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.
There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media. I wonder why?
There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media. I wonder why?
There sure are a lot of documents that Obama keeps actively hidden from the media. I wonder why?
Thanks Silky. I owe you rep for that.
So I guess we can scratch Missouri off that list, eh?
This comes from Fogbow.com.
The birfers seem to be pretty confident that at least one state will pass a law requiring Presidential candidates to produce their long-form birth certificates. This thread is to keep track of the bills in those states. Post all info, pro and con, about the state bills here.
A n00b recently told us that there are such bills currently before 11 state legislatures across the country. Those states are
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Missouri
Arizona
Hawaii
Texas
Indiana
Montana
Connecticut
Nebraska
Maine
Wikipedia has the first 10.
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sheldon supplied Maine.
HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship
Sheldon ponders if xotoxi is behind it. I think that merits investigation.
Anyways, we can strike Arizona from that list. It appears that the bill died in the Senate committee, with two Republicans voting with three Democrats to kill the bill.
It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.
On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing. ...
"I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.
Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
Driggs and McComish are Republicans on the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee.
Format Document
Also from Fogbow, bills are still alive in Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Georgia.
However, bills have been killed in committee in Arizona (2 bills), Oklahoma (2 bills), Montana, Hawaii, Connecticut and Indiana.
From World Net Daily - The Mostest Bestest News Site in the World
Momentum builds in eligibility push
1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
9 affidavit of candidacy.
10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.
that, as it is worded, to me, says its not really a birfer lawIowa is getting in on the act. Hat tip to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow, from whom I ripped this off.
1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
9 affidavit of candidacy.
10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/84/external/SF368_Introduced.pdf
that, as it is worded, to me, says its not really a birfer lawIowa is getting in on the act. Hat tip to Welsh Dragon at Fogbow, from whom I ripped this off.
1. A candidate for president or vice president shall attach
4 to and file with the affidavit of candidacy a copy of the
5 candidates birth certificate certified by the appropriate
6 official in the candidates state of birth. The certified copy
7 shall be made part of the affidavit of candidacy and shall be
8 made available for public inspection in the same manner as the
9 affidavit of candidacy.
10 2. A candidate for president or vice president who does
11 not comply with the requirements of this section shall not
12 be eligible for placement on the ballot as a candidate for
13 president or vice president anywhere in the state.
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/84/external/SF368_Introduced.pdf
since all it requires is the states certified document
which Obama's CoLB would suffice
i think some of these laws are to tell the birfers to STFU
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the Certificate of Ascertainment officially appoint[ing] the electors who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (President). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to be appointed Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State, and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .
we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not natural born Citizens as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that [c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a citizen of the United States‟ and a natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance. Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that [a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . . U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a natural born Citizen. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that [t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...
The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words citizen of the United States and natural-born citizen of the United States must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ligealty,‟ obedience,‟ faith,‟ or power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. ...
Rubbish. The Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support. It basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. Such doing has no support in logic, history, historical sources, and United States Supreme Court case law. In fact, it is contrary to sound constitutional interpretation as taught by Chief Justice John Marshall. It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803). Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning. E.g. Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning. The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices. Hence, conflating “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” is therefore simply not allowed and “inadmissible.” Moreover, apart from a strict textual interpretation of the meaning of the two terms, there is no United States Supreme Court decision holding or even suggesting in dicta that the two terms mean the same thing. On the contrary, the historical record, Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts all show that the two terms are separate and distinct with their own meaning.This has nothing to do with state laws, but I ran across it at Fogbow so I'm posting it out of interest. It is a ruling by a judge in Indiana against a plaintiff who wanted the 2008 election results thrown out. They ruled that Obama is eligible to run for President.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person‟s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana‟s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President”. Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief‟ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2‟s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. ...
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, ...
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. ...
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. ...
The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” ... The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, ... and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. ...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. ...
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
... Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” ...
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
