residency in his district, he bought the house he owns in Chicago in 2004, and I think we can all figure out where he and his family have resided from January 2009 on).
If I were in charge of the legal stuff, I’d just take it cool and easy… and hold back to see what happened with GOP candidates first. Much more fun to see them try to comply with something that may turn out to be surprisingly difficult for many.
He’s part of the birther crowd. His reasons seem to be a bit unique. But he’s definitely a birther.
Next time I see him on here, I’ll ask him.
I don’t share your opinion on this.
I think it would reflect poorly for any serious candidate for national office to not be on every state ballot. That includes a President running for re-election.
This is a different type of situation from 2008’s MI & FL primary issue, which was an argument of when state primary contests would take place (after a certain date). Certain candidates agreed to respect that process and be left off of states that violated those rules. As part of that, those candidates were told that any ballots cast in an invalid primary would not be counted…
Although, speaking of that, FL and some other states may cause similar holding of too-soon “invalid primary” issues on the GOP side in 2012.
Attempting to argue that opposition to this law has nothing to do with Obama, is not going to get much traction. Nor would be someone attempting to argue the suppport for this law has nothing to do with Obama.
Bob
I don’t think so. I’m aware that prior to Jimmy Carter all presidents were born at home. Now, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are born in hospitals. For those who are not, that is such an unusual circumstance that there would be multiple lines of evidence of its occurrence. For instance undoubtedly both the mother and child would be taken to a hospital to be checked out to insure there were not health problems.
Bob
Bob, your argument only makes sense from the perspective of the delusionally paranoid mind of a birther. In the Birther’s imaginary world, they can’t understand how anyone could support Obama in the last election and allow him to be President. Anyone who doesn’t back up their nonsenical tales and challenges them or points out that the law doesn’t support their notions somehow “must be a paid operative”. Any person in authority or office who doesn’t act on their fake Grand Jury presentments and other letters railing on about “removing ursurpers” must be “in on the conspiracy”.
So, only from the perspective of a paranoid delusional would the first part of your argument: (Attempting to argue that opposition to this law has nothing to do with Obama, is not going to get much traction) make any sense.
Back in the real world, opposition to such laws has VERY REAL LEGAL basis, to which Obama is completely immaterial to the equation. For the very simple matter that if the “Birther” type provisions in any of these bills was passed, that law would NOT be able to hold up in a federal challenge. Those reasons are so clear (and have been stated here mulitple times) that there is no real debate of how the federal courts would rule on these matters. The areas of federal law they violate are fairly clear.
Simply put for AZ, neither a requirement of a undefined “long form” (which not all states have and which are very different even within states that do) nor requiring a “hospital birth” are justifiable positions in any serious sense at all.
However, as to the second point of your statement: ( Nor would be someone attempting to argue the suppport for this law has nothing to do with Obama)
Well, that part IS true and there is not a double-standard here. The simple reason is that all this crazy nonsensical extra-constitutional language in most of these state “Birther Bills” is pretty darn near cut/paste of one another and seems to come directly from Birther pseudo-arguments. All of these twisted Birther arguments seem to only have one thing in common – the Birthers think there is some mystery extra qualification that Obama doesn’t have that they can add to the definition of NBC, for the express purpose of hoping to invalidate him.
I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the likelihood that the majority of states do not currently issue birth certificates that comply with Arizona’s concept of what ought to be on one, so other candidates are going to have a hard time producing such a thing. Also, Newt Gingrich probably doesn’t have a birth certificate with his name on it.
“Undoubtedly”?
And if these parents DON’T go to a hospital…are your revoking their citizenship? Do the people who show up later get some special certificate that says they weren’t born there…but they stopped in and visited later? Or does it only apply if they make it to a hospital within a certain amount of days/weeks after the birth? How many people live in rural areas where the nearest hospital is…
The whole idea of requiring hospital birth as an additional NBC requirement is nonsensical and unnecessarily restrictive.
“I’m aware that prior to Jimmy Carter all presidents were born at home.”
