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

[goldcatt]

Okay, while I try my best not to comment on this birth certificate nonsense because it really is a simple matter of logic here folks. In order for this "birther" thing to work, first back in 1961 you would have to pre-suppose that Barack Obama was going to be elected President 47 years into the future and plant two birth announcements in the local paper to cover up an alleged birth in Africa someplace because you back in 1961 knew he was going to President because you had the Michael J. Fox's Time Machine. Come now, I'm by no means a supporter of the president on his agenda , but with the Arizona economy left in a shambles by our now current Home Land security director , it would seem to me , that the focus of our legislature should be on the state of our economy and the needs of the people of Arizona, rather than these side issues.

I agree with most of this. The controversy remains, however, that the newspaper did not cite a hospital and it published the maternal grandparent's address rather than the mother or father's addresses--they were not living together at the time Obama was born. You still have Obama's paternal grandparent being insistent that Barack was born in Kenya and the rumors that his mother was in Kenya with his father at the time he was born.

Now there is no record that I know of a VISA to Kenya issued to Annie Obama during that year, no evidence of travel records, no Kenyan documentation--wasn't Kenya still a British territory at that time? They were sticklers for documentation--and no other physical evidence that Annie was in Kenya that year. So proving a Kenyan birth is far more problematic for the birthers than is the probability of a Hawaiian birth for the anti-birthers.

But because of the controversy, I do wish President Obama would set the matter to rest so that we could move on to more important issues.

And Arizona may be the catalyst to make that happen.

I still think there must be something really embarrassing for Obama in that long form certificate and I'll admit to being curious about what that is. I don't think for a minute that it will show that he was not born in Hawaii though.

Embarrassing? I don't think so. More is being demanded of him than of any other candidate in history because an anonymous e-mail writer somewhere told people that for some unknown (and variable, depending who you listen to) reason he must prove the name of the attending physician at his birth and other petty details that have no legal bearing on whether or not he is in fact a natural born citizen. It's a massive fallacy that has taken root with a lot of well-meaning people judging by the comments on this thread and others, but it's still a fallacy. He has met every legal requirement asked of him and more. Who are the birfers in the Arizona legislature to set a standard for one man that violates Article IV of the constitution in order to make a partisan point?

The fact is, for whatever I think of a lot of the man's policies Obama has done more than any other candidate to disseminate this information given the means available to him. It's never going to be enough, he will never be believed, he people who corroborate his birthplace will never be believed, the goalposts will continue to move, so why should he waste his time? I can't blame him, in his shoes I'd dig my heels in too and enjoy watching the nutters foam at the mouth. It's beyond insulting, not only to him personally but to the State of Hawaii. Let them eat tinfoil.

 

[CMike]

Imagine, forcing candidates to follow the constitution. The nerve.

 

[goldcatt]

Imagine, forcing candidates to follow the constitution. The nerve.

Imagine, a state thinking it is above the Constitution. Or rather, a few tinfoil-decked nutbars in the state legislature. Got to be fair here.

 

[CMike]

The constitution says that the US president must be native born, so how exactly is Arizona requiring the candidate president to present a birth certificate violating the constitution?

 

[goldcatt]

The constitution says that the US president must be native born, so how exactly is Arizona requiring the candidate president to present a birth certificate violating the constitution?

Actually you missed about 10 pages of detailed explanation on that very topic further back in the thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, while I try my best not to comment on this birth certificate nonsense because it really is a simple matter of logic here folks. In order for this "birther" thing to work, first back in 1961 you would have to pre-suppose that Barack Obama was going to be elected President 47 years into the future and plant two birth announcements in the local paper to cover up an alleged birth in Africa someplace because you back in 1961 knew he was going to President because you had the Michael J. Fox's Time Machine. Come now, I'm by no means a supporter of the president on his agenda , but with the Arizona economy left in a shambles by our now current Home Land security director , it would seem to me , that the focus of our legislature should be on the state of our economy and the needs of the people of Arizona, rather than these side issues.

I agree with most of this. The controversy remains, however, that the newspaper did not cite a hospital and it published the maternal grandparent's address rather than the mother or father's addresses--they were not living together at the time Obama was born. You still have Obama's paternal grandparent being insistent that Barack was born in Kenya and the rumors that his mother was in Kenya with his father at the time he was born.

Now there is no record that I know of a VISA to Kenya issued to Annie Obama during that year, no evidence of travel records, no Kenyan documentation--wasn't Kenya still a British territory at that time? They were sticklers for documentation--and no other physical evidence that Annie was in Kenya that year. So proving a Kenyan birth is far more problematic for the birthers than is the probability of a Hawaiian birth for the anti-birthers.

