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

[WorldWatcher]

Arizona doesn't get to mandate gun laws within another state. Arizona does not have the authority to mandate that Vermont must do that, that and the other to issue a weapons permit to carry a gun in Vermont. Arizona does have the authority to define the requirements for carrying a gun in Arizona.

The act is controlled by the State in which the action occurs. If you are in Vermont, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws and Vermont determines the records required. If you are in Arizona, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws.

The act is birth of a child and Hawaii gets to determine how to handle that act within their own State. If the child birth is in Arizona, then Arizona gets to determine how that act is handled in their jurisdiction.

What you are arguing for is that Arizona should mandate on Hawaii how Hawaii documents an act. The jurisdiction is Hawaii, they are controlling authority. The birth (if it occurred in Hawaii) is outside the jurisdiction of Arizona.

When you carry a gun in Arizona, you committing an act under their jurisdiction. When you carry a gun in Vermont, you are committing an act under their jurisdiction. It's kind of hard to be carrying a gun in Vermont when you are standing in Phoenix.

10 USC § 1738.
State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

"The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."​

The action that occurred is the birth of a child. The State of Hawaii gets to determine the manner and process by which that action exists in it's records and the structure of the documents that report that event occurring within their jurisdiction. Not another State, especially when that other State is mandating that the documents produced by Hawaii must contain irrelevant information as to the issue at hand. The name of the hospital and who or who wasn't in the delivery room is irrelevant to the central question - did the birth occur in the United States. How that action is documented in Hawaii, is up to Hawaii - not Arizona.


>>>>

Aren't you the one that mentioned the Full Faith and Credit Clause?.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

Aren't gun laws legislative acts?

Yes they are, and as previously pointed out they define how the act of owning or carrying a gun is to be handled within that jurisdiction. Arizona has no authority to demand how the Legislature in Vermont writes it's law or process gun possession for people in Vermont because someone living in Vermont and adhering to their rules is not within Arizona jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Vermont falls under that States jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Arizona falls under that States jurisdiction.

Arizona cannot tell Vermont how people should carry guns in Vermont.​

What you are advocating is completely different, you are advocating that Arizona mandate what Hawaii does within that jurisdiction. The act of birth occurred in Hawaii, the records are maintained in Hawaii - and so it falls to Hawaii to determine that process.


Under FF&C (which would apply to the recognition of marriages, divorces, births, deaths, court proceedings, etc.) one State must recognize official documents from another State that contains the relevant information to document the action or record. The only relevant information under the 14th Amendment is the Date and Place of Birth (location) to establish citizenship at birth. The name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the hospital is irrelevant to that requirement. Now if you are of the jus sanguinis persuasion, then you can require additional documents showing the citizenship of the parents at birth, but that is a separate issue.


What I find funny is that you advocate for an official State documents NOT being accepted, but have not made one peep about non-government records (baptismal, circumcision, etc.) which are not official documents from a government entity, but they are OK to prove birth location.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC. Case closed

That's the point. Arizona does not have the constitutional authority to demand that Hawaii provide any specific form for verifying a person's birth records. AZ can ask for a birth certificate. But if Hawaii decides that it's going to start issuing birth certificates that are hand written on the back of a stained napkin, then AZ will have to accept them. Only Congress has the power to set rules about how the state of Hawaii can be forced to prove their records to another state.

But full faith and credit clause doesn't work that way motor vehicle laws gun laws are differant in every state. Should Arizona Gun laws be the law of the land because of the full faith and credit clause? Some states do not allow conceal carry some states don't require any permits to conceal carry. Should another state invoke it's laws against another state because of the full faith and credit clause?

You haven't the first bit of comprehension. The full faith and credit clause has to do with the records and proceedings of the several states. It has nothing to do with gun laws in one state transferring to another state. The state of Hawaii keeps its own vital records. If the state of Hawaii says that Obama was born there, then AZ is constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to that. Congress has the power to, if it so chooses, establish rules by which Hawaii will prove those records exist. But that power belongs to Congress alone. Thus, any AZ law that, for example, places demands on what kind of documents will be used to prove matters of Hawaiian records would violate the constitution.

It's very clear that you have virtually no familiarity or understanding of the constitution. That's not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when you chime in on these subjects with off the wall arguments and suggestions. You need to start educating yourself so that you can understand what you're talking about, before you make yourself look silly like you have done here. The fact that you thought that full faith and credit clause could have anything to do with differences in gun laws between different states is......well it's like going to chemistry class and citing Mozart.

Give it up it didn't work for gay marriage and it does not work for gun laws or motor vehicle laws.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaii's statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the state's marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.

You haven't the first bit of comprehension. The full faith and credit clause has to do with the records and proceedings of the several states.

Really? Just records and proceedings?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

Again motor vehicle laws Gun laws are legislative acts, if you're going to cherry pick so can I.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Aren't you the one that mentioned the Full Faith and Credit Clause?.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

Aren't gun laws legislative acts?

Yes they are, and as previously pointed out they define how the act of owning or carrying a gun is to be handled within that jurisdiction. Arizona has no authority to demand how the Legislature in Vermont writes it's law or process gun possession for people in Vermont because someone living in Vermont and adhering to their rules is not within Arizona jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Vermont falls under that States jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Arizona falls under that States jurisdiction.

Arizona cannot tell Vermont how people should carry guns in Vermont.​

What you are advocating is completely different, you are advocating that Arizona mandate what Hawaii does within that jurisdiction. The act of birth occurred in Hawaii, the records are maintained in Hawaii - and so it falls to Hawaii to determine that process.