And two after. But easy to verify facts will never impede a birther ranting with grossly misinformed opinions, zero verifiable citations and bigoted, wild guesses.
“I don’t think so. I’m aware that prior to Jimmy Carter all presidents were born at home. Now, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are born in hospitals. For those who are not, that is such an unusual circumstance that there would be multiple lines of evidence of its occurrence. For instance undoubtedly both the mother and child would be taken to a hospital to be checked out to insure there were not health problems.”
Well you would be wrong Bob. My sister had her first two children born at home with only a midwife present. As the children and my sister were fine, they did not go to the hospital afterwards. Her third child was born in a hospital due to complications. According to Arizona law, her first two children would not be able to be on the ballot but her third would- does that make any sense?
Does it make any sense for any law to be passed that would not have allowed for instance Eisenhower to be on the ballot? That makes no sense to me.
Finally, Birthers seem to think that President Obama will have issues with these bills. I don’t see that happening. First of all, I have no doubts that President Obama could obtain and present copies of his original birth certificate if it came to that.
But I don’t see it happening. First of all, I expect citizens of Arizona and others to sue if it passes. Even more so, I expect the Libertarian Party to sue. I just cannot imagine the Libertarian Party going along with a law like this.
I think the thing that gives the lie to “I’m not a racist but” and “You have to admit that you only oppose this because of Obama” lines is that no-one is arguing against the Georgia Birther bill, because that says is that you have to present a State Issued Birth Certificate to prove birth in the united states. All the ‘Obot’ sites said “that seems fair and I have no problem with it” and all the RWNJ sites did nothing but rage about it.
If it passes, it’s going to be funny. Will these records be posted for the public to see? And if Obama must disclose a copy of his original BC to be on the ballet in AZ, what will the spin be? That’s what no one brings up. Obama was never legally required to produce any documentation. If a law says he has to in order to run for President, he’ll do it. Big deal. Now everyone will know the name for the delivering doctor and decide if that’s a deal breaker for staying in the White House.
This is the adopted amendment to the bill that specifically deals with the birthers’ wetdreams:
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/s.2177gr.doc.htm&Session_ID=102
It’s dated 3/23/11
B. THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A SHALL INCLUDE REFERENCES TO AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE SWORN TO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY:
1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE.
Another amendment allows substitutions:
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/adopted/2177antenori1024.doc.htm&Session_ID=102
The Antenori floor amendment to the Government Reform Committee amendment inserts language regarding a presidential candidate who does not possess a long form birth certificate. A candidate would be able to include two or more of the following:
a) baptismal or circumcision certificate
b) hospital birth record
c) postpartum medical record
d) early census record.
Additionally, a candidate would also be able to submit a notarized affidavit from two or more persons who witnessed the candidates birth.
It’s not merely a matter of Obama as a candidate, but of Obama as President, responsible for defending the Constitution and the perogatives of the federal government. The federal government has a duty to challenge state laws that are unconstitutional and usurp federal powers. They have done so with Arizona’s immigration law and would be, IMO, obliged to challenge this Arizona law as well, if it does so in its final form. In fact, it is Arizona not Obama which could correctly be termed “the Usurper”.
Oh come on. That is a bit extreme isn’t? Fact is Obama was inline with the extreme liberal part of the democratic party. Hillary was in line with the more moderate or centrist part of the democratic party. Even among his detractors I don’t think they think it would be impossible for democrats who are mostly liberal to support him in the primaries. And once he won the primaries, McCain’s association with George Bush made it impossible for him to win.
About the legitimacy of the Arizona laws in relation to federal law I’ll look into that and give you my opinion if it would pass muster against legal challenges.
Bob
Thanks for that example. Note that in most states the signature of a recognized midwife on a birth certicate for a home birth is taken as just as reliable as that of physicians for a birth in a hospital. So even in that case there would be a valid long form birth certificate available.
Bob
Oh goodie, can’t wait Bob to see if you think the Arizona law will pass muster.
