Breaking News and Confirmed: Arizona Senate Passes Presidential Eligibility Bill 21-9

[bigrebnc1775]

The law doesn't say it's requried if their is one on file in the state of birth, it says if the candidate possesses one.

The one in Hawaii is in the States possession, not the candidates.


So basically any candidate can "loose" their long form (if they every had one) point to the state issuing COLB's and be exempt from filing the long form or other official state birth records and then be free to supply non-official records.


Badly worded law.

>>>>

The first sentence in this portion of the law states
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

obama hasn't lost his, it's in Hawaii supposedly.

The one maintained by the Department of Health in Hawaii is in possession of the the State of Hawaii not the candidate, as such the candidate can use alternate unofficial documents as long has the candidate doesn't have one themselves.

The second sentance spells that out.

Read the paragraph in its entirety, you must read the law in as written, not just cherry pick in one sentence.


>>>>

I know what they both say.

 

[Liberty]

EVERYBODY should be happy about this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The first sentence in this portion of the law states
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

obama hasn't lost his, it's in Hawaii supposedly.

The one maintained by the Department of Health in Hawaii is in possession of the the State of Hawaii not the candidate, as such the candidate can use alternate unofficial documents as long has the candidate doesn't have one themselves.

The second sentance spells that out.

Read the paragraph in its entirety, you must read the law in as written, not just cherry pick in one sentence.


>>>>

I know what they both say.

Good, then you admit that if the candidate does not have one in their possession, then they can file unofficial documents in lue of an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of record.

Thank you.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The one maintained by the Department of Health in Hawaii is in possession of the the State of Hawaii not the candidate, as such the candidate can use alternate unofficial documents as long has the candidate doesn't have one themselves.

The second sentance spells that out.

Read the paragraph in its entirety, you must read the law in as written, not just cherry pick in one sentence.


>>>>

I know what they both say.

Good, then you admit that if the candidate does not have one in their possession, then they can file unofficial documents in lue of an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of record.

Thank you.


>>>>

That's not what you said, you do make a good democrat

 

[rightwinger]

I hope more states pass this. I'm not one to bring this issue up a lot, because I just don't think anyone will ever pursue it hard enough to prove anything, but I honestly think he was born in Kenya, brought to Hawaii in the following days, and his family just notified the local paper and took him to the hospital for a health check. Not the greatest conspiracy in the world or anything. Really only matters due to technicality of the law, not much else. But I don't think he was born in the US. Just my gut feeling.

But again, doesn't matter, no one will pursue it hard enough to find out for sure.

Were you on the OJ Simpson jury?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except you are not reading what the law says. Here...

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:​

It doesn't say the candidate must file a long form if there is one on record in their state of birth. It says "If the candidate does not possess..." which means it is based on what the candidate has. So if a candidate orders their birth record from their birth state, lets use Hawaii as an example, and the state returns a COLB, then the candidate does not possess a long form and can submit non-official documents over the official state document. Hawaii may possess the long form, but the candidate does not. However the law is based on the candidate possession not the states.


Hence the candidates is not required to submit a long form.



>>>>

He's only required if he has one, and yes he should have one in Hawaii.

The law doesn't say it's requried if their is one on file in the state of birth, it says if the candidate possesses one.

The one in Hawaii is in the States possession, not the candidates.


So basically any candidate can "loose" their long form (if they every had one) point to the state issuing COLB's and be exempt from filing the long form or other official state birth records and then be free to supply non-official records.


Badly worded law.

>>>>

I know what they both say.

Good, then you admit that if the candidate does not have one in their possession, then they can file unofficial documents in lue of an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of record.

Thank you.


>>>>

That's not what you said, you do make a good democrat

That's exactly what I said.


I'd make a lousy democrat. I can read.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

He's only required if he has one, and yes he should have one in Hawaii.

Hawaii has one. But that doesn't mean that Obama can get one from Hawaii. The state of Hawaii is under no obligation to provide the "long" form to anyone. They are only required to provide a copy of the record containing the pertinent facts, which is defined by Hawaii's own state laws. Hawaii's policy is to prove their records by providing copies of birth certificates in the form which Obama already has. Under the constitution only congress can set rules for how each state shall prove their records to other states. But the AZ bill adopts for the state itself rules by which the records of states can be proved to AZ. Thus, it is in violation of the constitution.

