…some legislators were replaced with dim bulbs, the latest being birther Rep. Tommy Benton who said:
I think he’s (Obama) the only one who has refused to show his birth certificate
The correct statement is that Obama is the only one that HAS shown his birth certificate.
Re: Commerce News Today
b steadman has been a busy birther bee (copying and pasting the exact same drivel on many birther related articles). And a big, sloppy crush on Lucas Smith.
We’ve had folks like that from the beginning. I remember “Ted” who spammed the Internet with his birther talking points.
I hate to see, though, when a local newspaper covers a story and then the birthers from out of town dump their junk on it en masse. It would be nice to see a local discussion on the issue.
:It would be nice to see a local discussion on the issue.”
But none of the locals give a crap about the Birfers. That is why some loser has to import this sewage from out of town.
Because birtherism’s true agenda is all about spreading false propaganda as much as they can, in hopes that if they sow confusion with misinformation, distract with meaningless minutiae and lie often enough, they can brainwash fear and doubt in the minds of more gullible people.
That is what this is really all about.
What if the hokey pokey is really what it’s all about.
Like most birthers, Benton is a broken bulb. Calling him a dim bulb is much too generous.
That “Tom” guy in the comments is all over the place he posted on Bill Bowman’s examiner site, USAToday. He did a little spiel last night on USAToday about the supposed “Obot” conspiracy to stop the birthers from birthing all led by Fogbow
Correction: Barack Obama has shown an image of a forged birth certificate.
You know the drill – Date Filed contradicts the registration number 10641…
Please enlighten us on your training and experience in questioned-document analysis.
The KKK rears its ugly hood.
It would be a better world, if that was the case. 🙂
So, where do I go to see Benton’s proof of citizenship?
Well, at least he used the qualifier “I think,” rather than claiming it as absolute fact. Which could just be a variation on the birther themes “I’ve heard” and “sources claim,” which they use when they want to pretend it isn’t them making the false claim. Of course, I have yet to see real evidence of any birther actually thinking, so there is reason to doubt his claim.
It’s probably just the instinctual qualification of a politician covering his butt – as a scientist, I do the same thing all the time – most of the time, anyway – (in this very sentence, in fact… twice).
In the linked article, Benton states that he had to prove his US citizenship to run for state rep. Is this true? I looked at the GA SoS website for the qualification process for candidates. I see where they must file an affidavit attesting that they are a citizen, but I don’t see any requirement that documentation be submitted.
Benton is, lets be charitable, being economical with the truth. (aka LSOS)
There is a section in the GA requirements that states one must be a US citizen to run and be seated in various state offices.
There is however NO requirement to prove this beyond a sworn statement.
In other words Benton did EXACTLY the same as the current POTUS who subsequently provided actual proof, unlike Benton.
Yes, NC, we know the drill: you post something that was discredited years ago, then keep posting variations until you’ve been routed. You then lie low for a week or two and then repeat the process.
You need a hobby.
I believe that this IS his hobby… (he should at least try to find a better one, though – something more palatable like roadkill cookery or exposing himself to statuary…)
nc1 March 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm nc1(Quote) #
Correction: Barack Obama has shown an image of a forged birth certificate.
You know the drill – Date Filed contradicts the registration number 10641…
I really am amused by Birthers like nc1.
If this is a forged birth certificate- which was published and viewed by millions and millions of Americans, commented upon by dozens and dozens birthers- yet the great state of Hawaii has never seen fit to:
a) Question the ‘forged birth certificate”
b) Initiate legal proceedings against the Presidents campaign.
The only clear answer of course is the State of Hawaii is in on it.
Which begs the question- if the State of Hawaii is in on it- why forge the Birth certificate, if you can just have them issue a new one with fraudulant information?
But that kind of thinkiing makes Birthers heads explode and then they bring up Social Security numbers again.
But but according to NC1 the birth index database most likely was hacked and so Hawaii wouldn’t know the difference if Obama’s record was inserted into the database.
By Tom Cruise hanging from wires in the ceiling.
“By Tom Cruise hanging from wires in the ceiling.”