But because of the controversy, I do wish President Obama would set the matter to rest so that we could move on to more important issues.

And Arizona may be the catalyst to make that happen.

I still think there must be something really embarrassing for Obama in that long form certificate and I'll admit to being curious about what that is. I don't think for a minute that it will show that he was not born in Hawaii though.

Embarrassing? I don't think so. More is being demanded of him than of any other candidate in history because an anonymous e-mail writer somewhere told people that for some unknown (and variable, depending who you listen to) reason he must prove the name of the attending physician at his birth and other petty details that have no legal bearing on whether or not he is in fact a natural born citizen. It's a massive fallacy that has taken root with a lot of well-meaning people judging by the comments on this thread and others, but it's still a fallacy. He has met every legal requirement asked of him and more. Who are the birfers in the Arizona legislature to set a standard for one man that violates Article IV of the constitution in order to make a partisan point?

The fact is, for whatever I think of a lot of the man's policies Obama has done more than any other candidate to disseminate this information given the means available to him. It's never going to be enough, he will never be believed, he people who corroborate his birthplace will never be believed, the goalposts will continue to move, so why should he waste his time? I can't blame him, in his shoes I'd dig my heels in too and enjoy watching the nutters foam at the mouth. It's beyond insulting, not only to him personally but to the State of Hawaii. Let them eat tinfoil.

Well, even though I criticize President Bush on more issues than I can praise him, I do understand what you are saying. Probably no President in history has been more despised, more mischaracterized, more demonized, and more unfairly and unreasonably accused that President Bush has been.

But to his credit, I can't think of anything in which President Bush was unusually secretive about anything in his past or refused to deliver what he was asked for. And it was never enough. And those who unfairly criticized him continued to spout the same stupidity.

And certainly the most extreme wingnuts critical of President Obama will not be satisfied with any evidence presented either.

All I am saying is that Arizona is able to make their new requirements stick and applies it to all, and if that starts a trend, President Obama may have to come up with that long form just to get on the ballot in those states and that may force the issue.

 

[Big Fitz]

States, IIRC, are allowed to create their own rules for putting candidates on the ballots. If a candidate wishes to be left off in Arizona, they may go right ahead. They just can't prevent people from voting by taxation or fines or anything like that. Something that possibly should be reconsidered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fitz, not in national elections, no, the states don't control who is on the ballot for President and Vice-President. That is the party's choice, Read your constitution and SCOTUS rulings on this matter.

The last major one was the SCOTUS telling the states they could not impose term limits on congressional candidates.

 

[goldcatt]

I agree with most of this. The controversy remains, however, that the newspaper did not cite a hospital and it published the maternal grandparent's address rather than the mother or father's addresses--they were not living together at the time Obama was born. You still have Obama's paternal grandparent being insistent that Barack was born in Kenya and the rumors that his mother was in Kenya with his father at the time he was born.

Now there is no record that I know of a VISA to Kenya issued to Annie Obama during that year, no evidence of travel records, no Kenyan documentation--wasn't Kenya still a British territory at that time? They were sticklers for documentation--and no other physical evidence that Annie was in Kenya that year. So proving a Kenyan birth is far more problematic for the birthers than is the probability of a Hawaiian birth for the anti-birthers.

But because of the controversy, I do wish President Obama would set the matter to rest so that we could move on to more important issues.

And Arizona may be the catalyst to make that happen.

I still think there must be something really embarrassing for Obama in that long form certificate and I'll admit to being curious about what that is. I don't think for a minute that it will show that he was not born in Hawaii though.

Embarrassing? I don't think so. More is being demanded of him than of any other candidate in history because an anonymous e-mail writer somewhere told people that for some unknown (and variable, depending who you listen to) reason he must prove the name of the attending physician at his birth and other petty details that have no legal bearing on whether or not he is in fact a natural born citizen. It's a massive fallacy that has taken root with a lot of well-meaning people judging by the comments on this thread and others, but it's still a fallacy. He has met every legal requirement asked of him and more. Who are the birfers in the Arizona legislature to set a standard for one man that violates Article IV of the constitution in order to make a partisan point?