Wrong. Except in one case (that majicly had John Kerry as the most liberal senator in congress in the 2004 elections by some AMAAAAZING coincidence) every single one of the serious policy trackers had Obama and Hillary side by side in the moderate wing of the Democrats.
Fact? Ahahaha… You keep using that word; I don’t think it means what you think it means, to paraphrase the classic.
There is a hair’s breadth of difference between Obama and Clinton on almost every issue. They are both centrists, and have never pretended to be anything but.
Thanks for that info. Sfjeff mentioned above the case of Eisenhower. I just found out today that Eisenhower did not initially have a birth certificate and the method by which he presented one was in accordance with that last method you stated in the Arizona law:
Saturday, March 26, 2011
President Dwight Eisenhower Had to File a Birth Certificate to Run for President – Unlike Obama, Ike had nothing to hide!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/president-dwight-eisenhower-had-to-file.html
It is also notable that the Arizona law also allows birth to be confirmed by census recods which also confirmed Eisnehower’s U.S. birth.
Bob Clark
How do census records confirm that someone was born in the US? The 2010 census asked sex, date of birth and race of each person living at an address. Nothiing about birthplace
Recent previous censuses asked the same.. Some earlier ones asked a sampling of the population where they were born. However, as far as I know it was largelly self-reported and not verified by census workers.
By the way, you mentioned McCain. The AZ law would not allow him on the ballot. While there are a minority of scholars who argue those born abroad to US citizens are not eligible (the US Senate said differently), this is not a question each state gets to decide,
All a census does is confirm that someone was at an address at a certain point of time. You think that would satisfy the “He was born on Mars” crowd? All they would do is stick to the he was born in Kenya” angle. And for good reason as it just does not prove a birth in the country and never was meant to.
Just another reason this bill fails the fail test.
No. That would be Dennis Kucinich.
Fact is your fact is fake.
Obama is not and has never been to the Left of Left of Center during his political career. This is why a lot of hard left people were making him out to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and why a lot of progressives are very disappointed in him. So-called “Obamacare” is the furthest left we’re going to get out of him.
So anyone who tells you the man is a socialist is deluding themselves. Anyone who thinks he’s a Communist is in need of psychiatric help. Obama may have gone through a “Marxist” phase back in college, as some have said, but if that is true he’s well past that mental trap.
Bob, you are arguing nonsense on a page where people enjoy dissecting it. Either bring your A-game or go home.
I’ve certainly read about Eisenhower’s late BC filing, but I’ve never heard of any evidence that a copy was asked to be presented to any electoral agency or his party.
Besides that, any certified copy he could have gotten in the 1950s would have likely been in some sort of transcript form (i,e, not a certified “long form”).
Yeah. Similar to Obama his opponents were casting hints that he wasn’t born in the US to smear him. Unlike the birthers Ike waving his BC in their face shut them up and that was the end of it.
Ike’s BC was signed by his older brother. I wonder if the birther’s would accept a bc sign by the President’s sister?
Census records are not publically available until about 70 years after the census. General Eisenhower’s eligibility to run for President was not confirmed by census records nor could it be, even if those records established citizenship.
Moreover, all the citizenship information establishes is that the resident asserted that he or she was a citizen. The census taker, a part-time temporary federal employee, has never been required to inquire into the veracity of the answer. One can imagine that if the 1970 census was available and if it had a question establishing natural born citizenship, that birthers would point out the limitations of the information.
Mr. Clark is wrong. Again.
According to the official story Obama’s long form birth certificate (Nordyke type) is in the DoH archive. No need for his sister to sign anything.
I wonder when are we going to see the copy of the original?
The 1890 Census records are the only ones that can be believed with absolute confidence.
I wonder if an online betting pool would be legal?
If hundreds of Hawaiians were to post THEIR original birth certificates on the internet, particularly if they posted recently issued copies, that would certainly force Obama’s hand.
A congressional committee could also issue a subpoena for Obama’s original birth records and test whether the state of Hawaii would comply with a congressional subpoena.
