Arizona will require Obama to provide birth cert if he wants to be on ballot

[JBeukema]

Lol. Go Arizona!
2012 is only 2 years away. Thank goodness.

"The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection."

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

So you want Arizona to continue making unconstitutional laws?

That's not unconstitutional. Matter of fact, the US Constitution already requires the President to be born in the US. How else would you go about proving you were born in the US without a birth certificate?

No it doesn't. It requires you to be born a citizen, you idiot.

No wonder you served in the Marines- clearly your mental capacity is best suited for drawing fire and exposing enemy positions more than anything else.

 

[JBeukema]

That's not unconstitutional. Matter of fact, the US Constitution already requires the President to be born in the US. How else would you go about proving you were born in the US without a birth certificate?

It is most certainly unconstitutional to ask for additional proof than that already provided by the State of Hawaii and approved by the Supreme Court.

Arizona would essentially be questioning the citizenship of the entire population of the state of Hawaii, by not accepting Hawaii's documenting procedures.

Don't confuse the Right with reason.

 

[Yurt]

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

This seems logical to me.

So does HI's practice of issuing a COLB. Can you imagine the precident that would be set if the "vault copy" were required as definitive proof of citizenship? It means that anybody who lost their copy through whatever reason, could not prove they are a NBC of this country.

not true, HI code clearly states that if the original is lost, damaged etc....the COLB or another certificate can have the same force of law

§338-19

First of all, if any of the birthers respected HI's policies on this, then it would be a non-issue.

Secondly, if the COLB can have the same force of law what is the rub again?

why is it an issue to see a copy of the original? obviously this is still an issue YEARS later....seems stupid to not simply issue the best evidence and be done with it....

i had to get a copy of my original bc for my passport, i fail to see the harm in obama producing a copy of his original

 

[Zona]

To all the burfers...do you honestly think Clinton or McCain would not have really dug this dung hole deeper if there was something there?

Honestly, do ya?

 

[Immanuel]

But the COLB can.

of course it can, but it is only prima facie evidence...good lord, why is it you guys have such an issue with providing a copy of the original when the original exists?

Because the COLB has been deemed as sufficient evidence on the matter.

Additionaly standards shouldn't be created to placate the lunatic fringe.

Can you clarify if you are talking about the internet version that you posted earlier or the "hard copy" of the same thing?

A "hard copy" I would agree with you, but if you want to say that the internet version suffices... then I would have an issue with that.

Immie

 

[goldcatt]

not true, HI code clearly states that if the original is lost, damaged etc....the COLB or another certificate can have the same force of law

§338-19

First of all, if any of the birthers respected HI's policies on this, then it would be a non-issue.

Secondly, if the COLB can have the same force of law what is the rub again?

why is it an issue to see a copy of the original? obviously this is still an issue YEARS later....seems stupid to not simply issue the best evidence and be done with it....

i had to get a copy of my original bc for my passport, i fail to see the harm in obama producing a copy of his original

I don't know. Why IS it an issue to see a copy of the original? If the certified State issued COLB is good enough for all other purposes, why should this one specific instance require a higher standard? Citizenship is citizenship and the benefits thereof are the benefits thereof, right?

 

[Zona]

not true, HI code clearly states that if the original is lost, damaged etc....the COLB or another certificate can have the same force of law

§338-19

First of all, if any of the birthers respected HI's policies on this, then it would be a non-issue.

Secondly, if the COLB can have the same force of law what is the rub again?

why is it an issue to see a copy of the original? obviously this is still an issue YEARS later....seems stupid to not simply issue the best evidence and be done with it....

i had to get a copy of my original bc for my passport, i fail to see the harm in obama producing a copy of his original

Comments on the paper that announced Oama's birth? How did they know to fake it back then?

Seriously, how?

 

[JBeukema]

The black guy won

get over it

 

[Vast LWC]

now you're changing you're story, first you said the court "asked" for evidence....now you're saying they simply threw it out

again, what is the case....unless you give the exact case and we can pull it up, i'm calling BS

I'm not changing my story.

The Supreme Court deemed that the case, which sought to invalidate Obama's legitimacy, had no validity, as they had been provided with evidence to the contrary by the state of Hawaii. So the case was thrown out.