Gov. Brewer brought up additional concerns about the constitutionality of this bill, mainly about whether the state has the power to regulate federal elections at all, and whether the state does have any authority to "vet" candidates for the Presidency. According to what she's said, they are concerned that such authority to may be limited to Congress and the electoral college. It's possible she's right, but evidence toward that end needs to be established, first.

You've very desperately wanting this bill to go forward and to block Obama from being on the ballot. You're hoping and wanting it to happen because you're clearly afraid that Obama will not be re-elected. You're deathly afraid that Obama cannot be defeated in a fair election. You're so terrified that you'd rather the will of the people of the United States be subverted, then to allow the people to cast their votes. That kind of thinking borders on treasonous. Your contempt for our constitution and free and fair elections puts you on the same wave length as terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and as far as I'm concerned makes you unworthy of being an American. If you hate our country so much you should move somewhere else. Because in this great country we embrace our ability to elect the person of our choosing. I do not like Obama and I am strongly hoping for a strong, viable, and competent candidate to come forth to defeat Obama in 2012. But I would never advocate for the defeat of the will of the people or the complete disregard of our constitution. Your extremists positions are a danger to this great country of ours, a danger to freedom, and a danger to the American way of life.

 

[Liability]

He's only required if he has one, and yes he should have one in Hawaii.

Hawaii has one. But that doesn't mean that Obama can get one from Hawaii. The state of Hawaii is under no obligation to provide the "long" form to anyone. They are only required to provide a copy of the record containing the pertinent facts, which is defined by Hawaii's own state laws. Hawaii's policy is to prove their records by providing copies of birth certificates in the form which Obama already has. Under the constitution only congress can set rules for how each state shall prove their records to other states. But the AZ bill adopts for the state itself rules by which the records of states can be proved to AZ. Thus, it is in violation of the constitution.

Gov. Brewer brought up additional concerns about the constitutionality of this bill, mainly about whether the state has the power to regulate federal elections at all, and whether the state does have any authority to "vet" candidates for the Presidency. According to what she's said, they are concerned that such authority to may be limited to Congress and the electoral college. It's possible she's right, but evidence toward that end needs to be established, first.

You've very desperately wanting this bill to go forward and to block Obama from being on the ballot. You're hoping and wanting it to happen because you're clearly afraid that Obama will not be re-elected. You're deathly afraid that Obama cannot be defeated in a fair election. You're so terrified that you'd rather the will of the people of the United States be subverted, then to allow the people to cast their votes. That kind of thinking borders on treasonous. Your contempt for our constitution and free and fair elections puts you on the same wave length as terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and as far as I'm concerned makes you unworthy of being an American. If you hate our country so much you should move somewhere else. Because in this great country we embrace our ability to elect the person of our choosing. I do not like Obama and I am strongly hoping for a strong, viable, and competent candidate to come forth to defeat Obama in 2012. But I would never advocate for the defeat of the will of the people or the complete disregard of our constitution. Your extremists positions are a danger to this great country of ours, a danger to freedom, and a danger to the American way of life.

Now you are merely lying, like the puss you are.

You know full well that Hawaii wouldn't prevent (and they have no law on their books that does prevent) President Obama from getting his own Birth Certificate.

You are a fraud, Clownie. And by the way, assmunch, there' not a person here who actually believes that a dipshit such as you is a "judge."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_liar.gifs

 

[The T]

He's only required if he has one, and yes he should have one in Hawaii.

Hawaii has one. But that doesn't mean that Obama can get one from Hawaii. The state of Hawaii is under no obligation to provide the "long" form to anyone. They are only required to provide a copy of the record containing the pertinent facts, which is defined by Hawaii's own state laws. Hawaii's policy is to prove their records by providing copies of birth certificates in the form which Obama already has. Under the constitution only congress can set rules for how each state shall prove their records to other states. But the AZ bill adopts for the state itself rules by which the records of states can be proved to AZ. Thus, it is in violation of the constitution.

