New Proposed Laws Threaten Obama's 2012 Re-Election Prospects

[gekaap]

With respect, you're confused: yes, the state cannot mandate that the other state turn over a long form to the other state, but the state can mandate that the candidate acquire the long form from the state of their birth - in this case, Hawaii, which has categorically confirmed that it has one and can issue it to obama - who must then provide it to the state mandating the document to get on their ballot.

This is where you are wrong. The state of HI does not issue long form birth certificates to people. They issue short form copies. If a state wants to see Obama's birth certificate (and as I'm aware all 50 states already have), they will accept the legal documents that the state has provided to Obama.

The full faith and credit clause of the constitution demands that each state honor the records of all other states of the union. Only Congress can prescribe rules for how such records will be provided and the effect thereof. Thus, it would take an act of Congress for any state to require Obama to produce the original long form birth certificate. The states will take, and will have to take, the document that HI has already provided.


The other states are not imposing this requirement on Hawaii, but rather imposing the mandate on the candidates. if the candidates choose not to comply, nothing happens to them except that they don't get on the ballot in that state. It's all completely legal and constitutional for a state in the United States, a federalist, representative republic, to impose this mandate on a candidate running in their state. And if Obama cannot turn one over that stands up to expert analysis, he's screwed. Plain and simple.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

 

[gekaap]

Hawaii has never ever mentioned the internet pictured COLB in any official Hawaii Department Of Health statement. The Hawaii Dept Of Health has never verified it as authentic in any government statement. Those are the facts. We don't know where that internet COLB image you posted came from.

Like I said, deepening the conspiracy theory. You have evidence right in front of your face, and you continue to reject it because your entire view is premised on the notion that the evidence does not exist. Therefore it must be a fake/forgery. The increasing burden of proof you and the rest of the birthers demand will never be satisfied, because no matter how much proof is presented, you will continue to dogmatically insist on the possibility of some evil conspiracy that is trying to fool everyone. Why is Obama the only person in the world to whom you are willing to hold these burdens of evidence regarding their birth certificate?

The picture is from factcheck, who examined the document. It was real, notarized by a notary of the state of Hawaii, and is just as valid as any other person's birth certificate. That same document has already also been presented to the several states, back when Obama was placed on the ballots in each of those states. It was also examined by the federal office of state. All three branches of the federal government have affirmed Obama's qualifications to hold the office of the Presidency, and so have all 50 states. But you birthers just won't accept it because you don't want it to be so. You're just so desperate for something to hang him on you'll take anything you can get. It's really too bad, because there are plenty of reasons to speak against Obama, based on his job performance. But you birthers continue to muck up the waters and do a disservice to the cause of removing Obama from office through the democratic process.

 

[WorldWatcher]

One state can absolutely legally mandate a particular record from another state for any legal purpose provided that it has been ascertained that the record exists. It's essentially another form of subpoena power, and Hawaiian health department officials have stated categorically that they have seen Obama's long form birth certificate, therefore it exists, therefore any state can legally demand it as part of the federalist right of that state.

One state can require an individual present a document from another state. When a citizen orders a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, they issue a short form. Another State cannot mandate what data is contained in that document. Which (IMHO) would be the crux of the legal challenge.

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.


[DISCLAIMER: As a Republican, I have no problem with proposed laws like Maine's which would require ALL election candidates (President, Vice President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Legislature, etc...) to provide documentation that they meed eligibility requirements. No problem at all and I think it's long overdue. Writing a law targeted at one specific man though sticks of political hachery.]


>>>>

With respect, you're confused: yes, the state cannot mandate that the other state turn over a long form to the other state, but the state can mandate that the candidate acquire the long form from the state of their birth - in this case, Hawaii, which has categorically confirmed that it has one and can issue it to obama - who must then provide it to the state mandating the document to get on their ballot. The other states are not imposing this requirement on Hawaii, but rather imposing the mandate on the candidates. if the candidates choose not to comply, nothing happens to them except that they don't get on the ballot in that state. It's all completely legal and constitutional for a state in the United States, a federalist, representative republic, to impose this mandate on a candidate running in their state. And if Obama cannot turn one over that stands up to expert analysis, he's screwed. Plain and simple.