The fact is, for whatever I think of a lot of the man's policies Obama has done more than any other candidate to disseminate this information given the means available to him. It's never going to be enough, he will never be believed, he people who corroborate his birthplace will never be believed, the goalposts will continue to move, so why should he waste his time? I can't blame him, in his shoes I'd dig my heels in too and enjoy watching the nutters foam at the mouth. It's beyond insulting, not only to him personally but to the State of Hawaii. Let them eat tinfoil.

Well, even though I criticize President Bush on more issues than I can praise him, I do understand what you are saying. Probably no President in history has been more despised, more mischaracterized, more demonized, and more unfairly and unreasonably accused that President Bush has been.

But to his credit, I can't think of anything in which President Bush was unusually secretive about anything in his past or refused to deliver what he was asked for. And it was never enough. And those who unfairly criticized him continued to spout the same stupidity.

And certainly the most extreme wingnuts critical of President Obama will not be satisfied with any evidence presented either.

All I am saying is that Arizona is able to make their new requirements stick and applies it to all, and if that starts a trend, President Obama may have to come up with that long form just to get on the ballot in those states and that may force the issue.

And how many times do you see on this very forum somebody saying "It's fair game because you did it to Bush"? As though two wrongs make a right.

But remember the full faith and credit discussion, Arizona cannot force any candidate to produce documentation above and beyond what is required by Congress for the purpose.

I'll ask you a question here. Actually it's a two-parter:

1. What is the purpose of requiring a birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship, and
2. What information is on the so-called "long form" that is not on the COLB or "short form" that makes a difference in that determination?

 

[Foxfyre]

Embarrassing? I don't think so. More is being demanded of him than of any other candidate in history because an anonymous e-mail writer somewhere told people that for some unknown (and variable, depending who you listen to) reason he must prove the name of the attending physician at his birth and other petty details that have no legal bearing on whether or not he is in fact a natural born citizen. It's a massive fallacy that has taken root with a lot of well-meaning people judging by the comments on this thread and others, but it's still a fallacy. He has met every legal requirement asked of him and more. Who are the birfers in the Arizona legislature to set a standard for one man that violates Article IV of the constitution in order to make a partisan point?

The fact is, for whatever I think of a lot of the man's policies Obama has done more than any other candidate to disseminate this information given the means available to him. It's never going to be enough, he will never be believed, he people who corroborate his birthplace will never be believed, the goalposts will continue to move, so why should he waste his time? I can't blame him, in his shoes I'd dig my heels in too and enjoy watching the nutters foam at the mouth. It's beyond insulting, not only to him personally but to the State of Hawaii. Let them eat tinfoil.

Well, even though I criticize President Bush on more issues than I can praise him, I do understand what you are saying. Probably no President in history has been more despised, more mischaracterized, more demonized, and more unfairly and unreasonably accused that President Bush has been.

But to his credit, I can't think of anything in which President Bush was unusually secretive about anything in his past or refused to deliver what he was asked for. And it was never enough. And those who unfairly criticized him continued to spout the same stupidity.

And certainly the most extreme wingnuts critical of President Obama will not be satisfied with any evidence presented either.

All I am saying is that Arizona is able to make their new requirements stick and applies it to all, and if that starts a trend, President Obama may have to come up with that long form just to get on the ballot in those states and that may force the issue.

And how many times do you see on this very forum somebody saying "It's fair game because you did it to Bush"? As though two wrongs make a right.

But remember the full faith and credit discussion, Arizona cannot force any candidate to produce documentation above and beyond what is required by Congress for the purpose.

I'll ask you a question here. Actually it's a two-parter:

1. What is the purpose of requiring a birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship, and
2. What information is on the so-called "long form" that is not on the COLB or "short form" that makes a difference in that determination?

I haven't said that it is fair game to do to Obama what was done to Bush. I do think it is fair game to point out the double standard when those who thought it okay to do it to Bush now cry FOUL when it is done to Obama as if that is something new and especially onerous and somehow Obama's critics are more viscious or evil than anybody else's critics.

I never agree that two wrongs make a right.

I do think sometimes our only choice might be a choice between two imperfect choices.

But we already agreed that Arizona can establish whatever registration requirements it wishes for getting on its ballot. Congress doesn't require X number of signatures on a petition, but the states can require that. Congress doesn't specify what is 'necessasry documentation' so I am assuming that the states can request that too.

I think Arizona could not require more of Obama than they require of anybody else. But if they require it from everybody, I am unaware of any law - and if you already cited one I missed it - that prevents them from doing that.

Do I think they SHOULD do that? I am ambivalent on that actually as I don't have a personal problem with Obama's citizenship.

