Main Menu

Birther bill clears Arizona Legislature

Fox News reports that the so-called “birther bill” (HB2177) has cleared the Arizona legislature and is on its way to Governor Brewer for an expected signature. This is the first of the various bills in 14 states to get this far, most having died in committee.

Many have expressed concerns over the constitutionality of the bill and the motivations of its supporters. Others speculate that it will be quickly overturned by the courts and still others think it will prove the undoing of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012.

For my part, this turn of events will give us something to talk about until the next election heats up.

 

, , ,

69 Responses to Birther bill clears Arizona Legislature

  1. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Bifrstani’s are very excited on this bill, they actually believe it will stop Obama, it is another OMG moment for them (all the other OMG moments failed)
    .
    When Arizona accepts Obama’s as a candidate their tiny little brains will explode. It’s going to be funny. Each failure of Birferstan’s OMG moments have been a gift of laughter.
    .
    What sad pathetic little lives they have in Birferstan.

  2. avatar
    thefarleftView April 15, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    yes the constitution of the bill

    if Holder sues
    then we know OBAMA is guilty of fraud

    providing documentation that every single american has to provide
    to live, work, play baseball in this nation, etc if is found unconstitutional>>
    then nobody will have to provide anything to prove that they
    are legitimate– but we in the know have a mound of evidence
    that obama is not legit, this site is testimony to the liar in the white house

    that is true end game for these far left liberal nut jobs

  3. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    I mentioned What sad pathetic little lives they have in Birferstan,then poor little farleft shows up to confirm it.

  4. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 15, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    thefarleftView: yes the constitution of the billif Holder suesthen we know OBAMA is guilty of fraudproviding documentation that every single american has to provideto live, work, play baseball in this nation, etc if is found unconstitutional>>then nobody will have to provide anything to prove that theyare legitimate– but we in the know have a mound of evidencethat obama is not legit, this site is testimony to the liar in the white housethat is true end game for these far left liberal nut jobs

    No again you guys don’t understand logic. Holder is obligated to sue when a state oversteps its role and tries to take on a federal government role. The Feds are under obligation to challenge it. But it probably won’t get that far. Any Arizonan can sue under that bill. Obama has provided documentation that everyone has been required to provide. No president has been required to release their long form. This isn’t a right/left issue.

  5. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    thefarleftView: yes the constitution of the billif Holder suesthen we know OBAMA is guilty of fraudproviding documentation that every single american has to provideto live, work, play baseball in this nation, etc if is found unconstitutional>>then nobody will have to provide anything to prove that theyare legitimate– but we in the know have a mound of evidencethat obama is not legit, this site is testimony to the liar in the white housethat is true end game for these far left liberal nut jobs

    LOL! Yeah, keep dreaming pal.

    If the Fed choses to sue the state, they are able to do so, purely because the state has crossed into territory that is federal purview, not theirs. Obama doesn’t even factor into that equation. Simple as that. And if the fed gets involved, it is clear they will win. If some other state choses to sue AZ and gets the fed involved, this will also trigger a win. Sorry, but FFAC clearly trumps AZ here.

    The rest of your rambling is pathetic and stupid. Obama has provided the same info that any other American would need to provide. The man lived most of his life here, drove a car, got married, travelled, etc. You have to be a brain dead twit to not realize that he had a driver’s license, passport and has likely had more background and security checks/clearances due to the offices and positions he’s held than you will ever go through in your entire lifetime. Obviously, all of those things require proper documentation.

    ALL evidence supports Obama. Birther tools live in a pretend fantasy-land and spend their days spreading silly lies and whining like babies.

  6. avatar
    Lupin April 15, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    thefarleftView: but we in the know have a mound of evidence that obama is not legit

    Make sure you don’t run out of cheetos in your basement, you’re going to need them.

  7. avatar
    dch April 15, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    I love this bill!
    It is Full Metal Jacket Birther Stupid (tm!). Best thing in years as it opens up the birthers for all manner of epic fails on so many levels. I love the open door standing provision – now every kook can file and annoy the AZ SoS for an entire year.

    This wil create a whole new paypal opportunity.

    It combines every dumb birther misunderstanding and myth into one unworkable law. The best part is it will cause fits for the GOP candidates as the submit their various BC (all automated outputed state record COLBS).

  8. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    thefarleftView: but we in the know have a mound of evidence

    The proper term for that is “landfill”.

  9. avatar
    gorefan April 15, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    So when exactly would a presidential candidiate have to submit a document. 60 days before an election? So we are we talking late summer of 2012? How about the primary in Feburary of 2012? What if the democrats only have a caucus?