It's perfectly acceptable for a State to require candidates to provide the birth document of their home state, not a problem. It is unconstitutional for one state to mandate irrelevant information is contained in that document. If a State wants to determine the Citizenship status of the parents, no problem, require the candidate to submit either the parents birth certificate or their naturalization paper showing they were citizens at the time of the candidates birth. Requiring a state to include the name of a hospital, name of the doctor, and names of witnesses is irrelevant to the fundamental purpose of a birth certificate which is to document birth date, location, and the parents names.

Again I support Maine's proposed law which impacts all elected officials and is not targeting one specific person and I have no issue with a state requiring proof of citizenship status of parents if the eligibility for a position requires it.

I'd like to see a state or two pass these targeted laws, they will make for a lot of entertainment in the courts and (IMHO) have a very slim chance of passing Constitutional muster.

We should be focused with defeating Obama on the issues: runaway government spending, massive debt, and creating an environment which encourages the creation of jobs to replace those lost over the years.

>>>>

 

[gekaap]

I have no issue with a state requiring proof of citizenship status of parents if the eligibility for a position requires it.

That's the thing, no office has any requirement associated with one's parents.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.

How is that "reasonable"? There's no requirement that a person's parents be citizens in order to be a natural born citizen. In fact, Obama's father was not a US citizen.

Yes there is a requirement. It's the Supreme Court ruling Minor vs Happerset. Obama Sr not being a US Citizen gave Obama jr dual citizenship. Obama admits it on his own website Fight The Smears. A born dual British Citizen is not a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1. The founders did not want a person with allegiances to foreign governments (especially England after we just finished a war with them) as their president. All presidents since the grandfather clause ended were born to TWO U.S. citizen parentS (plural) with the exception of Chester Arthur who was later found ineligible like Obama.

 

[GStarz]

Was that a official government picture you posted from Hawaii's Department of Health?

See what I mean? Moving the goal post. There's no such thing as an official government picture of a person's birth certificate. This is insanity. The birthers keep dismissing evidence and deepening the conspiracy theory, and the President and other people keep stooping to their level to heap more and more evidence on the pile, which will never be accepted and will continually be dogmatically rejected.

Hawaii has never ever mentioned the internet pictured COLB in any official Hawaii Department Of Health statement. The Hawaii Dept Of Health has never verified it as authentic in any government statement. Those are the facts. We don't know where that internet COLB image you posted came from.

US Army,

Clearly, Geekap is going to simultaneously play dumb while posturing as more well-placed and authoritative than Matthews and every lawyer and legislator in several states, who number in the dozens at least. in other words, geekap is either a propagandist or cannot face the reality of what's actually happening across America. I really enjoy your posts, US Army, but in this case - with geepak - IMO you're wasting your time. This is just going to go in circles. IMO, you're too good to waste on this particular form of nonsense, though all liberal posts are essentially nonsense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have no issue with a state requiring proof of citizenship status of parents if the eligibility for a position requires it.

That's the thing, no office has any requirement associated with one's parents.

The are differing opinions on this. As far as I know there has never been a SCOTUS case involving eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. (As far as I know, all prior cases have dealt with citizenship, not POTUS eligibility).

Everyone claims the high ground on the issue, the truth is it is not likely to be settled until the SCOTUS answers the question as it pertains to POTUS eligibility. The birther laws being proposed are probably the best way to get the question to the SCOTUS as a candidate would definitely have "standing" to address the issue to the courts.



>>>>

 

[USArmyRetired]

Hawaii has never ever mentioned the internet pictured COLB in any official Hawaii Department Of Health statement. The Hawaii Dept Of Health has never verified it as authentic in any government statement. Those are the facts. We don't know where that internet COLB image you posted came from.

The picture is from factcheck, who examined the document. It was real, notarized by a notary of the state of Hawaii, and is just as valid as any other person's birth certificate. That same document has already also been presented to the several states, back when Obama was placed on the ballots in each of those states. It was also examined by the federal office of state. .

You say:
1. It was real, notarized by a notary of the state of Hawaii, and is just as valid as any other person's birth certificate.

Is there a official statement by Hawaii certifying this about the internet pictured COLB?

2. That same document has already also been presented to the several states, back when Obama was placed on the ballots in each of those states.

Which states was it presented too? Please be specific with links.