But do I hope that they will prevail? Yeah I do. I want the states to start taking back the power from the Federal government.

 

[goldcatt]

Well, even though I criticize President Bush on more issues than I can praise him, I do understand what you are saying. Probably no President in history has been more despised, more mischaracterized, more demonized, and more unfairly and unreasonably accused that President Bush has been.

But to his credit, I can't think of anything in which President Bush was unusually secretive about anything in his past or refused to deliver what he was asked for. And it was never enough. And those who unfairly criticized him continued to spout the same stupidity.

And certainly the most extreme wingnuts critical of President Obama will not be satisfied with any evidence presented either.

All I am saying is that Arizona is able to make their new requirements stick and applies it to all, and if that starts a trend, President Obama may have to come up with that long form just to get on the ballot in those states and that may force the issue.

And how many times do you see on this very forum somebody saying "It's fair game because you did it to Bush"? As though two wrongs make a right.

But remember the full faith and credit discussion, Arizona cannot force any candidate to produce documentation above and beyond what is required by Congress for the purpose.

I'll ask you a question here. Actually it's a two-parter:

1. What is the purpose of requiring a birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship, and
2. What information is on the so-called "long form" that is not on the COLB or "short form" that makes a difference in that determination?

I haven't said that it is fair game to do to Obama what was done to Bush. I do think it is fair game to point out the double standard when those who thought it okay to do it to Bush now cry FOUL when it is done to Obama as if that is something new and especially onerous and somehow Obama's critics are more viscious or evil than anybody else's critics.

I never agree that two wrongs make a right.

I do think sometimes our only choice might be a choice between two imperfect choices.

But we already agreed that Arizona can establish whatever registration requirements it wishes for getting on its ballot. Congress doesn't require X number of signatures on a petition, but the states can require that. Congress doesn't specify what is 'necessasry documentation' so I am assuming that the states can request that too.

I think Arizona could not require more of Obama than they require of anybody else. But if they require it from everybody, I am unaware of any law - and if you already cited one I missed it - that prevents them from doing that.

Do I think they SHOULD do that? I am ambivalent on that actually as I don't have a personal problem with Obama's citizenship.

But do I hope that they will prevail? Yeah I do. I want the states to start taking back the power from the Federal government.

I know I replied to your post earlier, which may have been a mistake since I wasn't specifically directing most of my comments to you.

But the problem is Congress does in fact set standards through the general laws for what is and is not acceptable as a birth certificate, as required by Article IV Section 1 - the Full Faith and Credit clause (which is the applicable law here).

For example, the definition of a birth certificate as it relates to use by any Federal agency or branch:

``(3) Birth certificate.--As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate' means a certificate of birth--
``(A) of--
``(i) an individual born in the United States; or
``(ii) an individual born abroad--
``(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
``(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
``(B) that--
``(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
``(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.
``[(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 106-69, title III, Sec. 355, Oct. 9, 1999,
113 Stat. 1027.]
``(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996], the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit a report to the Congress on ways to reduce the fraudulent
obtaining and the fraudulent use of birth certificates, including any
such use to obtain a social security account number or a State or
Federal document related to identification or immigration.
``(d) Federal Agency Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term `Federal agency' means any of the following:
``(1) An Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code).
``(2) A military department (as defined in section 102 of such
title).
``(3) An agency in the legislative branch of the Government of
the United States.
``(4) An agency in the judicial branch of the Government of the
United States.''

301. — Departmental regulations. - US 301. — Departmental regulations. - US Code :: Justia

And a partial list of requirements for birth certificates, from the same link:

``(iv) Minimum requirements.--The standards established
under this subparagraph--
``(I) at a minimum, shall require certification of the birth
certificate by the State or local custodian of record
that issued the certificate, and shall require the use
of safety paper, the seal of the issuing custodian of
record, and other features designed to limit tampering,
counterfeiting, and photocopying, or otherwise
duplicating, the birth certificate for fraudulent
purposes;
``(II) may not require a single design to which birth
certificates issued by all States must conform; and
``(III) shall accommodate the differences between the States
in the manner and form in which birth records are stored
and birth certificates are produced from such records.

This is where the full faith and credit provision comes into play as discussed earlier. Where Congress sets standards through general laws for acceptable records, the States may not require a higher or different standard of a sister state's records. And as you see Congress does, in fact, set those standards. Therefore, Arizona must defer to the Federal standards. Under Article IV Section 1 they are not free to decide on their own what is an effective record from a sister state.

 

[CMike]

Those laws would be struck down as unconstitutional in record time.