  10. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    I would think the AG would be able to file a suit to cut this off at the knees any time after it is signed. Something this clearly unconstitutional should be fairly simple to argue. I bet they’ve had someone working on it for awhile. Possibly even a recent, bright intern. Would make a good college thesis topic.

  11. avatar
    Dave April 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    What is the basis for saying the Governor’s signature is “expected”? I’ve been poking around news sites since this passed the Senate, and I can’t find any statement from the Governor about this bill.

  12. avatar
    gorefan April 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Sef: I would think the AG would be able to file a suit to cut this off at the knees any time after it is signed.

    You are probably right, but I have a feeling they are not going to waste any time on it. Maybe if it still had all that citizenship of parents stuff or if it defined natural born.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    thefarleftView: providing documentation that every single american has to provide
    to live, work, play baseball in this nation, etc if is found unconstitutional>>
    then nobody will have to provide anything to prove that they
    are legitimate– but we in the know have a mound of evidence
    that obama is not legit, this site is testimony to the liar in the white house

    In the real world, Obama released his birth certificate in 2008 for all to see. You conveniently ignore that fact when trying to build a false contrast between Obama and everybody else.

    In fact that very computer-generated abstract birth certificate is pretty much the national standard these days, and will get you a drivers license, a passport and a spot on the Little League team. Your call for a particular form of birth certificate is a disingenuous attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Obama released his birth certificate, and it is like that of most everybody else.

  14. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    gorefan: You are probably right, but I have a feeling they are not going to waste any time on it.Maybe if it still had all that citizenship of parents stuff or if it defined natural born.

    As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is the AG’s duty to challenge unconstitutional state laws.

  15. avatar
    James M April 15, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    Dave: What is the basis for saying the Governor’s signature is “expected”?

    It seems unlikely that she will choose this moment to stand against her party, when she never has before.

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy April 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    thefarleftView: yes the constitution of the bill

    English not your first language?

    thefarleftView: if Holder sues
    then we know OBAMA is guilty of fraud

    Actually no. All that we will know is that the State of Arizona is uable to pass a statute that doesn’t violate the Constitution. But we already know that.

    thefarleftView: providing documentation that every single american has to provide
    to live, work, play baseball in this nation, etc if is found unconstitutional>>
    then nobody will have to provide anything to prove that they
    are legitimate

    1) as has been point out, he already provided that document (and no state gets to tell another state what form that document comes in…it’s called the full faith and credit clause)
    2) not everyone’s job has it’s qualifications defined by the Constitution, to which no state can add additional requirements.

    thefarleftView: but we in the know have a mound of evidence
    that obama is not legit

    You certainly do have a mound of something….but it’s not evidence…in fact, you don’t have a shred of evidence, and every bit of actual evidence support the fact that the President was born in Hawaii.

    thefarleftView: this site is testimony to the liar in the white house

    Who is this puported liar in the white house you speak of? I don’t think Joseph Farah has been invited recently? Have you managed to get in on a tour?

    thefarleftView: that is true end game for these far left liberal nut jobs

    The true end game is who will be the Democractic nominee in 2016 after Obama finishes his second term.

  17. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    James M: It seems unlikely that she will choose this moment to stand against her party, when she never has before.

    I expect the reason this silly law advanced so quickly recently & will get the gov’s signature is the slapdown they received from the 9th Circuit Appeals Court over their immigration law fiasco. The decision was an exercise in judicial temper management.

  18. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    As constitutionally unnecessary as it may be, I still predict that the Hawaii legislature will pass a special law authorizing the release of an abstract of an original birth record to anyone needing such a document to comply with another state’s law or a federal law in order to run for office. Governor Abercrombie will sign that bill into law and the state of Hawaii will print birth certificates for Barack Obama with the required information to comply with any state’s law, giving him the perfect way to release such a document without seeming to be caving in to birthers.
    I predict that this will occur in December of this year, in time for Obama to get on the ballot in Arizona or any other state for the 2012 election.

  19. avatar
    aarrgghh April 15, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    not all birfers are cheering:

    … Sadly, it appears Arizona has fallen prey to the underhanded doublespeak propagated by those who either don’t understand the clear meaning of the framers’ mandate, or who are purposely obfuscating the truth through the deceptive declaration that the Constitution merely requires the president to be a citizen, for that is all their current bill would accomplish. While there are numerous resources that detail the differences between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” I recently detailed that issue here.

    It is true that this bill’s passage might preclude Barack Obama from running for a second term; but it might not. That’s the way it is with a word like “might.” As I have speculated, if Obama is simply keeping his original birth certificate hidden in order to keep the hounds off the scent of the actual troubling rabbit (his father’s citizenship), then this bill will accomplish nothing, for he will miraculously produce a valid document and continue his quest to destroy the greatest nation on earth. Even if he doesn’t provide a long-form version of his birth certificate, Arizona’s bill provides him ample avenues around that requirement.