Sorry- every Birther knows it was Bill Ayers hanging from the wires- after all he is pulling all of the strings……bwwwwwwwaaaaahhhaaahh!
Soon he will fulfill the 1960’s radical’s dream of a publicly owned and profitable General Motors!
So when “liberals” are accused of being elitist what “they” are trying to say is they’re putting on Ayers?
Oh, I see what you did there.
Discredited years ago!? You wish.
Why would Dr. Conspiracy attempt to explain Obama’s alleged birth registration number just few weeks ago on this blog? His said that was the first time he felt comfortable providing a scenario for the discrepancy.
nc1, why do you advocate for a bill that you know is unconstitutional by two seperate sections of the Constitution? (There’s arguments that it also violates Equal Protection, but I’m not including that one). Or have you given up your support of the birther bills in Georgia and other states?
Read Article II, Section 1 (Outlines the Federal requirements for President. Supreme Court case law has also said that the states cannot put on more requirements than what the constitution entails to run for Federal Office. Two-parent, Dual Citizenship, and other requirements are not in Article II, Section 1, especially considering the history of American Juris Prudence).
Read Article IV, Section 1 (Outlines what documents the States are required to take from other states. Gives the power to the Federal Government, not the states, to regulate it, and the Federal Government has said time and time again that the COLB is sufficient to prove birth within Hawaii.)
So, please tell me why you support a bill in Georgia that is clearly in violation of 2 seperate sections of the Constitution?
I support any bill that forces presidential candidates to submit an OFFICIAL document for verification (image posted on the web does not qualify).
If the bill required a copy of the first (original) birth certificate – even better, less chance for manipulation.
Giving citizens/voters right to challenge candidate’s eligibility is very important part of any eligibility legislation. It would stop the “no standing” game that has been played in various US courts.
These are two main reasons why Obama supporters are scared of such legislation – if you believed in the official birthplace story (Kapiolani Hospital) none of the above arguments would matter to you.
Let the SCOTUS decide whether a particular bill is Constitutional or not – somebody needs to force them into action. Last time I checked there was no SCOTUS ruling about the definition of the nbC phrase. Therefore, your assumption that proposed Georgia a law is unconstitutional is not a fact – just your opinion.
NC1, read Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Now, please tell me what authority Georgia has to reject a certificate that the State of Hawaii, and the Federal Government says proves that they were born in Hawaii. Please cite court cases.
By the way, this won’t make it to SCOTUS. This will be struck down in the District Court as being unconstitutional for those two reasons. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold that ruling, and SCOTUS will deny cert on the case.
However, if it did get to SCOTUS, it would be a 9-0 decision, and I’d hope that Justice Antonin Scalia would write the opinion (at least on the birther part of it) directly quoting Blackstone and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The Supreme Court already decided this 112 years ago with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Cases since then have continually upheld that definition, and no case has ever held that you can be born a citizen, without being a Natural Born Citizen.
According to the history of American Juris Prudence, the bill is clearly unconstitutional on two grounds. No Republican is actually doing anything more than pandering to the Bat Guano crazy wing of the base. I have a feeling that if any of them actually thought that this bill would pass, a lot more would actually vote against it, rather than use it as pandering for the base.
Here is a fact, not an opinioon. Only 10 living persons have been certified by Congress as natural born citizens-the current and former Presidents and Vice Presidents. Among that elite group is Barack Obama. Not a single current member of the Georgia legislature has been certified as a natural born citizen.
The same reason Dr C has to continuously write new articles that address information from birthers. Look at how many Vattel articles Doc has had to write because it keeps being brought up by birthers, look at the COLB articles, etc.
> These are two main reasons why Obama supporters are scared of such legislation
First, no-one is “scared” of anything. After all, we’re all pretty convinced those “birther bills” will be struck down as unconstitutional.
In fact, I’m sure you birthers are much more afraid of a SCOTUS ruling that “born in the USA” is enough to be NBC. If you weren’t, why wasn’t Ankeny appealed to SCOTUS? The only case where a court actually stated Obama is an NBC? Why, oh why, of all birther cases, was this one not taken to SCOTUS?
Second, your argument boils down to the “accept if it doesn’t affect” fallacy.