The Arizona law by itself is not unconstitutional, but as soon as they attempt to use it to deny the sovereign right of another state to declare their own citizens "natural born" citizens, it will be.

No state can infringe on the rights of another state in that manner, for if that were the case, New York could refuse to accept the "natural born" status of the people Arizona, or Texas, or any other state it happened to not like on that day.

It doesn't have to deny the right of any state to do anything.

It would only pertain to Arizona. That he would prove that he was born in the US by showing a birth certificate to be on the ballot on Arizona. It makes sense to me.

Also remember Michelle Obama, herself, said that Barak Hussein's home country is Kenya.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is where the full faith and credit provision comes into play as discussed earlier. Where Congress sets standards through general laws for acceptable records, the States may not require a higher or different standard of a sister state's records. And as you see Congress does, in fact, set those standards. Therefore, Arizona must defer to the Federal standards. Under Article IV Section 1 they are not free to decide on their own what is an effective record from a sister state.

Perhaps. You've made an excellent argument for why the State of Arizona cannot require Hawaii to supply a Certificate of Birth different from the one that Hawaii considers to be a Certificate of Birth. But as the State of Hawaii acknowledges that the long form birth certificate is a separate document from the shorter certificate they presumably have produced, I do not see anything in the law that prevents the State of Arizona from asking for the long form certificate as a requirement for a Presidential candidate to get on their ballot.

Is that necessary? Not in my opinion.

But would it be illegal to require it?

Again you're probably right, but I'm not sure you have convinced the judges in a formal debate about that.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how that turns out.

Next thing you know, some state is going to inform presidential candidates that being caught in any seriously misrepresented facts or bald faced lies will get them kicked off the ballot. That is what I would like to see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those laws would be struck down as unconstitutional in record time.

The Arizona law by itself is not unconstitutional, but as soon as they attempt to use it to deny the sovereign right of another state to declare their own citizens "natural born" citizens, it will be.

No state can infringe on the rights of another state in that manner, for if that were the case, New York could refuse to accept the "natural born" status of the people Arizona, or Texas, or any other state it happened to not like on that day.

It doesn't have to deny the right of any state to do anything.

It would only pertain to Arizona. That he would prove that he was born in the US by showing a birth certificate to be on the ballot on Arizona. It makes sense to me.

Also remember Michelle Obama, herself, said that Barak Hussein's home country is Kenya.

 

[goldcatt]

This is where the full faith and credit provision comes into play as discussed earlier. Where Congress sets standards through general laws for acceptable records, the States may not require a higher or different standard of a sister state's records. And as you see Congress does, in fact, set those standards. Therefore, Arizona must defer to the Federal standards. Under Article IV Section 1 they are not free to decide on their own what is an effective record from a sister state.

Perhaps. You've made an excellent argument for why the State of Arizona cannot require Hawaii to supply a Certificate of Birth different from the one that Hawaii considers to be a Certificate of Birth. But as the State of Hawaii acknowledges that the long form birth certificate is a separate document from the shorter certificate they presumably have produced, I do not see anything in the law that prevents the State of Arizona from asking for the long form certificate as a requirement for a Presidential candidate to get on their ballot.

Is that necessary? Not in my opinion.

But would it be illegal to require it?

Again you're probably right, but I'm not sure you have convinced the judges in a formal debate about that.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how that turns out.

Next thing you know, some state is going to inform presidential candidates that being caught in any seriously misrepresented facts or bald faced lies will get them kicked off the ballot. That is what I would like to see.

It's not really about the difference between what Arizona considers a BC and what HI considers a BC. It's about what Congress considers a BC, as required by Article 4 Section 1. Both AZ and HI have to abide by those standards when issuing BC's or their citizens may not be able to provide acceptable proof of citizenship for either Federal purposes or those of another State - like getting a driver's license. It seems like a ticky distinction, but it's an important one if you go back and read the constitutional text.

Heck, I know nobody's convinced that doesn't want to be.

I just really, really want to know what additional information is on the "long form" that adds anything to the citizenship issue. The people demanding it must know what the difference is and why it's somehow better for certifying place of birth. Seriously, considering the legal standards involved it's a real question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "long form" may include information the Obamaites do not want released. I am sure it has nothing to do with citizenship, though, and that is the only concern in this particular issue. BHO is qualified to run for president, and I bet every court in the land will rule that way.