    What has rendered Arizona’s bill meaningless? A single Amendment:

    “1. Removes parental requirements needed to run for or hold office or to be put on the ballot.”

    It does look like somebody TRIED to accomplish something with the bill, but it has been neutered by amendment. By removing “parental requirements,” the bill essentially cuts in half the natural born citizenship requirement by permitting to run, one who was born to at least one parent who was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore, nullifies what the framers were so careful to require—that a president be one who is born on our soil to citizen parents (the historic, and only, definition of “natural born citizen”).

    With the final passage of this bill, birthers will believe they hold a metaphorical gun with which to put an end to the eligibility issue in the next election. But, as was learned by the last election, it will be a sad day when it is discovered that the proverbial gun is loaded with nothing but blanks.

    … but honest, guys, it’s not about obama!

  20. avatar
    Rickey April 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    gorefan:
    So when exactly would a presidential candidiate have to submit a document.60 days before an election?So we are we talking late summer of 2012?How about the primary in February of 2012?What if the democrats only have a caucus?

    I have read the bill a couple of times, and it isn’t clear to me that the law applies to primaries. The law specifically states that the birth certificate and other documents are to be provided by “The national political party committee for a candidate for president.” The national political party doesn’t have a candidate for president until after its convention, so it would appear that none of the documents are required to get on the primary ballot.

    In another glaring flaw, the bill requires proof of birth, etc. only for the candidate for president. Nothing along those lines is required for the candidate for vice-president.

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Sef:
    I would think the AG would be able to file a suit to cut this off at the knees any time after it is signed. Something this clearly unconstitutional should be fairly simple to argue.I bet they’ve had someone working on it for awhile. Possibly even a recent, bright intern.Would make a good college thesis topic.

    Wouldn’t it be a little too easy? I think that any student in a high school civics class should be able to drive a truck through the holes in this bill…

  22. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Joey: As constitutionally unnecessary as it may be, I still predict that the Hawaii legislature will pass a special law authorizing the release of an abstract of an original birth record to anyone needing such a document to comply with another state’s law or a federal law in order to run for office. Governor Abercrombie will sign that bill into law and the state of Hawaii will print birth certificates for Barack Obama with the required information to comply with any state’s law, giving him the perfect way to release such a document without seeming to be caving in to birthers.

    Will the birth states of all potential Republican candidates do the same? I still find it absurd that the legislature and/or administration of a place you might have left as a child can potentially over-ride your right to run for office.

  23. avatar
    Daniel April 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Wouldn’t it be a little too easy? I think that any student in a high school civics class should be able to drive a truck through the holes in this bill…

    The bill was designed to fail. At least that’s my take on it.

    The bill gets passed,.. rednecks cheer. The biull gets quashed in a ridiculously simple court challenge… the rednecks riot, against the fed’rul gub’mint. Arizona state republicans laugh all the way to the bank.

  24. avatar
    BatGuano April 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    thefarleftView:

    that is true end game for these far left liberal nut jobs

    please say you are accepting bets.

  25. avatar
    gorefan April 15, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    What effect will this have on other states contemplating such a bill? If Arizona is going to care the water on this issue, why bother to pass your bill and maybe incur legal expense?

  26. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

    “please say you are accepting bets.”
    there are 3 things in life that are sure
    1. death
    2. taxes
    3. failures of birther OMG moments

  27. avatar
    Suranis April 15, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    I’m sure the far left view will be cheering on when every single republican Candidate fails to prove his eligibility under it, is let through anyway by the Arizona AG and then has 1000 lawsuits leveled at every single one of them as the bill granted standing to challenge to every Arizonian citizen. Each and every one paid for by the state of Arizona.

    It will be fun watching the republicans fighting their own stupid bill.

  28. avatar
    aarrgghh April 15, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    another unsatisfied customer:

    It appears to me that obama might have helped write the bill. It removes the Natural born citizen clause ( both parents U.S. citizens ) and allows a number of different path have him to avoid releasing his original birth certificate.

    Bill is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Article 2 of the Constitution.

  29. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): No again you guys don’t understand logic.Holder is obligated to sue when a state oversteps its role and tries to take on a federal government role.The Feds are under obligation to challenge it.But it probably won’t get that far.Any Arizonan can sue under that bill.Obama has provided documentation that everyone has been required to provide.No president has been required to release their long form.This isn’t a right/left issue.

    How do you reckon the state has over-stepped its role?

    I can’t find anything that stipulates the feds have an obligation or duty to vet who goes on the state ballots.

    The part I like in the AZ bill, is that the people (AZ state residents) have standing to challenge.

  30. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    MichaelN: How do you reckon the state has over-stepped its role?