There is an outside possible that you’ll get to see it in 2012, although i suspect most, if not all, Secretaries of State will accept the Hawaiian COLB. Then the next possible opportunity is sometime after 2016 and the Presidential Library is built. They might display it then, although to date, only one Presidential Library (Reagan’s) has a BC on display. But for certain, you should be able to get your very own copy after 2036. If I remember correctly under Hawaiian law after 75 years the information in a vital record can be released to the public. Althought, that could change to some longer period of time inorder to ensure that a living person’s privacy is not violated.
What is your translation of Fukino’s words:
“…She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files…”
A code phrase for home birth registration?
So what if it were? Why do you hate home births? Babies were born at home for most of human history. 90% of all Presidents of the US were. SO F’IN WHTA?
The former Republican Governor of Hawaii already stated that (and I quote) “…the President was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.” “It’s been established. He was born here.”–Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI) May 2, 2010.
Just that you and your kind are so used to dog whistles and nudge nudge wink wink racism lines from Rush Limbaugh that you see them every where.
And what is your translation of her words:
“and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama”?
I haven’t read through all the 81 or so responses, so pardon me if this has already been brought up, but… since when do the states have the legal right to decide the requirements for federal office??!?! Won’t all of these laws, pending or passed, be dismissed automatically by the Supremes?
Sure. Abercrombie was on the mission to end the birther controversy and he missed the opportunity to even mention the long form birth certificate from Kapiolani hospital.
Lingle claimed that DoH issued a press-release mentioning Obama’s birth in the Kapiolani – it is an easily proven lie.
Somebody’s signature is on the form. Who signed the document – name is still unknown.
The official birthplace story is Kapiolani hospital. If it turns out that the actual document is home birth registration it would be interesting to find reasons for the discrepancy.
Still waiting for a response Nancy…
Nancy, just what PRECISELY would satisfy you as to the President passing Constitutional muster..?
Exactly, precisely, articulated.
Forget the rest of your nonsensical cack, what is it that will be required to make you shut up and sod off?
Why?
They dont. Thats the point. Its against the constitution foer them to be dictating requirements. They are allowed to request their own form of paperwork and stuff, but any bill that buts anything other than whats in the constitution is going to get stepped on.
The press release was issued in July, 2009. The radio interview was the following May, 2010. Governor Lingle simply didn’t remember the precise wording of the media release.
There was no “lie.” But I’m sure that President Obama loves to hear people calling a Republican Governor a liar.
Governor Lingle could be called to appear before a congressional hearing and explain her statements and what actually happened, but alas, Congress isn’t interested.
Don’t hold your breadth.
Read through the entire article you are referencing. Here is how it ends:
Based on that, I think all you will ever see is the COLB. I highly doubt that you’ll see the “original” or the “long form” or whatever you wish to call it today.
Nor is such a document relevant or necessary when you already have the official COLB. There is absolutely NO legal reason to provide more.
Maybe at some point in the distant future, long after he’s served office, something might get released and added to his presidential library.
*blink* *blink* Say what???
Wow, you are truly delusional. This is the real world, Joey. HI birth certificates come from an official source. That happens to be the HI DOH. If the HI DOH says they only provide the COLB these days, that is ALL you get. They have been repeatedly clear on that point.
Having several hundred people post copies of their BCs that they obtained many years ago (HINT: The COLB has been the official HI form for a decade now) is completely irrelevant and has nothing do do with the rules of what the form looked like in 2007 or today.
But thanks for playing.
Whoever it is we know they are a doctor. Now look at the Nordyke’s BC and tell me who signed it besides the mother.
Psst…I was being facetious! 😉
Of course it’s true that if people could still get long form birth certificates, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of them already posted on the web. The fact that they aren’t there proves exactly what you and I know to be true: “The COLB is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since the state went paperless in 2001.”–Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawaii Department of Health
You might need one of these for sarcasm or facetiousness:
😛
There are sharp knives in the room tonight. Be careful, folks.
Except for the idiot birther troll. I don’t give a rat’s @$$ what happens there.
No. We’re talking 1961. Typewriter & pen are pretty common recording devices at the time.
You have NO evidence of home birth no any connection that leads to that conclusion.