 

[goldcatt]

You know, I'm not sure about this rumored embarrassing information on the long form. I go with a combination of learning from GWB's mistakes dealing with goalpost moving fringers, the principle of obeying the dictates of law rather than demands of a small segment of the public, the egalitarian nature of citizenship, and at this point just sheer human stubbornness and/or amusement.

I still have yet to hear from anybody asking for it just why knowing the name of the attending physician at Obama's birth makes any rational difference whatsoever as far as certifying his legal status, but I'm sure they have a good reason.

 

[Againsheila]

LASER copy from 1961......quite interesting.

Where's the original?

Err, laser copy from 2008. Copied from the original, which is probably still sitting in some file in Hawaii.

Where's the one with the attending physicians signature?

Where's the one with a witness signature?

Where's the one WE ARE ALL ISSUED?

As long as Obama's incompetent ass refuses to provide it, the stupid motherfucker should expect questions to be asked about his supposed citizenship.

Not that Arizona needs to prove anything. Obama's extreme ineptness and inability to lead will no doubt cause the moron to be kicked to the curb after one term. After all people, it's approaching 1 1/2 years in office and he's fully proving to be the worst president this country has ever seen. And if he can't, or refuses to provide the REAL proof of citizenship, he will be considered the worst FOREIGN president this country has ever seen.

My original copy was lost, personally. Does that make me ineligible to run for national office?

No, it doesn't.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't get a copy of your original birth certificate, it makes you ineligible to run for office. And unless you have citizenship papers it should also make you ineligible to vote.

I am right now looking at my husband's cert of live birth. It lists his name, sex, that he was a single birth, his birth date, the county he was born in, the city he was born in, the name and address of the hospital where he was born. His father's name, race, age, birthplace and occupation. His mothers name, race, age, birthplace and occupation, his mother's mailing address and the doctor that delivered him. All on a certificate of live birth, the small form. My husband was born in 1953, in Memphis. I have a hard time believing HI can't provide us with the same information for a presidential candidate, unless of course, they don't have that information. And it makes you wonder why they don't have that information....

 

[Againsheila]

Lets turn this into a Birther Thread!

LASER copy from 1961......quite interesting.

Where's the original?

Where's the one with the attending physicians signature?

Where's the one with a witness signature?

Where's the one WE ARE ALL ISSUED?

As long as Obama's incompetent ass refuses to provide it, the stupid motherfucker should expect questions to be asked about his supposed citizenship.

Not that Arizona needs to prove anything. Obama's extreme ineptness and inability to lead will no doubt cause the moron to be kicked to the curb after one term. After all people, it's approaching 1 1/2 years in office and he's fully proving to be the worst president this country has ever seen. And if he can't, or refuses to provide the REAL proof of citizenship, he will be considered the worst FOREIGN president this country has ever seen.

Take it up with the State of Hawaii....they issued it and certified its accuracy

It is not within Arizona's responsibility to disallow a Hawaii birth record

Looking like another Obama landslide in 2012

Then there is the question of his father's race. In 1961, they weren't "Africans", they were "Negroes". That was before the civil rights movement.

 

[Againsheila]

OK, this topic has in fact been argued to death on a hundred+ different threads, and it ALWAYS ends up with the exact same conclusion:

Obama has provided a Birth Certificate that has been verified by the State of Hawaii.

Insane Birthers feel that the State Hawaii is somehow part of a vast conspiracy to get a "Fur-a-ner" into the office of POTUS.

This is such a stupid topic that it's just unbelievable.


But now the State of Arizona is proving to everyone that it's filled with morons.

Of course we all knew that when they refused to comply with Daylight Savings Time, but one would think they would try for some semblence of dignity.

Be that as it may. Hawaii has declared Mr Obama a "natural-born" citizen of their state. Period. That means he is a "natural-born" citizen of the United States.

Period, end of discussion. Any attempt by another state to invalidate the validity of Hawaiian citizens is a clear violation of Hawaii's states rights.

You are better than this VLW.

This law has nothing to do with President Obama. This law is to prevent anything like the "birther movement" from happening again.

Lets be adults here and call a spade a spade. The Obama camp saw a way to marginalize anyone that opposed him. "Dont show them my BC and when they throw a fit we will be able to makle them look silly".

If that was not his intention, he would have simply pulled out his wallet and produced it for all to see.

I have no doubtr he is a citizen. But I am also convinced he played a little game to ridicule his opposition.

Politicians playing games so they can make the people of this great country look silly. Something is just not right about that.

Actually, I do not believe he is a natural born citizen but his election has now set a precedent. Get ready folks, Arnold will be running for president next.