    They don’t get to make up new qualifications for the presidency. If you had read and understood the Constitution, you would know this – instead you spend your time spitting on everything the Constitution stands for…

    I can’t find anything that stipulates the feds have an obligation or duty to vet who goes on the state ballots.

    They have an obligation to prevent states from erecting unConstitutional obstructions to ballot access.

    The part I like in the AZ bill, is that the people (AZ state residents) have standing to challenge.

    It’s no surprise that an idiot such as yourself likes the provision of the bill that is totally unworkable and makes it into an expensive boondoggle (and it takes a special kind of moron not to realize that this bill is a badly designed attempt to keep President Obama off the ballot and nothing more). I hope the Republican candidate is kept off the ballot because every Democrat in the state challenges their eligibility – the state can then cast their electoral votes for someone else (President Obama wasn’t likely to get them in the first place…)

  31. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    Sef: I expect the reason this silly law advanced so quickly recently & will get the gov’s signature is the slapdown they received from the 9th Circuit Appeals Court over their immigration law fiasco. The decision was an exercise in judicial temper management.

    Actually it was an exercise in ensuring security of the office of POTUS, i.e. protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim, aiming at bringing to fruition the original aim of Article II of USC.

    It basically puts the vetting of candidates where it belongs i.e. in the hands of the state secretary of state and subsequently the legal residents of Arizona who per this bill have standing.

    It takes the shabby method of vetting of candidates eligibility out of the hands of petty, partisan no-counts like Fukino and her ilk and delivers a greater degree of transparency to the process.

  32. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    “petty, partisan no-counts like Fukino ”
    you mean Fukino, the Republican, appointed by a Republican Gov, that one?

  33. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Slartibartfast:

    It’s devious morons like you would will naturally squirm and writhe with a bill like this, to be expected, as it will deliver transparency and responsible procedure to the process of vetting candidates.

    Now crawl back under your rock.

  34. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    MichaelN: How do you reckon the state has over-stepped its role?

    I can’t find anything that stipulates the feds have an obligation or duty to vet who goes on the state ballots.

    The part I like in the AZ bill, is that the people (AZ state residents) have standing to challenge.

    The law can guarantee that plaintiffs have standing in Arizona state courts but that would have no effect in federal courts or at the Supreme Court and you can bet that any court case concerning this law will end up in the federal court system.

  35. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Suranis:
    I’m sure the far left view will be cheering on when every single republican Candidate fails to prove his eligibility under it, is let through anyway by the Arizona AG and then has 1000 lawsuits leveled at every single one of them as the bill granted standing to challenge to every Arizonian citizen. Each and every one paid for by the state of Arizona.

    It will be fun watching the republicans fighting their own stupid bill.

    It will be fun to watch candidates of any stripe have to adhere to a greater extent to a process of transparency and to give people the standing that is their right to challenge those with dubious credentials.

    Now when candidates claim NBC status they will obliged to prove it, both to the state secretary of state and the people.

    Do you have aproblem with this? …………..

    Bingham:

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

  36. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    MichaelN: It basically puts the vetting of candidates where it belongs i.e. in the hands of the state secretary of state and subsequently the legal residents of Arizona who per this bill have standing.

    The residents of Arizona have a perfect remedy for any candidate they don’t think qualifies. Don’t vote for them. Mark my words, this bill will generate a free-for-all of lawsuits filed by every partisan hack in the state on all sides. The State, not the candidates, will have to defend those suits. But you don’t care, you live in Australia and won’t be paying for them.

    By the way, in Australia, can’t any citizen be Prime Minister? What’s wrong with that?

  37. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    Joey: The law can guarantee that plaintiffs have standing in Arizona state courts but that would have no effect in federal courts or at the Supreme Court and you can bet that any court case concerning this law will end up in the federal court system.

    Then it goes to appeal, and it appears the bogus ‘standing’ obstacle get swiped aside.

  38. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    aarrgghh:
    another unsatisfied customer:

    There is no requirement that a person have two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. There never has been and there most likely never will be.

    If there was such a requirement at least one judge in America out of the close to two hundred judges and justices who have heard Obama eligibility lawsuits (counting members of multi-judge panels, state and federal appeals and state and federal Supreme Court judges) would have ruled that Obama is ineligible due to his father’s birth in Kenya. Not one judge has ruled that way.
    Congress would have at least held a hearing to look into the two citizen parent requirement under Article II, Section 1. There has been no congressional inquiry.

  39. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    richCares:
    “petty, partisan no-counts like Fukino ”
    you mean Fukino, the Republican, appointed by a Republican Gov, that one?

    Yes that one.

  40. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s devious morons like you would will naturally squirm and writhe with a bill like this, to be expected, as it will deliver transparency and responsible procedure to the process of vetting candidates.Now crawl back under your rock.

