Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The internet COLB will not be enough as the bill requires this:
[The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.]
As we all know and backed up by Obama's website 'Fight the Smears, Obama's father was a British National and due to the British Nationality Act Of 1948, that status governed Obama Srs children making young Barack a dual citizen at birth.
George Washington was a British Subject until he took some kind of oath after the Declaration of Independence was signed. But his new legions just took his word for it. He wasn't required to pass any any litmus test to prove his allegiance. So technically, Washington himself held dual citizenship.
Didn't matter where George Washington was born, nor any supposed oath, being a citizen of the colony of Virginia at the time the Constitution was adopted made him a United States Citizen. As per the Constitution (Article II Section 2) those where were citizens at the time of the adoption were exempt from the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
>>>>
Don't have an issue with states requiring documentation of proof of eligibility, but just a couple of comments...
1. Many states don't issue "long form" birth certificates any more.
2. A location of birth inside the United States establishes citizenship, requiring the hospital is not needed.
3. A location of birth inside the United States establishes citizenship, requiring an attending physician is not needed. (I hate to break it to many but many children are born with no attending attending physician.)
4. Just to be picky, "Natural Born Citizen" is a condition at birth and does not preclude gaining citizenship after birth in another country. Now attesting that there was no dual-citizenship status at birth is part of it.
>>>>
Also, some states, my own included, have destroy-by policies. Apparently there is no record of MY OWN long form medical birth certificate. I only know that because I've been carrying around a very old copy of my short-form birth certificate so long that it's seriously dog-eared, and last summer on a trip to Newport VT where I was born, stopped at the hospital to get a new copy. On an off-chance, I asked if I could have the actual record which showed my birth weight, ink blots of my feet, etc., and was told that those are automatically destroyed after 50 years because they serve no purpose. Operative words: SERVE NO PURPOSE. Hospital and state certification are all that is required.
Sadly, you will never be President
They are not ruling anyone. The requirement is for Arizona alone and is a local issue. There may be a grater SCOTUS issue in this but it has zero to do with Hawaii and OB's birth state. Arizona is not asking anything if Hawaii but rather asking for a birth certificate in order to get on the Arizona ballot.
I say let them try. The outrage from all the rest of the country will assure Obama a landslide victory.
I disagree. If AZ does that, and Obama can't provide the long form BC, combined with the overall distrust of the gov't lately anyway, I think 80% of the country would become so suspicious that they'd flock away from him even more than they already have.
I still don't know why his staff and Hawaii don't just end this now and provide all the long forms, etc, etc, that they are wanting to see. Make them look silly. But they haven't done it yet.
Wrong bucko. Each state decides who is qualified to run on their presidential ballot. If they demand proof of citizenship from candidates then Obama will have to comply or be left out.
just what we need... another birfer moron...
his birth was certified by the state of hawaii, freak boy...
there is no 'game changer' except in the fantasies of loons.
I've been a pretty staunch anti-birther guy, although being a right winger, because I just didn't believe it. I thought if that was even close to true, Hillary would've been all over it in 08.
But, I've been keeping up with the claims. And literally last night, a Hawaii government official, who was in charge of producing the certified birth certificate, signed and swore an affidavit stating he was told by his superiors that the certificate did not exist, and that the long form one could not be produced, and political pressure would prevent them from admitting that publicly. This guy is coming out now in a sworn affidavit with those facts. He states neither hospital has ANY record of Obama's birth, other than a hand written note regarding it. And he also states the short form, or whatever was produced, was inspected and found to be manufactured by modern day Word software, and that nowhere in Hawaii does a real, legitimate birth certificate exist for Barack Obama.
Again, I still don't buy into this. But some crazy shit has been coming out of this topic the last 48 hours.
Obama was born in mexico.
Sorry, no, a COLB is not proof he was born in Hawaii. Look at the bottom of the certificate, its says "This document serves as PRIMA FACIA evidence ". In a court of law, this means that the document is rebuttable, ergo, it is not proof. A colb is more like hearsay evidence and is only allowed in court because statutory law permits it, but would otherwise not be permissable in court under common procedural law.
As far as Hawaii's procedure, anyone can call up the state and report a live birth and a colb will be issue. The speculation is that Obama's maternal grandparents called in the birth. Then the state would have processed the information, simply relying upon their word, and issued the document. This does not mean that Obama was actuallly born in Hawaii, all it means is that Obama was born which is a fact not in dispute.
A true full form birth certificate is needed because it would show the doctor who made the delivery, those in attendance, and would be certified by the hospital administration. In other words, it would provide facts that could be proven or disproven to verify the authenticity of the document.