If a law gets enacted that bars women from being eligible for POTUS, Obama supporters could not care less as Obama is not a woman. Still they would be against such a law for other reasons.
So according to your reasoning, Obama supporters should support an unconstitutional law simply because it does not affect Obama? And, by reversal, conclude that if they are against it, it must necessarily affect Obama? Fallacy FAIL.
Besides, just to mention that one more time, not everyone around here is an Obama supporter. I couldn’t care less who’s US president (though I would worry about some candidates), I don’t even care much about my own country’s government.
But I like to stand on the side of logic and reason, against hatred, stupidity and gullibility.
nc1 — it seems telling that you would say that the President’s supporters are scared of the birther bills, when there is no sign that that is true. Is this because the fact that nobody is scared suggests that this effort is completely ineffectual?
Check out Rogers v Bellei. Maybe you meant if born in U.S.?
This is my favorite birther argument. We’re “scared” to let them have their way. You seem to confuse being “scared” to have the President prove he is an NBC (which despite your tantrums that make my two year old daugther seem like a example of mature composure, he did long ago), with simply pointing out that you don’t stand a chance. Pointing out that this legislation is unconstitutional and doesn’t have a chance isn’t being “scared” of proving the President is an NBC anymore than refusing to subject ourselves to random strip searches and drug tests by the police is being “scared” to prove we are innocent of any crimes. Similarly, pointing out that birther law suits when we first see them filed isn’t because we are “scared” of the courts addressing the question of what an NBC is (you see, some of us have actually read the cases, and seen how they have been interpreted by the courts for the past century), it’s because we recognize the Constitution’s requirement for case and controversey and how the Courts have crafted the standing test to meet that Constitutional requirement. Unlike the average birther, we know what the Constitution says, and have desire to destroy parts of the Constitution so a bunch of ungovernable malcontents, who refuse to acknowledge the legitmacy of any President not of their liking, can have every crazy question they can think of answered, and still remain unsatisfied, because as I said, they’re at heart a group of ungovernable malcontents.
If we are “scared” of anything, it is that you malcontents are given more respect than you deserve, and we compromise our Constitutional protections in a misguided attempt to placate you.
Predicting the failure of birther legislation (or litigation) isn’t being “scared” of anything. It is simply a recognition of reality.
Would you support a bill that:
1 Asks for official confirmation that a presidential candidate was born in the USA. A COLB from Hawaii would qualify as a proof.
2. Gives individuals standing to question the eligibility proof in court.
Proposed Georgia bill does not discriminate between presidential candidates. It applies equally to everyone. You will have to find a better reason/analogy to oppose it.
If you are not a US citizen, why are you arguing here on Obama’s behalf. I understand that there are many foreigners who would like to see the USA goes down – are you one of them?
Right now there exists no means for a certified birth certificate to be entered for any Presidential candidate. I frankly don’t find it all that problematic. It might at the very least take one claim by the skeptics if there are BCs available for public inspection. As it stands, posting an image on the web is probably the best they can do. I also would have suggested that they would have made it available to more than just Factcheck. If they’d at least let Fox News do the same thing there would be fewer claims that perhaps a “liberal” organization was in on a supposed “faking”.
Generally requiring (I know Georgia’s bill had a secondary test) a certified photocopy of the “original long form” could be problematic. Quite a few states no longer issue them. It might be possible to submit an older certified copy, but who would part with one when several of these bills don’t mention if they will be returned, while others imply that they become property of the state. I read that Nebraska’s birther bill was patterned after other ones, but apparently didn’t note that the state itself doesn’t issue long forms. I saw something indicating that Nebraska plans on moving to primarily electronic birth registration sometime in 2012. These bills aren’t looking at the future when increasingly fewer births are recorded with a government agency in custody of a paper form.
As noted by Dr C earlier, even a certified photocopy of a Hawaii BC wouldn’t satisfy some of these bills. Georgia’s HB 401 was specific about what there require, which includes the residence of both parents. That would be an issue if the father isn’t listed (it happens) or if the form only list the mother’s residence (as with many BC forms). California’s current form wouldn’t meet the requirement because it doesn’t list the residence of either parent. They’re asking for a whole lot of things that a lot of jurisdictions have opted to remove from their BCs.