    You must be talking to yourself MichaelN, because everything you said applies to you and your birther ilk.

    I’m not worried nor surprised at all about AZ putting forth another bad law if they sign this.

    Good luck thinking you’ve got your next “OMG” moment in birtherism… like EVERYTHING else, it will blow up in your face too.

  41. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm #

    By the way, MichaelN, let;’s see if you know your own country, or if you’re too busy mixing into other countries.

    http://www.rebreatherworld.com/surface-interval/14892-australian-citizenship-test.html

  42. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In the real world, Obama released his birth certificate in 2008 for all to see. You conveniently ignore that fact when trying to build a false contrast between Obama and everybody else.

    In fact that very computer-generated abstract birth certificate is pretty much the national standard these days, and will get you a drivers license, a passport and a spot on the Little League team. Your call for a particular form of birth certificate is a disingenuous attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Obama released his birth certificate, and it is like that of most everybody else.

    A CoLB is not a BC.

    What the Nordyke twins were ussued is a BC.

    The title of Obama’s alleged officially issued CoLB says certifiCATION, it doesn’t even say BC.

    The CoLB (if an offical issue) is a certified ‘part thereof’ which according to HRS 338-13 is excluded from being ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’.

    It is only an image copy of the original or ‘a copy of the contents’ that is considered the same as the original.

    And that means ALL the contents, because of the mention of ‘part thereof’

    §338-13 Certified copies. (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.

    (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, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    That’s why we have this, regarding evidence (not proof)

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”

  43. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    MichaelN: Then it goes to appeal, and it appears the bogus standing’ obstacle get swiped aside.

    Why do you want to ignore the Constitution? Or are you too stupid to realize that that is where the requirement of ‘standing’ originates?

  44. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    MichaelN: A CoLB is not a BC.

    It is a birth certificate to anyone who respects the US Constitution – a document that meets the federal definition of birth certificate and is entitled to full faith and credit in 49 of the 50 states (and has been confirmed to be a valid birth certificate in the 50th state…).

    You are a lying a$$hole.

  45. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You are a lying a$$hole

    According to question #1 on the Australian Citizenship Test, MichaelN is actually “died in the arse”

  46. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    MichaelN: A CoLB is not a BC.

    What the Nordyke twins were ussued is a BC.

    The title of Obama’s alleged officially issued CoLB says certifiCATION, it doesn’t even say BC.

    The CoLB (if an offical issue) is a certified part thereof’ which according to HRS 338-13 is excluded from being considered for all purposes the same as the original’.

    It is only an image copy of the original or a copy of the contents’ that is considered the same as the original.

    And that means ALL the contents, because of the mention of part thereof’

    §338-13Certified copies.(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.

    (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, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c)Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    That’s why we have this, regarding evidence (not proof)

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”

    Born identity
    By June Watanabe
    Honolulu Star-Bulliten
    Saturday, June 06, 2009

    Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

    Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

    The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

    And, it’s only available in electronic form.

    Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

    “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

    Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.

    “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.

    Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

    “The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

    Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.

    Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

    We found a discussion of “the truth about Obama’s birth certificate” on the Web site FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

    The organization describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”

    It says a “certification of live birth” is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.

  47. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    Even so, all Obama has provided is evidence, but not proof.

    Seeing as he has provided evidence and it is being challenged, then the proper thing to do is to support the evidence with proof beyond doubt.

    Terry Lakin rightfully sought the proof and so ‘Mr Transparency’ rather than provide the proof, that should be easy and inexpensive, allows an American hero go to jai rather than walk the walk.

    That’s some ‘President’ you have there, who gives more importance to the rights of Black Panther polling booth thugs than a decorated military hero.

    The Democrats are really twisted to support this disgusting fraud marxist, who has usurped the presidency, your creepy endeavor to gain & hold political power has you desperately aiding and abetting this marxist fraud to perpetuate his illegal reign all for the sake of power in goverment and at the expense of your own nations integrity and security.

    You sold your souls ………….. but you will have to live with that shame.

  48. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    MichaelN: Then it goes to appeal, and it appears the bogus standing’ obstacle get swiped aside.

    Time will tell, but I don’t see any federal judge or US Supreme Court justice changing the rules on what constitutes Article III standing regardless of what Arizona says.
    About 70 Obama eligiblity lawsuits have already been dismissed for lack of standing.

  49. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

    MichaelN: A CoLB is not a BC.

    Yes it is. The HI DOH says so. You are in denial. There is almost no point in having a discussion with someone as dense as you as you are beyond reason. Seek mental help.

  50. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

    “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
    so dear smarty pants, how did all those Hwaiians get passports with their COLB?