Gov. Brewer brought up additional concerns about the constitutionality of this bill, mainly about whether the state has the power to regulate federal elections at all, and whether the state does have any authority to "vet" candidates for the Presidency. According to what she's said, they are concerned that such authority to may be limited to Congress and the electoral college. It's possible she's right, but evidence toward that end needs to be established, first.

You've very desperately wanting this bill to go forward and to block Obama from being on the ballot. You're hoping and wanting it to happen because you're clearly afraid that Obama will not be re-elected. You're deathly afraid that Obama cannot be defeated in a fair election. You're so terrified that you'd rather the will of the people of the United States be subverted, then to allow the people to cast their votes. That kind of thinking borders on treasonous. Your contempt for our constitution and free and fair elections puts you on the same wave length as terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and as far as I'm concerned makes you unworthy of being an American. If you hate our country so much you should move somewhere else. Because in this great country we embrace our ability to elect the person of our choosing. I do not like Obama and I am strongly hoping for a strong, viable, and competent candidate to come forth to defeat Obama in 2012. But I would never advocate for the defeat of the will of the people or the complete disregard of our constitution. Your extremists positions are a danger to this great country of ours, a danger to freedom, and a danger to the American way of life.

Now you are merely lying, like the puss you are.

You know full well that Hawaii wouldn't prevent (and they have no law on their books that does prevent) President Obama from getting his own Birth Certificate.

You are a fraud, Clownie. And by the way, assmunch, there' not a person here who actually believes that a dipshit such as you is a "judge."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_liar.gifs

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, I don't care if we may disagree at times on political issues. That thar is funny and made me squirt Mt. Dew threw my nose.


>>>>

 

[USArmyRetired]

There is nothing wrong with taking extra precautions to make sure presidential candidates are Natural Born Citizens to meet the qualifications for Article 2 Section 1. Lousiana just joined Arizona yesterday.

Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal | NOLA.com
Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal | NOLA.com

A pair of Republican state lawmakers have filed legislation to require future presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship by providing "an original or certified copy" of their birth certificate in order to qualify for the Louisiana ballot

The bill, co-sponsored by state Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require candidates who want to appear on presidential primary or general election ballots to include an affidavit attesting to the candidate's citizenship that would be accompanied by a 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."




House Bill 561 can be found here. This bill has teeth:
http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=742268

 

[Vast LWC]

True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens. The state Democratic Party would challenge that ruling which would throw it into court. All it would take is a lower court to side with the state and Republican advertising would claim the court has ruled that Obama is not qualified to be president.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

Ahh, but here's the rub, you said:

However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution.

Since whatever powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assigned to the states, as per the Constitution, then the power to decide what constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen" is in fact assigned to the States. Agreed?

...And since Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, not the State of Arizona, it is the responsibility and right of the State of Hawaii to make such a determination, just like it would fall on the State of Arizona to make such a determination concerning one of their own citizens.

The specific determination made by Hawaii was that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen and thus has the right to run for POTUS.

Since Hawaii has already made said determination, according to the Consitution, Arizona cannot reverse that decision. Only the US Congress can.

That is not an interpretation, that is specifically written into the document in Article 4, Section 1, which states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In addition, it was surely even the intent of the founding fathers, who sure as hell didn't approve of one state interfering in the sovereign rights of another state.

Now, since any natural born citizen has the right to run for president, Arizona would be denying that right by contradicting the legal judgement of Hawaii on this matter, thus contradicting Article 4, Section 2 of the Consitution, which specifically states:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Therefore, if Arizona declares Obama to not be a Natural Born Citizen, and then takes away the right to run for president, a right granted to him by the State of Hawaii, Arizona is breaking the law in 2 ways, not just one.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is nothing wrong with taking extra precautions to make sure presidential candidates are Natural Born Citizens to meet the qualifications for Article 2 Section 1. Lousiana just joined Arizona yesterday.

Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal | NOLA.com
Presidential candidates would have to show birth certificates under Louisiana proposal | NOLA.com

A pair of Republican state lawmakers have filed legislation to require future presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship by providing "an original or certified copy" of their birth certificate in order to qualify for the Louisiana ballot

The bill, co-sponsored by state Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require candidates who want to appear on presidential primary or general election ballots to include an affidavit attesting to the candidate's citizenship that would be accompanied by a 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."