Offering a colb to prove one is qualified to be President is a little like showing someone a report card to prove you graduated from college. Why would you try to do that if you had a real diploma?
You misunderstand prima facia, and of course to your benefit. It can only be rubutted by evidence to the contrary. Until that happens it is accepted as fact. Therefore to rebutt you have to PROVE in a court of law, that the facts presented are in fact, false.
Also, the document is accepted by all forms of our goverment as proof, no matter how much you want it not to be so. The document actually lists a location of birth, not just the fact someone called it in.
Again, I guarantee that if someone presents the original document (which at this point is probably unreadable) some other excuse will be found.
I dont agree with most of Obama's policies, but the whole birther stuff is some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen, only eclipsed by the 9/11 truth excrement.
Hey Skippy, a colb is not proof Obama was born in Hawaii. Right now the the only testimony from real living human beings on where Obama was born all say he was born in Kenya. To wit, his grandmother and two half siblings. His mother, father, and maternal grandparents are all deceased and so cannot bear witness. Obama himself cannot testify on where he was born because he was obviously too young to remember. If he was indeed born in a hospital in Hawaii no living person has yet appeared to say they were there when it happened. If a birth certificate were available the names on it could be contacted to verify the event, but so far one hasn't materialized. But a colb cannot clear this up because it is hearsay evidence that cannot authenticate itself due to the inherently weak manner in which it is created as far as serving as evidence.
Anti-birthers need to just accept the fact that nothing short of an actual birth certificate is going to make this issue go away. You can advertise the colb on billboards, fly a colb up a flag pole, send a copy to every email in the country, make it into a stamp if you want. The only thing that will silence this issue is the real mccoy.
Would it be over the top to point out here that Abercrombie is just one more socialist connection in government?
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
I've always wondered about the necessity of the highlighted phrase, separated by comas.
Would it be over the top to point out here that Abercrombie is just one more socialist connection in government?
It would be a non-sequitur at best, an ad hominem at worst.
All this birther BS is just pathetic. Good luck to Arizona getting this law upheld.
1) The Constitution prescribes the qualifications of being President, the states do not have the power to set their own qualifications, especially considering that the Presidency is a federal office, over which no state has jurisdiction.
2) The Supreme Court has already affirmed Obama's qualifications to be President.
3) The Constitution's full faith and credit clause demands that Arizona honor what Hawaii says happened, and only the federal Congress can prescribe any means by which Arizona can demand any production of documentation.
4) The fact that Obama is now President would place an the burden on any state that insists on denying Obama's candidacy.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. A state cannot make a requirement ex post facto (a requirement to past elections), but the fact that Obama is currently the President would have no bearing to Obama the Candidate for the next election. Now we as human beings understand it's the same person, but from a legal standpoint the fact that Obama is currently the President has no bearing in what he might do (or be required to do) as a candidate for a future election.
Hawaii said so. That's been good enough for the courts. A state law on the subject isn't going to change a thing.
Wrong bucko. Each state decides who is qualified to run on their presidential ballot. If they demand proof of citizenship from candidates then Obama will have to comply or be left out.
just what we need... another birfer moron...
his birth was certified by the state of hawaii, freak boy...
there is no 'game changer' except in the fantasies of loons.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. A state cannot make a requirement ex post facto (a requirement to past elections), but the fact that Obama is currently the President would have no bearing to Obama the Candidate for the next election. Now we as human beings understand it's the same person, but from a legal standpoint the fact that Obama is currently the President has no bearing in what he might do (or be required to do) as a candidate for a future election.
The idea is that if he is President now, and since the qualifications have not changed between then and now, then naturally follows that he is just as legally qualified now as he was then. In essence, his qualifications are already established by him being in office now. It is reasonable to assume that he is qualified, because he's already in office. And if the future Obama campaign were to sue AZ for an injunction to get himself on the ballot, the burden of proof would not be on Obama to prove his birth, but on AZ to prove that it had any good reason to believe that his current term in office was illegitimate. Inasmuch as the US federal government has affirmed Obama as the President, the state of AZ would be expected to prove the US government wrong.
The state of Arizona will soon pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before being allowed on the Presidential ballot.
Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law
I predict, that after futiley spending millions to try to defeat the law, Obama will abandon Arizona in his re-election bid rather than come clean with the American people about his birth origins. While the 10 electoral votes at stake are not pivotal, Texas has 34 and it is going to pass a similar law. Other states may follow suit. The question is, will Obama surrender a second term rather than show us what he's hiding?