3. It was also examined by the federal office of state.

Which state was it examined by and what department? Also please provide a official state government statement that the pictured image of the COLB was examined by the state you are refering too.


I await your proof.

 

[rightwinger]

One state can absolutely legally mandate a particular record from another state for any legal purpose provided that it has been ascertained that the record exists. It's essentially another form of subpoena power, and Hawaiian health department officials have stated categorically that they have seen Obama's long form birth certificate, therefore it exists, therefore any state can legally demand it as part of the federalist right of that state.

One state can require an individual present a document from another state. When a citizen orders a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, they issue a short form. Another State cannot mandate what data is contained in that document. Which (IMHO) would be the crux of the legal challenge.

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.


[DISCLAIMER: As a Republican, I have no problem with proposed laws like Maine's which would require ALL election candidates (President, Vice President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Legislature, etc...) to provide documentation that they meed eligibility requirements. No problem at all and I think it's long overdue. Writing a law targeted at one specific man though sticks of political hachery.]


>>>>

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

 

[DiveCon]

One state can absolutely legally mandate a particular record from another state for any legal purpose provided that it has been ascertained that the record exists. It's essentially another form of subpoena power, and Hawaiian health department officials have stated categorically that they have seen Obama's long form birth certificate, therefore it exists, therefore any state can legally demand it as part of the federalist right of that state.

One state can require an individual present a document from another state. When a citizen orders a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, they issue a short form. Another State cannot mandate what data is contained in that document. Which (IMHO) would be the crux of the legal challenge.

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.


[DISCLAIMER: As a Republican, I have no problem with proposed laws like Maine's which would require ALL election candidates (President, Vice President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Legislature, etc...) to provide documentation that they meed eligibility requirements. No problem at all and I think it's long overdue. Writing a law targeted at one specific man though sticks of political hachery.]


>>>>

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

i'd like to know the answer to that also
with cite links as well

 

[WorldWatcher]

One state can absolutely legally mandate a particular record from another state for any legal purpose provided that it has been ascertained that the record exists. It's essentially another form of subpoena power, and Hawaiian health department officials have stated categorically that they have seen Obama's long form birth certificate, therefore it exists, therefore any state can legally demand it as part of the federalist right of that state.

One state can require an individual present a document from another state. When a citizen orders a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, they issue a short form. Another State cannot mandate what data is contained in that document. Which (IMHO) would be the crux of the legal challenge.

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.


[DISCLAIMER: As a Republican, I have no problem with proposed laws like Maine's which would require ALL election candidates (President, Vice President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Legislature, etc...) to provide documentation that they meed eligibility requirements. No problem at all and I think it's long overdue. Writing a law targeted at one specific man though sticks of political hachery.]


>>>>

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

Some feel it is contained in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", there are others who do not - they interpret it to mean "born a citizen". Still others think it means born to citizens on US soil by those willing to throw the children of military born in foreign lands under the bus. Ultimately it will have to be answered by the SCOTUS in a case involving Presidential eligibility and not just citizenship status.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

Yes there is a requirement. It's the Supreme Court ruling Minor vs Happerset. Obama Sr not being a US Citizen gave Obama jr dual citizenship. Obama admits it on his own website Fight The Smears. A born dual British Citizen is not a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1. The founders did not want a person with allegiances to foreign governments (especially England after we just finished a war with them) as their president. All presidents since the grandfather clause ended were born to TWO U.S. citizen parentS (plural) with the exception of Chester Arthur who was later found ineligible like Obama.

Minor v Happerset is a woman's suffrage case. It says nothing on the issue at hand.

Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship. Your assertion is untrue and would require an extraordinary reading of the plain language of the constitution. One that is furthermore not supported by historical application or judicial precedent. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.

 

[gekaap]

The are differing opinions on this. As far as I know there has never been a SCOTUS case involving eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. (As far as I know, all prior cases have dealt with citizenship, not POTUS eligibility).

Everyone claims the high ground on the issue, the truth is it is not likely to be settled until the SCOTUS answers the question as it pertains to POTUS eligibility. The birther laws being proposed are probably the best way to get the question to the SCOTUS as a candidate would definitely have "standing" to address the issue to the courts.

The issue is plainly laid out in the constitution regarding the natural born citizen requirement for Presidency. No requirement relating to one's parents is required. Indeed, such a requirement would be akin to British peerage titles of which the infant USA would have been especially adverse.