The only connections there are the ones you created yourself and you are to obsessed with your pre-conceived notions to allow reality to sink in.
As I said, there is NOTHING to support your home birth theory.
More proof that you are in denial and too stuck with your pre-conceived fantasies.
Let’s put the broader quote from the article out there again for context:
There. I’ve bolded some key points. The detail of half-typed and half-handwritten that you obsess on is meaningless. There is nothing we can conclude or use from that. All you can do is come up with creative forms of speculation to twist that and pretend it means something you want it to…but really, you’re left with jack squat.
What clearly IS answered there is that they have confirmed the doctor’s signature on the form. Yet again, you have to be in denial and make some pathetic statement calling it merely “somebody’s signature”, when the official statement was quite clear it was the doctor’s.
Wow, you have some audacity there, NC1. Just who do you think you are that you are someone special and right and ALL the officials who deal with these things are wrong? Can’t you see how insane you sound???
Thanks for clearing that up and my apologies for treating you like a serious birther.
. With the kinds of nonsense that comes from birther’s all the time, Poe’s Law is really in effect.
It has become really hard to tell the difference between standard birther insanity and when someone is saying something “kinda off” for the purposes of being sarcastic, ironic, facetious or just plain snarking.
As Majority Will suggested, adding some sort of tag to convey your intent/tone is really helpful.
Paul, you are correct. The states don’t have that right. The federal government does. ANY federal court that is brought it to weigh in on the matter would smack down and invalidate the language of these birther bills.
The only way such a state bill could pass muster is if it merely required confirmation from the candidate by providing standard official documentation confirming their eligibility, in a manner similar to how either the BMV or the passport office asks you to provide info. In any such legit situation, the HI COLB would be sufficient proof.
None of these other extra-constitutional birther nonsense arguments will pass muster.
No problem! There are no “emoticons” for irony or facetiousness!
My primary challenges to birthers are:
1) Why aren’t there long forms ordered after 2001 all over the internet?
2) Why no attempts at subpoenas for Obama’s birth records?
3) Why no congressional hearings on Obama’s eligibility now that the Republicans control the House?
4) Why hasn’t even ONE judge in America ruled that Obama is ineligible, including the nine on the Supreme Court?
When I follow the link to the bill, it is dated 3/21, not 3/11 like you say in the article. So perhaps that link goes to the latest version on line.
This version says they need the name of the hospital and attending physician “if applicable.” Not sure what that phrase would mean to a judge. If the birth certificate lists on hospital name, how does the judge distinguish whether it is “applicable” and not there, or not there because it is “inapplicable”?
Also says there must be “signatures of any witnesses in attendance.” Does this mean that everyone in attendance must sign? If the BC has no witness signatures, does that mean it’s OK because there were no witnesses, or NG because there were and they didn’t sign?
The BC must also have “information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents.”
There is also language that this requirement does not fall on all presidential candidates but only those of a “party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot.” Not sure what than means in AZ, but in some states that kind of language means the Democrats and Republicans. Anyhow, interesting that some candidates are excluded from this requirement.
I happen to have my birth certificate right here, and I think birthers would call it “long-form”. It’s a photocopy of paperwork produced at the time I was born, with a certification that it’s a true copy and a raised seal. The term “long-form” is not defined in the bill, so I’m guessing.
Can I be on the ballot in AZ? Let’s see.
Date and place of birth: check
Names of mother and father: check.
Information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents: Hmm. Only thing I see here is “Birthplace (state or foreign country)”. I guess if both parents were born in the US, this could be called sufficient; but if one was foreign born, there’s no place to say they naturalized.
Name of hospital: check
Name of attending physician: only if you can read his scrawl, which I cannot. Well, the law does not say “legible name,” so maybe ok.
Signatures of any witnesses in attendance: Only signatures here are physician and my mother. Presumably they were not the only people present, but they are the only signatures. As I noted above, I have no idea if this meets the law’s requirement.
So depending on how things are interpreted about witnesses and citizenship, maybe I could be on the ballot.