  51. avatar
    Thrifty April 15, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    MichaelN: Even so, all Obama has provided is evidence, but not proof.

    What proof has any candidate, ever, provided that they were eligible, that would meet your satisfaction?

    The Obama COLB clearly states on the bottom of it that it counts as proof of birth in any legal proceeding. Just because you are trying to wish it away doesn’t alter reality.

  52. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    MichaelN: Even so, all Obama has provided is evidence, but not proof.Seeing as he has provided evidence and it is being challenged, then the proper thing to do is to support the evidence with proof beyond doubt.Terry Lakin rightfully sought the proof and so ‘Mr Transparency’ rather than provide the proof, that should be easy and inexpensive, allows an American hero go to jai rather than walk the walk.That’s some ‘President’ you have there, who gives more importance to the rights of Black Panther polling booth thugs than a decorated military hero.The Democrats are really twisted to support this disgusting fraud marxist, who has usurped the presidency, your creepy endeavor to gain & hold political power has you desperately aiding and abetting this marxist fraud to perpetuate his illegal reign all for the sake of power in goverment and at the expense of your own nations integrity and security.You sold your souls ………….. but you will have to live with that shame.

    Wow… you truly need help. You buy into any silly myth or lie out there don’t you.

    1. The HI DOH calls the COLB proof. That trumps your birther BS any day. But keep playing make-believe. It doesn’t change reality, which obviously is too much for you too handle there, poor baby.
    2. Birthers have a 100% loss record on EVERY challenge made. That should tell you something. But keep failing! Its all you folks are good at.
    3. Transparency doesn’t apply to personal records. Sorry, you FAIL again.
    4. Lakin is no hero. He’s simply a delusional tool that failed to follow orders and decided to be a Blue Falcon to his unit when they deployed. He has brought dishonor to himself in this action and is behind bars due to his own stupidity.
    5. Where do you come up with this “Black Panther” nonsense? You mean the few clowns in the 2008 election that the Bush DOJ decided there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue and had to let go? Wow, talk about making mountains out of mole hills. *sheesh*
    6. The rest of what you said is just a rabid and frothy screed from a whiny little unhinged baby. Go tell it to someone who cares and find a shoulder to cry on you wuss. We’re not here to deal with your mental problems.

    Why do you even care about what happens in America, MichaelN? You are a foreigner living in Austraila. You can’t vote here and you obviously don’t know nor understand our country. Go join the taliban or something. Your seething hatred for this country and our values better fits with their mentality.

  53. avatar
    sfjeff April 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    MichaelN: Terry Lakin rightfully sought the proof and so ‘Mr Transparency’ rather than provide the proof, that should be easy and inexpensive, allows an American hero go to jai rather than walk the walk.
    That’s some ‘President’ you have there, who gives more importance to the rights of Black Panther polling booth thugs than a decorated military hero.
    The Democrats are really twisted to support this disgusting fraud marxist, who has usurped the presidency, your creepy endeavor to gain & hold political power has you desperately aiding and abetting this marxist fraud to perpetuate his illegal reign all for the sake of power in goverment and at the expense of your own nations integrity

    The real American hero is the officer who had to replace Lakin when he put other soldiers lives in danger by refusing orders.

    You ignorance about the President being a Marxist, especially in light of how big business is thriving during his administration is comical.

    Your insistance that a man who was elected into office, confirmed by Congress and sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts is an ‘ursurper’ is an insult to our nation and the Constitution.

    How do you live with yourself?

  54. avatar
    Sean April 15, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Even so, all Obama has provided is evidence, but not proof.

    Proof is a mathematical term. When one provides overwhelming evidence in court, they win. When you provide NO evidence you lose. The birthers lost………many times over.

  55. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    JOEY said …….

    “Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Of course, they “don’t “……………… bull-shit!

    Mikki Booth’s friend got issued with a ‘long form’ as recently as 15th March this year 2011.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii-344×450.jpg

    Here’s a comparison of Obama’s CoLB (certifiCATION) and a ‘short form’ certfiCATE.

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=123872674353861&set=p.123872674353861&type=1&theater
    ————————————————————————————

    “The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.

    Yeah right ………….

    §338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]

    “The image is taken from a report entitled “The 1989 Revision of the U.S. Standard Certificates and Reports” (Series 4, No. 28), issued by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. The entire report can be viewed in full at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_028.pdf, which is hosted by a U.S. federal government website.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif

    Oh, and just in case you didn’t know “any person having knowledge” LOL

    ‘supplemtary report’ to add more info later and NOT marked ‘altered’ or ‘delayed ROTFLMAO

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall SECURE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM ANY PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIRTH AND PREPARE AND FILE THE CERTIFICATE.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
    ————————————————————————

    “Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”

    I have already shown you from HRS338-13 that a CoLB is a ‘part thereof’ and not ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’

    Here is some more info for you ………

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    “Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
    ————————————————————————-

    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”

    Has it?