House Bill 561 can be found here. This bill has teeth:
http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=742268

Louisiana didn't "join Arizona". Your own article states that it's a "proposal", and has not been passed or approved by anyone, except the crazy birther that proposed it and his co-sponsor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens. The state Democratic Party would challenge that ruling which would throw it into court. All it would take is a lower court to side with the state and Republican advertising would claim the court has ruled that Obama is not qualified to be president.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

Ahh, but here's the rub, you said:

However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution.

Since whatever powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assigned to the states, as per the Constitution, then the power to decide what constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen is in fact assigned to the States. Agreed?

...And since Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, not the State of Arizona, it is the responsibility and right of the State of Hawaii to make such a determination, just like it would fall on the State of Arizona to make such a determination concerning one of their own citizens.

The specific determination made by Hawaii was that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen and thus has the right to run for POTUS.

Since Hawaii has already made said determination, according to the Consitution, Arizona cannot reverse that decision. Only the US Congress can.

That is not an interpretation, that is specifically written into the document in Article 4, Section 1, which states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In addition, it was surely even the intent of the founding fathers, who sure as hell didn't approve of one state interfering in the sovereign rights of another state.

Now, since any natural born citizen has the right to run for president, Arizona would be denying that right by contradicting the legal judgement of Hawaii on this matter, thus contradicting Article 4, Section 2 of the Consitution, which specifically states:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Therefore, if Arizona declares Obama to not be a Natural Born Citizen, and then takes away the right to run for president, a right granted to him by the State of Hawaii, Arizona is breaking the law in 2 ways, not just one.

It's tring to have to keep repeating this, but I am a stuborn SOB and will keep repeating it while othes keep repeating he has shown his BC.
What obama has shown is a document that never was accepted by the 1961 state registrar.
There are two signature spaces on the long form, one for the filing and the other for the state registrar showing that he accepted the document as a valid BC.

File and accepted do not mean the same thing.

file 1 (fl)
n.
1. A container, such as a cabinet or folder, for keeping papers in order.
2. A collection of papers or published materials kept or arranged in convenient order.
3. Computer Science A collection of related data or program records stored as a unit with a single name.
4.
a. A line of persons, animals, or things positioned one behind the other.
b. A line of troops or military vehicles so positioned.
5. Games Any of the rows of squares that run forward and backward between players on a playing board in chess or checkers.
6. Archaic A list or roll.
v. filed, fil·ing, files
v.tr.
1. To put or keep (papers, for example) in useful order for storage or reference.
2. To enter (a legal document) on public official record.3. To send or submit (copy) to a newspaper.4. To carry out the first stage of (a lawsuit, for example): filed charges against my associate.
v.intr.
1. To march or walk in a line.
2. To put items in a file.
3. To make application; apply: filed for a job with the state; file for a divorce.
4. To enter one's name in a political contest: filed for Congress.
filed - definition of filed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Accepted

ac·cept·ed   /ækˈsɛptɪd/ Show Spelled
[ak-sep-tid] Show IPA

–adjective
generally approved; usually regarded as normal, right, etc.: an accepted pronunciation of a word; an accepted

 

[Flopper]

True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens.

The long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens.

The long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

Not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the U.S. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

 

[Zona]

When this gets to the supreme court, let us know how it turns out. lololololol

 

[rightwinger]

When this gets to the supreme court, let us know how it turns out. lololololol

Your once proud state is turning into a laughingstock

 

[WorldWatcher]

The long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

Not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the U.S. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

Very good, which has been my point all along. The long form is not needed as it does not contain relevant information at the time of birth of the child in question. For example:

• The "Place of Birth" (i.e. Location) is contained on the short form and is all that is needed to determine citizenship (along with who the parents were) under the 14th Amendment.
• Parents are listed (also needed under the 14th) to determine if the parents are foreign diplomats and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
• Hospital is not needed under the 14th.
• Doctor is not needed under the 14th.
• List of witnesses and their signatures are not needed under the 14th.
• (The above may be needed under State law to establish the validity of the birth, but once the State has cerified it, they are no longer needed later in life as the State record is the official record issued under the Seal of the State.)