BTW, it just occurred to me that theoretically a BC could meet the requirements of this birther bill, and not be sufficient for getting a passport. The birther bill requirements miss several items off the State Depts list.
You shouldn’t be surprised. As I said before NC isn’t even concerned with the birth certificate she’s already said that nothing would ever make Obama eligible in her mind. That’s why now she’s off the numbers crap and onto the signature as her new complaint.
But does it tell the Secretary of State that they should exclude some one from the ballot if the parents are not citizens?
Interesting question. The law does not say so directly, but there is an odd part at the end that says that if the Sec. of State finds that the preponderance of the evidence is that the candidate does not meet the requirements, then no ballot for them.
I find this phrase particularly odd, since presumably the SoS would only be considering evidence supplied by the candidate in compliance with this law.
But anyhow, I suppose that if the BC said a parent was foreign born, then a birther SoS could conceivably declare that that meant they didn’t meet the requirement.
When Dr. Fukino was director of DoH her office lied to AP writter Mark Niese about birth index for 1961 being for sale.
In addition, she refused to answer the UIPA request for confirmation that her office issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. This is the only law that gives ordinary citizens standing to ask a question that would clarify Obama’s birth certificate issue and her office refused to confirm a trivial fact.
Anything she says cannot be trusted without verification. When she said that doctor signed it – it should be verified.
I doubt that Abercrombie would miss the chance to announce that they had Obama’s original long form birth certificate (Nordyke type) on file. What is Dr. Fukino’s definition of half-typed half-handwritten birth certificate? Would she used the same phrase for Nordyke type certificate? Judging by Abercrombie’s behavior, it is not likely.
Actually, a home birth is very unlikely at this point. Do you wonder how Fukino was able to state that a doctor signed the BC. Because on a 1961 Hawaiian BC, in the box where the attendant signs there are four little boxes, one of which must be checked. They are M.D., D.O., Midwife, Other. So we know it was a doctor that attended Obama’s birth. And since they were very close to the hospital, unless there was an emergency birth with the doctor nearby, it had to have happened in a hospital.
The DOH told Butterdezillion, that she could buy a copy of the computer printout data index for $98.75. This is what Fukino’s office was talking about.
“Information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents: Hmm. Only thing I see here is “Birthplace (state or foreign country)”. I guess if both parents were born in the US, this could be called sufficient; but if one was foreign born, there’s no place to say they naturalized.”
There would be nothing to show whether those parents born in the US were still US citizens at the time of the birth. It is not just people from other countries who change citizenship.
Related problem from a different angle: John McCain’s daughter would have a BC that showed her father having been born in the Panama Canal Zone. If the BC asked whether he had been naturalized that answer would be no because he was already a US citizen.
Bottom line: The proposed AZ legislation is not well thought through.
Then file an appeal and get the OIP to issue an opinion letter stating that you have a right to the answer.
Would Mitt Romney’s BC say that his father was born in Mexico?
It is hard to even respond to you when your wapred and twisted interpretative version of these events is not supported by the actual evidence nor conversation records that go with them.
Gorefan has already addressed your screeds here sufficiently. I have nothing to add except that you are clearly imagining a different reality in your mind. I would hate to live in your bizarro world.
No it is not – Okubo told Mark Niesse that 1961 birth index could be purchased from DoH. This is a quote from his article:
“In response, the Department of Health has offered to provide hundreds of sheets of index data if requesters will pay for it. At 25 cents per page, the 1961 birth index data would cost $98.75. So far, no one has paid for the papers.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/07/birthers_fade_after_passage_of_law_against_them/
How do you know that a doctor signed it – because Fukino told you?
She would not even answer the UIPA request for confirmation of issuing a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.
The law did not prevent her from confirming the birth registration number – she chose not to do it. Even in the latest interview she did not say anything about Kapiolani hospital.
Her words cannot be trusted blindly – verification is needed.
Um…You’re very own quote still matches up with the point that Gorefan was making:
A. The cost of that birth index data would be $98.75 (same amount Gorefan said that seems to have gotten your panties up in a bunch)
B. So far, none of you birthers has bothered to pay for it. (at least at the time that statement was made).
YES.