    I would like to see that the US Supreme Court has taken into evidence an image on the internet.

  56. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    Sean: Proof is a mathematical term. When one provides overwhelming evidence in court, they win. When you provide NO evidence you lose. The birthers lost………many times over.

    Didn’t get into court.

  57. avatar
    Dave April 15, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Here’s a link to a local TV station interview with Ken Bennett, the AZ Sec. of State who would have to implement this bill.

    http://www.azcentral.com/video/906109624001

  58. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    Dave: Here’s a link to a local TV station interview with Ken Bennett, the AZ Sec. of State who would have to implement this bill.
    http://www.azcentral.com/video/906109624001

    He basically said the COLB would qualify. In other words the “if applicable” for the hospital, doctor. etc. seems to mean, “If they’re on the certificate, they have to be there. If they aren’t, they don’t”. I actually feel bad for this guy because the next several;years of his life will be spent in court,.

  59. avatar
    JoZeppy April 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    MichaelN: Even so, all Obama has provided is evidence, but not proof.
    Seeing as he has provided evidence and it is being challenged, then the proper thing to do is to support the evidence with proof beyond doubt.

    First off, Obama is not on trial. He does not need to “support” anything “beyond a doubt.”

    Second off, he has provided prima facie evidence. That means in a court of law, he has provided sufficient evidence to establish his birth as a legal fact, and the burden is on the person challenging that document to provide evidence why that document should not be relied on. Birthers have provided nothing that could be admitted in a court of law, and certainly nothing that remotely give the court reason not to rely on the COLB

    MichaelN: Terry Lakin rightfully sought the proof and so ‘Mr Transparency’ rather than provide the proof, that should be easy and inexpensive, allows an American hero go to jai rather than walk the walk.

    Terry Lakin disobeyed a lawful order. He is not a hero. He is exactly where he belongs, behind bars.

    MichaelN: That’s some ‘President’ you have there, who gives more importance to the rights of Black Panther polling booth thugs than a decorated military hero.

    As stated above, Lakin is no hero. He is a coward that disobeyed a lawful order in a time of war. Personal I think he got off easy. There was a time when such action landed you infront of a firing squad. And beyond his cowardace, it’s not up to Obama who gets prosecuted for crimes. That is a pretty minor decision that is made much lower down the chain of command either in the military of DOJ.

    MichaelN: The Democrats are really twisted to support this disgusting fraud marxist, who has usurped the presidency, your creepy endeavor to gain & hold political power has you desperately aiding and abetting this marxist fraud to perpetuate his illegal reign all for the sake of power in goverment and at the expense of your own nations integrity and security.

    Yes…we are twisted for upholding a lawful election in the face of treasonous malcontents who are looking to overthrow an election, and undermine the legitmacy of our duly elected present (who, BTW received more votes than any other President in US history). And guess what, even if he was a Marixt (which he isn’t remotely…you may want to look up the term and find out what it really means), he’s the duly elected President. There is nothing prohibiting a Marxist from being President. Which I think is your real problem with him. You just can’t stand the fact that someone you disagree politically is President. So rather than suck it up for four years, you buy into the most idiotic stories that have no support what so ever. What you want is an Iranian style government, with your own religious counsel vetting candidates for their philosophic fundamentalism. This has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements. It’s about tearing down the Constitution, and replacing it with a one party state.

    MichaelN: You sold your souls ………….. but you will have to live with that shame.

    and you donated your brain apparently.

  60. avatar
    JoZeppy April 15, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    MichaelN: Didn’t get into court.

    It did get to court. Many times. And you lost every time because you have no case.

  61. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion April 15, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    I can see one of several things happening.

    1) It gets challenged from the start. Court rules it’s a violation of the US Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit” clause, overturns it. Alternatively, it rules that it sets additional requirements for a Federal job that the Federal government doesn’t require, overturns it. Birthers scream and wail.

    2) Obama registers using a current copy of his State of Hawaii COLB. Arizona says not good enough. Court rules that Arizona has to accept it under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. Birthers scream and wail.

    3) Obama registers using a current copy of his State of Hawaii COLB. Arizona says “that will work”. Birthers challenge in court, court rules it’s acceptable under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. Birthers scream and wail.

    4) State of Hawaii issues a certified copy of his “long form” to meet Arizona’s requirements. Arizona accepts it, birthers challenge in court, court rules it’s acceptable under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. Birthers scream and wail.

    5) State of Hawaii issues a certified copy of his “long form” to meet Arizona’s requirements. Arizona says not good enough. Court rules that Arizona has to accept it under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. Birthers scream and wail.