If lawmakers are interested in the idea that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Jus soli and Jus sanguinis The Long Form DOES NOT LIST THE CITIZENSHIP (at least in Hawaii's case) of the parents. It lists their place of birth. However their place of birth is not their citizenship status at the time of the child's birth. A foreign born parent may or may not have become a naturalized citizen. Their birth location would not match their citizenship. A US born parent my have naturalized themselves in a foreign country and relinquished their US citizenship. Their birth location would not match their citizenship.


IMHO, a much better law would have been to require:

1. An official birth document issued under the authority of a governmental entity of the United States (Federal, State, or local municipality as the case may be). And yes that would include accepting COLB's which are issued under a State Seal showing birth date, birth location, and birth parents because those are the only Constitutional requirements to determine a child's citizenship at birth. If you don't have one, that is your problem to resolve with the appropriate government entity. It would be your responsibility to resolve that issue first, then apply as a candidate. No unofficial records would be submitted.

Then...

2. As a separate requirement, the candidate (if required for the position being sought) be required to submit documented evidence of the citizenship status at the time of birth. The US citizens this would be the birth record of the parents (if US born) or the naturalization certificate (if foreign born, but showing citizenship by the child's birth date).​

That process would satisfy the objections I've raised to the Arizona law based on it mandating information that must be contained on another states birth record and it's (expected) rejection under Full Faith and Credit (Article IV, Section 1, US Constitution) of the official records issued under the Seal of a sister State.

Others might have issues with the Jus sanguinis requirement of the parents citizenship at birth, but I'd support such a law which would get (a) either Congress to define NBC, or (b) get the SCOTUS to define NBC once and for all and for all States.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

Not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the U.S. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

Very good, which has been my point all along. The long form is not needed as it does not contain relevant information at the time of birth of the child in question. For example:

• The "Place of Birth" (i.e. Location) is contained on the short form and is all that is needed to determine citizenship (along with who the parents were) under the 14th Amendment.
• Parents are listed (also needed under the 14th) to determine if the parents are foreign diplomats and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
• Hospital is not needed under the 14th.
• Doctor is not needed under the 14th.
• List of witnesses and their signatures are not needed under the 14th.
• (The above may be needed under State law to establish the validity of the birth, but once the State has cerified it, they are no longer needed later in life as the State record is the official record issued under the Seal of the State.)

If lawmakers are interested in the idea that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Jus soli and Jus sanguinis The Long Form DOES NOT LIST THE CITIZENSHIP (at least in Hawaii's case) of the parents. It lists their place of birth. However their place of birth is not their citizenship status at the time of the child's birth. A foreign born parent may or may not have become a naturalized citizen. Their birth location would not match their citizenship. A US born parent my have naturalized themselves in a foreign country and relinquished their US citizenship. Their birth location would not match their citizenship.


IMHO, a much better law would have been to require:

1. An official birth document issued under the authority of a governmental entity of the United States (Federal, State, or local municipality as the case may be). And yes that would include accepting COLB's which are issued under a State Seal showing birth date, birth location, and birth parents because those are the only Constitutional requirements to determine a child's citizenship at birth. If you don't have one, that is your problem to resolve with the appropriate government entity. It would be your responsibility to resolve that issue first, then apply as a candidate. No unofficial records would be submitted.

Then...

2. As a separate requirement, the candidate (if required for the position being sought) be required to submit documented evidence of the citizenship status at the time of birth. The US citizens this would be the birth record of the parents (if US born) or the naturalization certificate (if foreign born, but showing citizenship by the child's birth date).​

That process would satisfy the objections I've raised to the Arizona law based on it mandating information that must be contained on another states birth record and it's (expected) rejection under Full Faith and Credit (Article IV, Section 1, US Constitution) of the official records issued under the Seal of a sister State.

Others might have issues with the Jus sanguinis requirement of the parents citizenship at birth, but I'd support such a law which would get (a) either Congress to define NBC, or (b) get the SCOTUS to define NBC once and for all and for all States.


>>>>

I'm not going to read all your reply because there is no need to do that for what I have to say.

Very good, which has been my point all along. The long form is not needed as it does not contain relevant information at the time of birth of the child in question

The long form would show who is the doctor and what hospital a child is born in. That would show specifics of birth location it would also show that the filed document was actually accepted by the state registrar of 1961