Simple translation: *Waaah*
Face it – You birthers don’t like the answers you are given and you demand information that they are NOT required to provide you.
Your whole litany of complaints here is nothing but whining because you feel entitled to making demands that simply aren’t supported for. Sit and spin, NC1…sit and spin…
Because there are four boxes on the signature line for the attendant. M.D., O.D., Midwife, and Other. One of those boxes has to be checked. So we know for a fact a doctor signed the form.
Then get a OIP opinion letter that’s back up your assertion. Maybe your interpretation of UIPA is wrong. That’s what the OIP is for, to make those kinds of determination.
That is the same thing they told Butterdezillion. $98.75 for a computer printout of the 1961 index data.
So send them a check for $98.75 and ask them for a copy of the 1961 index data. I’m sure it will be money well spent.
You don’t know the facts there were two different UIPA requests for birth index data – the DoH gave two different responses:
1. One year birth index is avaliable for purchase for $98.75
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/hdoh-response-re-handwritten-1961-birth-index/
DoH refused to honor the prepayment:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/hdoh-returns-my-money-order/
2.
Only 5 year cumulative index is available for purchase:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/26/hawaii-department-of-health-contradicts-ap-story/
Reading comprehension not your strong suit?
First the P&E:
1) they requested pages from the handwritten data index from “1961 to the present”.
2) DOH responds we don’t have handwritten data index books, but we can send you a 1960 to 1964 computer print out of index data and you can look for the names you want there.
Conclusion:
If the original request had been for the 1961 index data, that’s what they would have gotten. By requesting several years worth of data, the P&E confused the situation.
Next Butterdezillion:
1) DOH tells BZ, they will send a 1961 computer print out for $98.75. Just fill out OIP 2 request.
2) DOH sends BZ money back. Says you didn’t follow the OIP 2 instructions.
Conclusions:
Without a copy of the OIP 2 request sent by BZ it is impossible to know if she followed the instructions.
Thanks gorefan- I copied your above response to nc1 and will relentlessly paste in here in response to nc1 relentless asking of the already answered questions over and over.
It sucks extra to be a birther today, doesn’t it? They sure are trying hard to squint sideways and see mysterious code in Dr. Fukino’s clear statements.
Well, then the birth certificate that the Pest and eFail recently posted also must attest to home birth because it was also partially typewritten and partially handwritten.
But funny how you always see “code phrases” everywhere. Your life must be a living hell, controlled by fear and paranoia. See, maybe me wishing you “a good day” is actually a veiled threat (as in “… as it will be your last”). Think about that for a while.
Charo is seeing “code phrases” today as well. She claims to not be a birther, but any new tidbit causes that facade to collapse and her to proclaim that she knew something was wrong all along!
Well yeah remember how fast she jumped on that tabloid reporter claiming abercrombie said something when the guy never talked to abercrombie
Isn’t this just another type of concern troll?
“I think he was born there but what about the . . . [conspiracy flavor of the moment]?
Why don’t you try the request yourself, instead of just whining? Come on NC1, put your money where your mouth is…
Why are you relying on the brain-addled efforts of the clearly unstable BZ, a woman who sees an NWO conspiracy and black helicopters ready to escort her off to a FEMA camps behind every corner…
Isn’t it amazing that NC1 won’t spend a hundred bucks to save the Constitution.
I was going to call her an “armchair patriot”, but a “La-Z-Boy recliner patriot” seems more appropriate.
Indeed!
nc1 has become a parody with charo soon following.
Obama is the president and there is nothing the birthers can do about it except whine, very sad.
Why? Where is there a space on the form showing the parents birth place? Am I missing something here?
I’m going to take a chance at believing that Mr. Smith will keep his word and has left the site, because I wanted to point something out.
This part of the bill can, conceivably, lead a candidate into a situation where a “circumcision certificate”, whatever that is, could be the *only* item left on the list.