    So in other words, I can’t see any way this bill will stand up to a court challenge, nor do I see any way the State of Arizona can NOT accept a COLB from the State of Hawaii without violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

  62. avatar
    Scientist April 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Pat- After listening to the interview with the Secretary of State, I will bet on #3

  63. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    MichaelN:
    [Another pile of crap from MichaelN deleted]

    What makes Miki Booth’s birth certificate more credible than President Obama’s? [Nothing – quite the opposite is true, in fact.] Has the Hawai’i DOH vouched for it’s validity? [No.] Has it been offered for inspection to any news organization that wanted to look at it? [No.] Was is confirmed to be a copy of a specific person’s birth certificate by the sworn testimony of the record’s custodian? [No.] Is it suspected to have been issued in 2001 [Yes.]

    Don’t you understand that no one is buying your lies here? Everyone (besides irrelevant birthers) believes President Obama has proven himself legitimate. Everyone here knows that you have proven yourself to be full of $hit. What do you hope to gain by providing further corroborating evidence?

  64. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s devious morons

    I’m glad to see I’m still annoying you… 😉

    like you would will naturally squirm and writhe with a bill like this,

    Are you crazy? I’ve been hoping for one (or more!) of these bills to pass for more than a year now – not only is it free entertainment but it’s helping to reelect President Obama (and it also help out you and your friends as the irrational, seditious bigots that you are…). Hopefully at least a couple of states will have ‘birther candidates’ that gain standing in court in 2012 as well – all of these laws and court cases are invaluable for convincing independents that they want to have nothing to do with the birthers.

    to be expected, as it will deliver transparency

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    and responsible procedure to the process of vetting candidates.

    The Arizona law is the most IRRESPONSIBLE piece of legislation I’ve seen in Arizona… at least since they passed their immigration bill (which has already been struck down…). Vetting of candidates (which, contrary to your lies, has never been a problem in this country) would be seriously harmed by this bill if it were allowed to stand – its requirements are tailored to exclude President Obama specifically even that means the exclusion of one of the most reliable sources of information (passports). Everyone who conceived of, wrote, sponsored, voted for, signed, or supported this bill should be ashamed at what an unpatriotic, Constitution-hating, bigoted POS they are and you have once again proven why you should never hold elective office anywhere (in fact, stupidity and dishonesty like yours should only be allowed in public as the object of ridicule and scorn… [so I’m doing a public service when I insult you]).

    Now crawl back under your rock.

    As soon as you stop telling lies – I’d appreciate it if you would stop as soon as possible, though, I miss my rock… it’s much more intelligent than you are.

  65. avatar
    gorefan April 15, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    MichaelN: Of course, they “don’t “……………… bull-shit!
    Mikki Booth’s friend got issued with a long form’ as recently as 15th March this year 2011.

    How do explain the fact that the Post and Email printed an image of that BC on March 17, 2011, but then it didn’t have the date stamp or signature stamp.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/17/final-hawaii-petition-letter-sent/

    http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1995-Hawaii-Birth-Certificate.jpg

    Also Miki Booth’s son was born in Hawaii, how come she cannot get a long form BC for him?

  66. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 15, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    MichaelN: The part I like in the AZ bill, is that the people (AZ state residents) have standing to challenge.

    Arizona residents have always had the right, granted by another statute, to challenge any candidate to be on the ballot. Odd thing is, in 2008 not a single Arizona voter took advantage of this. All this law does does differently — assuming, of course, that Gov. Brewer signs it (and that is beginning to appear less likely — is give voters the right to sue the Secretary of State for his determination to allow a candidate on the ballot AND to sue him for his determination to exclude a candidate on the ballot. The state attorney general is obligated to defend the suit either way.

  67. avatar
    SueDB April 16, 2011 at 12:21 am #

    is give voters the right to sue the Secretary of State for his determination to allow a candidate on the ballot AND to sue him for his determination to exclude a candidate on the ballot. The state attorney general is obligated to defend the suit either way.

    Sounds like you get to have your cake and pay for it too.

  68. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 6:51 am #

    Yeah. the Sec of State in Arizona is now in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t position. You gotta feel sorry for the guy. As someone said he is going to serve out the remainder of his term in court fighting expensive bullcrap lawsuits no matter what happens, assuming this bill becomes law.

  69. avatar
    Sef April 16, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    SueDB:
    is give voters the right to sue the Secretary of State for his determination to allow a candidate on the ballot AND to sue him for his determination to exclude a candidate on the ballot. The state attorney general is obligated to defend the suit either way.

    Sounds like you get to have your cake and pay for it too.

    So the AG could simultaneously have multiple suits defending both sides of the issue. Funnneee!