So the issue becomes relatively simple: Is Obama a natural born citizen? The answer is yes. He was born in the United States. The Supreme Court has been clear when the questions have been presented to them that dual citizenship does not deprive a US citizen of any rights as a US citizen, and that natural born citizenship does not require that a person's parents be a citizen. Being born in the US makes a person a citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents.

Therefore, there is no reason to appeal to a theoretical hearing by the SCOTUS of the question. It is a plain question that is more than answered already. Any other answer contrary to this would require an extraordinary reading of the constitution which is not supported by either a record of historical application. Without such history to support such a radical reading of the constitution, positive case law becomes necessary to support the question, which does not exist.

 

[gekaap]

You say:
1. It was real, notarized by a notary of the state of Hawaii, and is just as valid as any other person's birth certificate.

Is there a official statement by Hawaii certifying this about the internet pictured COLB?

2. That same document has already also been presented to the several states, back when Obama was placed on the ballots in each of those states.

Which states was it presented too? Please be specific with links.

3. It was also examined by the federal office of state.

Which state was it examined by and what department? Also please provide a official state government statement that the pictured image of the COLB was examined by the state you are refering too.


I await your proof.

Listen to yourself. The document itself is a statement from the state of HI. All you can do is to deepen the depth of the conspiracy theory by demanding ever increasing amounts of evidence. Every time you are presented by evidence, you will demand evidence that the evidence is evidence. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST! IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY!

 

[USArmyRetired]

Yes there is a requirement. It's the Supreme Court ruling Minor vs Happerset. Obama Sr not being a US Citizen gave Obama jr dual citizenship. Obama admits it on his own website Fight The Smears. A born dual British Citizen is not a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1. The founders did not want a person with allegiances to foreign governments (especially England after we just finished a war with them) as their president. All presidents since the grandfather clause ended were born to TWO U.S. citizen parentS (plural) with the exception of Chester Arthur who was later found ineligible like Obama.

Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.

You say

1. Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship.
Based on what facts?

2. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.

What do you base this on?

 

[gekaap]

You say

1. Dual citizenship does not negate a person's natural born citizenship.
Based on what facts?

2. Any person, like Obama or Arthur, born in the US is a natural born citizen, and can one day serve as President of the United States.

What do you base this on?

You are the one who made the claims that such disbars a person from serving as President. You have to provide the evidence to support your claim.

 

[rightwinger]

One state can require an individual present a document from another state. When a citizen orders a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, they issue a short form. Another State cannot mandate what data is contained in that document. Which (IMHO) would be the crux of the legal challenge.

Now I think it's perfectly reasonable for a State to require a candidate to provide their state birth certification AND documentation showing that the parents were United States Citizens at the time of the candidates birth which could be through Naturalization papers or copies of the parents state birth certification. Not a problem as it doesn't have one state mandating the content of another states public acts, so I don't see a legal basis for striking such a law.


[DISCLAIMER: As a Republican, I have no problem with proposed laws like Maine's which would require ALL election candidates (President, Vice President, Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Legislature, etc...) to provide documentation that they meed eligibility requirements. No problem at all and I think it's long overdue. Writing a law targeted at one specific man though sticks of political hachery.]


>>>>

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

Some feel it is contained in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", there are others who do not - they interpret it to mean "born a citizen". Still others think it means born to citizens on US soil by those willing to throw the children of military born in foreign lands under the bus. Ultimately it will have to be answered by the SCOTUS in a case involving Presidential eligibility and not just citizenship status.


>>>>

It only requires you be born in the US

 

[DiveCon]

Where in the Constitution does it require presidents parents to be citizens?

Some feel it is contained in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen", there are others who do not - they interpret it to mean "born a citizen". Still others think it means born to citizens on US soil by those willing to throw the children of military born in foreign lands under the bus. Ultimately it will have to be answered by the SCOTUS in a case involving Presidential eligibility and not just citizenship status.


>>>>

It only requires you be born in the US

or have a parent that is a US Citizen

 

[gekaap]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

 

[DiveCon]

True. Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily mean you were born in the US. You can be born outside the US to a citizen parent and still be a natural born citizen under certain circumstances.

of course then the birfers counter that Obama's mother didnt qualify for that because of her age