So there is a potential scenario where a candidate has nothing else on the list, where being able to prove “baptism” (whatever that is) or “circumcision” (even a female?) would become a qualification for a candidate for President.
And at least one lawmaker in my state thinks this could pass Constitutional muster…
Slightly newer version of the AZ birther bill is here. This one is dated 3/23.
Only changes I’ve noticed is that the list of requirements for the BC has gotten shorter. Requirement to have names of parents is gone, and the ridiculous requirement to have information sufficient to determine the citizenship of the parents is also gone.
Perhaps the bill’s sponsors noticed the inconvenient fact that Trump’s BC did not meet their requirements.
The beginning of the original comment referred back to Dave’s post where he was comparing his BC to the AZ BC requirements. When he got to the part about the requirement for info on the BC about the birthplace of the parents and he commented that there was no place to say they were naturalized. I commented that there would be nothing to say whether they had been born in the US but then changed citizenship. Then I attempted to look at the issue of determining the citizenship of the parents from information that might be on a birther BC, therefore the view point of US citizens born outside the US (that is the “related problem from a different angle”).
In another AZ matter, the 9th Circuit shot down AZ yesterday. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf
Arizona Senate passes Obama birther bill after boost from Donald Trump.
Phoenix Business Journal – by Mike Sunnucks
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 12:09pm MST
“The Arizona Legislature passed the bill 20-8 on a party-line vote in the State Senate with Republicans backing and Democrats opposing.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2011/04/13/arizona-senate-passes-obama-birther.html
Bob
And this will end up getting shot down in circuit court.
Nice to see that despite a several billion dollar shortfall, the Republicans in the Arizona Senate like to spend money on needless litigation that they are guarenteed to lose. Perhaps if one of them just asked an attorney, “is this remotely Constitutional” they could save their tax payers some money.
Well, first it goes back to the AZ House who have to pass it and then to the Gov to sign.
It is a significant development that it made it through the AZ senate. For the first time in all this, there is a serious probability that it will end up on Brewer’s desk. AZ just might be a crazy enough state to actually try to pass something like this into law. I’d say this is really the first moment that a Birther Bill has survived far enough in the process to possibly come about.
Of course, AZ would just incur more court costs when the federal courts have to step in and shoot it down.
Hawaii could stamp on a COLB language that says “This is a LONG FORM Birth Certificate in accordance with ARS Section 16-311”. Since the AZ law doesn’t even bother to define such a thing, they would have to accept it. Giving the names of the parents is sufficient to determine their citizenship (provided one wants to do the work of “determining”), and the physician/hospital stuff “if applicable” is *not* applicable to anything.
Guess I don’t see the problem; let this bill pass. If the birther thing dies, what possible entertainment could take its place? (And without this bill passing, it does die.)
Oh is that gone? Too bad. I would say that naming them should be sufficient information to determine their citizenship. That puts a burden on the one who feels the need to do the “determining” but that’s exactly how it should be.
Did it pass the house with the “baptism/circumcision” clause? Because if it did, there is a possibility, however unlikely, that a candidate could be put in a position where this is the ONLY option for getting on the ballot.
Say a candidate is qualified but cannot meet the burdens of this law, except that the candidate could, if he or she chose, could show a hospital birth record and a circumcision certificate. This means there is a situation where a state is requiring a candidate for president to not only be circumcised, but to prove it. Winning.
The fact that it creates a degenerate case where a candidate might be required to provide “a circumcision certificate”, fails on numerous equal protection grounds. Requiring without defining a “long form birth certificate” is probably sufficient on its own, though. I really, really, really want to see the whole “circumcision certificate” angle get some attention though. It really says a lot about the mindset of the people who drafted and passed this bill. I believe it says much more than all the rest of the birther stuff put together.
I suppose a Baptist without a long form is out (along with Mennonites, Quakers, etc.).
Isn’t that law discriminatory against Jewish female candidates?
I don’t think we should rely on just a certificate. Let’s verify that a circumscision actually took place.
The Senators were probably PO’d by the results in the 9th Circuit on the 11th. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/10-16645.pdf