That's the exact same thing, without the courtroom data.

 

[JBeukema]

To all the burfers...do you honestly think Clinton or McCain would not have really dug this dung hole deeper if there was something there?

Honestly, do ya?

McCain's illegal, too, remember?

 

[Zona]

To all the burfers...do you honestly think Clinton or McCain would not have really dug this dung hole deeper if there was something there?

Honestly, do ya?

McCain's illegal, too, remember?

But I am sure Yurt would scream to see his...just like Yurt screamed to see Bush's, Regan's and every other right wing pres.

 

[goldcatt]

Then I suspect Gold is right when she doubts they will be successful due to the faith and credit clause.

AZ can't compel a different state to change it's policies.

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

you know as well as i, that a copy of the original is the best evidence...unless the original is lost, which i doubt, the original is and should be required

And you know as well as I that one State must honor the standard certified vital records of another State under full faith and credit. FF&C doesn't specify "Best Evidence".

Also if you're talking a court challenge, which I assume you are if you're bringing the best evidence rule into the argument and will happen if the COLB is denied, you also know as well as I that a certified copy of a public record is fully admissible as evidence of what it purports to show.

 

[JBeukema]

To all the burfers...do you honestly think Clinton or McCain would not have really dug this dung hole deeper if there was something there?

Honestly, do ya?

McCain's illegal, too, remember?

But I am sure Yurt would scream to see his...just like Yurt screamed to see Bush's, Regan's and every other right wing pres.

I still don't understand how Reagan's a right-wing hero when Obama's the devil when he does the exact same things

Oh yeah, Obama's black and a Democrat...

 

[goldcatt]

Short form BC's or COLBs have been around a while, they're easier and cheaper to issue for the States with computerized records. So when a BC is requested as a replacement or when an original certified record will be kept on file with the election commission (as I assume would be the case here), a COLB is issued.

Federal law and US State Department guidelines make no distinction between the so-called "long form" and the "short form" or COLB as proof of citizenship. A COLB will get you a passport, for example. Or a social security card. Or a driver's license. It is proof of birthplace for all other purposes.

To be honest the birther shit is so dumb I haven't followed the whole argument on where Obama's long form is, whether he could theoretically get one or why it matters. The Constitution does not rquire us to know who was the attending physician at his birth. Nor does that information need to be dug up so the media and oppostiion can go hound his ass if he's alive and his family if he's not. Only that the State will certify that he was born on US soil within thier boundaries.

You got it right that the birther shit is dumb. It's the epitome of stupidity.

My interest is, from a philosophical view, that in a larger sense, the concept that a small radical fringe group doesn't get to change the law to suit their own purposes.

Actually, I only really became interested in the birther issue when military officers started to use their rank to try and push overtly political causes. That was my personal interest in the matter. Everything else I've learned is just ancillary.

Full faith and credit and issues of Federal law aside, I alluded to my problem with this whole requiring the long form BC thing in an earlier post. Citizenship is citizenship, the benfits thereof are the benefits thereof. Other than not accepting naturalization papers, there should be no distinction between proving citizenship for a passport and proving citizenship to run for President. There are not multiple levels of citizenship, why should there be multiple levels of proof required? It's ridiculous, it's dangerous, and it's unconstitutional.

 

[Yurt]

now you're changing you're story, first you said the court "asked" for evidence....now you're saying they simply threw it out

again, what is the case....unless you give the exact case and we can pull it up, i'm calling BS

I'm not changing my story.

The Supreme Court deemed that the case, which sought to invalidate Obama's legitimacy, had no validity, as they had been provided with evidence to the contrary by the state of Hawaii. So the case was thrown out.

That's the exact same thing, without the courtroom data.

again.........what is the case........and you have changed the story, you claimed the court asked for the information and deemed it appropriate, now you're saying the court said the information already provided is enough

for the 4th time.......what is the case, i'm calling bullshit until you present it, i am near certain the case was only thrown out on the issue of standing, not evidence

 

[geauxtohell]

why is it an issue to see a copy of the original? obviously this is still an issue YEARS later....seems stupid to not simply issue the best evidence and be done with it....

i had to get a copy of my original bc for my passport, i fail to see the harm in obama producing a copy of his original

There is no legal standard to comply with a demand because it's an "issue" to a small percentage of the country that is nucking futs.