What about Angel, my Afghan hound? Does it apply to her? You said “applies equally to everyone,” so I am assuming it would apply to dogs.
The real fun ones has been the legislations demanding “Da Mystical Long Form” which DON’T ACTUALLY provide said form to their own citizens….. 😎
As it is the Georgia bill is deader than a dead thing with extra dead sauce on top.
The creator of the bill tried to get it his pile of poo inserted into another bill after his was drop kicked into oblivion, to be told by his Republican colleagues….”No bill for YOU!”
1) Yes and no. I would have no objections to a statute that would require a candidate prove he is an NBC. This would include accepting a COLB or similar document from a state. However, as the current legal understanding is that someone like John McCain is an NBC, to say prove US birth may be adding unconsitutional limits to the office.
2) No. We don’t need every crack pot suing every candidate. We really don’t need a situation where a candidate has to defend himself in the courts of every state to get on the ballot. If an opposing candidate wants to challenge him, he will likely have standing, and can feel free to challenge him in court.
You mean like the Oklahoma bill that just passed in their state senate?
Here’s the actual final version of the document:
Here is how it reads:
So yeah, the HI COLB fully satisfies that and it doesn’t have any crazy extra-constitutional requirements. Nor does it go off into the realm of any birther nonsense.
I have no problem with it. Do you?
On what grounds?
If the candidate has satisfied the first requirement, then they have produced a valid document attested to by the officials who have a say on such things within the jurisdictional territory of their birth.
What would some other individual be able to base such a challenge on and what gives them that right?
Unless you can give a rational argument for why such is needed and would trump the authority of what was presented under #1, I don’t see any practical value to such challenges, except as a mere political tactic and waste of courts time and taxpayer’s dollars.
So, at this point, my answer is simply “NO”.
FAIL. Read the bill. What it claims and asks goes beyond what the Constitution does.
Try reading the OK bill I just provided to you in my previous response post to you and compare it to the language of the GA bill. Notice a difference???
In simple terms, what OK is proposing is about the full extent of what could pass muster at the state level and not violate federal law.
This Oklahoma bill has some problems in that it implicitly grants NBC status to those born in Puerto Rico and other birth-abroad locales. This is the crux of the ongoing joke between Justice Thomas and the Puerto Rico born Congressman. This is not settled law.
Interesting question. I really wouldn’t mind a law that required proof of citizenship, not just for the President, but for every federal, state, and local office that requires it. I don’t know of any jurisdiction in the US that requires this. Curious the way conservatives get all focussed on eligibility for the Presidency while ignoring every single other office.
For the Presidency, requiring proof of being born in the US would probably pass muster as well.
As for your second requirement, I wouldn’t exactly support it, though I probably wouldn’t bother to oppose it either. But think about what’s going to happen. Every single candidate for President is going to face hundreds of baseless lawsuits. Yes, that would include the Republican ones. Even baseless lawsuits take time and money to defend against. Is that really what you want?
Here’s an alternative. Require candidates to submit this proof, and have the SoS scan it all and put it on the state government’s website. Then voters can read it and make their own judgements, and vote accordingly.
It actually didn’t hold that you were not a Natural Born Citizen, it just held that your citizenship was not protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, but conferred by statute, as you were not Born in the United States (and you were not Naturalized either).
What state do you live in? Your state has money to waste giving people with no concrete interest in the eligibility of Obama the right to go into your state’s court and waste the time of every court officer involved?
Georgia has such a shortfall in court budgets that they’re going to have to layoff 3,500-7,100 people!
How about this? You can have standing to sue, but: 1) you have to pay a realistic filing fee that covers the real marginal cost of your lawsuit; and, 2) if you lose, you have to pay the other side’s entire costs, including reasonable legal fees?
Aren’t most state courts looser about standing than federal courts? The Ankeny plaintiffs were able to sue in Indiana state court and none of them were candidates or electors or anything similar.
The standing issues in federal court are constitutional and can’t be fixed by a state law.