Obama has satisfied the legal standard for citizenship. That's the end of the matter.

As evidenced by the birther's 0-66 record.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The black guy won

get over it

You know......if you think about it, JB is right..........McStupid is the senator from AZ, he was pissed because he got his ass kicked in the election by a liberal black man.

What did he do? Go back, bitch piss and moan about it, and some of his cronies in the state government decided that their little bit of "I'll take my bat and ball and go home" comes in this stupid idea.

They figure that if he's not on the ballot, he can't get elected.

AZ is a fucking racist state, I hope they decide one day to secede and then they get absorbed by Mexico, which turns the whole state into a marijuana patch.

 

[geauxtohell]

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

you know as well as i, that a copy of the original is the best evidence...unless the original is lost, which i doubt, the original is and should be required

And you know as well as I that one State must honor the standard certified vital records of another State under full faith and credit. FF&C doesn't specify "Best Evidence".

Also if you're talking a court challenge, which I assume you are if you're bringing the best evidence rule into the argument and will happen if the COLB is denied, you also know as well as I that a certified copy of a public record is fully admissible as evidence of what it purports to show.

I am just going to follow in your wake on this thread.

 

[geauxtohell]

Short form BC's or COLBs have been around a while, they're easier and cheaper to issue for the States with computerized records. So when a BC is requested as a replacement or when an original certified record will be kept on file with the election commission (as I assume would be the case here), a COLB is issued.

Federal law and US State Department guidelines make no distinction between the so-called "long form" and the "short form" or COLB as proof of citizenship. A COLB will get you a passport, for example. Or a social security card. Or a driver's license. It is proof of birthplace for all other purposes.

To be honest the birther shit is so dumb I haven't followed the whole argument on where Obama's long form is, whether he could theoretically get one or why it matters. The Constitution does not rquire us to know who was the attending physician at his birth. Nor does that information need to be dug up so the media and oppostiion can go hound his ass if he's alive and his family if he's not. Only that the State will certify that he was born on US soil within thier boundaries.

You got it right that the birther shit is dumb. It's the epitome of stupidity.

My interest is, from a philosophical view, that in a larger sense, the concept that a small radical fringe group doesn't get to change the law to suit their own purposes.

Actually, I only really became interested in the birther issue when military officers started to use their rank to try and push overtly political causes. That was my personal interest in the matter. Everything else I've learned is just ancillary.

Full faith and credit and issues of Federal law aside, I alluded to my problem with this whole requiring the long form BC thing in an earlier post. Citizenship is citizenship, the benfits thereof are the benefits thereof. Other than not accepting naturalization papers, there should be no distinction between proving citizenship for a passport and proving citizenship to run for President. There are not multiple levels of citizenship, why should there be multiple levels of proof required? It's ridiculous, it's dangerous, and it's unconstitutional.

Thanks. I post on another message board with lots of lawyers that spends a lot of time on this issue and they always make the same point.

 

[goldcatt]

You got it right that the birther shit is dumb. It's the epitome of stupidity.

My interest is, from a philosophical view, that in a larger sense, the concept that a small radical fringe group doesn't get to change the law to suit their own purposes.

Actually, I only really became interested in the birther issue when military officers started to use their rank to try and push overtly political causes. That was my personal interest in the matter. Everything else I've learned is just ancillary.

Full faith and credit and issues of Federal law aside, I alluded to my problem with this whole requiring the long form BC thing in an earlier post. Citizenship is citizenship, the benfits thereof are the benefits thereof. Other than not accepting naturalization papers, there should be no distinction between proving citizenship for a passport and proving citizenship to run for President. There are not multiple levels of citizenship, why should there be multiple levels of proof required? It's ridiculous, it's dangerous, and it's unconstitutional.

Thanks. I post on another message board with lots of lawyers that spends a lot of time on this issue and they always make the same point.

That's because it's the only point to be made, really.

I don't know about anybody else, but "Some are more equal than others" just doesn't sit well with me no matter what it's based on. Either my citizenship counts just as much as the President's and means exactly the same thing under the law or it doesn't. And if it does, then the same standards apply to both my citizenship and his. That's all there is to it.