Under FF&C (which would apply to the recognition of marriages, divorces, births, deaths, court proceedings, etc.) one State must recognize official documents from another State that contains the relevant information to document the action or record. The only relevant information under the 14th Amendment is the Date and Place of Birth (location) to establish citizenship at birth. The name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the hospital is irrelevant to that requirement. Now if you are of the jus sanguinis persuasion, then you can require additional documents showing the citizenship of the parents at birth, but that is a separate issue.


What I find funny is that you advocate for an official State documents NOT being accepted, but have not made one peep about non-government records (baptismal, circumcision, etc.) which are not official documents from a government entity, but they are OK to prove birth location.



>>>>

Yes they are, and as previously pointed out they define how the act of owning or carrying a gun is to be handled within that jurisdiction.

And they also have a jurisdiction on their electorial process.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Give it up it didn't work for gay marriage...

The final case wasn't decided until 1999. The 1991 case, decided in 1993 was remained back to the lower court and the final disposition of that case occurred in 1999. In 1998 the State had amended it Constitution, and the Hawaii Supreme Court acknowledged the change in legal landscape and taking the decision out of their hands.

Actually, because of the Hawaii case, Congress exercised it's authority under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution and it's power to determine the "effect thereof" of public acts/records between the States to exempt one State from being required to recognize same-sex Civil Marriage from another States.

Without the passage of DOMA in 1996, other states would have been required, Constitutionally to recognize same-sex Civil Marriages from outside the State. But because Congress exercised it's authority that situation did not happen.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes they are, and as previously pointed out they define how the act of owning or carrying a gun is to be handled within that jurisdiction. Arizona has no authority to demand how the Legislature in Vermont writes it's law or process gun possession for people in Vermont because someone living in Vermont and adhering to their rules is not within Arizona jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Vermont falls under that States jurisdiction.

Carrying a gun in Arizona falls under that States jurisdiction.

Arizona cannot tell Vermont how people should carry guns in Vermont.​

What you are advocating is completely different, you are advocating that Arizona mandate what Hawaii does within that jurisdiction. The act of birth occurred in Hawaii, the records are maintained in Hawaii - and so it falls to Hawaii to determine that process.


Under FF&C (which would apply to the recognition of marriages, divorces, births, deaths, court proceedings, etc.) one State must recognize official documents from another State that contains the relevant information to document the action or record. The only relevant information under the 14th Amendment is the Date and Place of Birth (location) to establish citizenship at birth. The name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the hospital is irrelevant to that requirement. Now if you are of the jus sanguinis persuasion, then you can require additional documents showing the citizenship of the parents at birth, but that is a separate issue.


What I find funny is that you advocate for an official State documents NOT being accepted, but have not made one peep about non-government records (baptismal, circumcision, etc.) which are not official documents from a government entity, but they are OK to prove birth location.



>>>>

Yes they are, and as previously pointed out they define how the act of owning or carrying a gun is to be handled within that jurisdiction.

And they also have a jurisdiction on their electorial process.

True they do have jurisdiction over their electoral process. Birth in another State is not an electoral process.

They do not have jurisdiction of births that occur in another State under that States laws. Barring an act of Congress, they are required under the FF&C and the United States Code to accept official records issued under the seal of that State.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And they also have a jurisdiction on their electorial process.

True they do have jurisdiction over their electoral process. They do not have jurisdiction of births that occur in another State under that States laws. Barring an act of Congress, they are required under the FF&C and the United States Code to accept official records issued under the seal of that State.



>>>>

and back we go Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC case closed.

 

[jillian]

There's that word again....and a Rightie crazy lady is using it.

there is something mentally ill about that. but to be expected from the rightwingnuts.

 

[rightwinger]

True they do have jurisdiction over their electoral process. They do not have jurisdiction of births that occur in another State under that States laws. Barring an act of Congress, they are required under the FF&C and the United States Code to accept official records issued under the seal of that State.



>>>>

and back we go Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC case closed.

What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and back we go Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC case closed.

What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?

Citizenship

And do not go there with he produce his BC. He produce a document that was not accepted by the state registrar of 1961.
This is speculation what they found was a hand written document, that wasn't a long form. And do not tell me the DNC is not corrupt enough to try and pull tht kind of stunt off.

Now I'll ask you what is it about forcing obama to produce a long form BC that you fear? If he and the DNC have nothing to hide it would have been produced two years ago. I suspect that your fear is that everyting said is true, but are to partisan to say it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True they do have jurisdiction over their electoral process. They do not have jurisdiction of births that occur in another State under that States laws. Barring an act of Congress, they are required under the FF&C and the United States Code to accept official records issued under the seal of that State.



>>>>

and back we go Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC case closed.

Which isn't the normal document that Hawaii issues to document birth.

You are free to state "case closed" but it's not, the law isn't even passed yet. Once it does, plan on the cases being opened. In court.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?

Citizenship

Here is the sample long form birth certificate.

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.



Citizenship is determined by Date and Location of birth. That information the State of Hawaii includes on their short form and under Full Faith and Credit that is all that is needed. Arizona does not have the authority to demand that another state include anything other then what is needed on the documents that Hawaii issues.

Now I'll ask you what is it about forcing obama to produce a long form BC that you fear? If he and the DNC have nothing to hide it would have been produced two years ago. I suspect that your fear is that everyting said is true, but are to partisan to say it.

I don't "fear" anything. My issue is not with candidates being required to submit documentation that shows they meet the qualifications to for the elected position they are running for.

Again I support 100% ALL candidates from Dog Catcher to President having to submit legal proof that they meet the requirements as specified in the Federal Constitution, State Constitution or under applicable State law.

My ONLY opposition is to the specific unconstitutional nature of the law in Arizona stating that the State of Arizona will reject official birth documents issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii if it does not contain information irrelevant to the purpose of the document. The ONLY information that is needed are the date and location of birth, the name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the delivery room is irrelevant to that purpose. Under the United States Constitution Arizona is required to accept the Short Form to certify birth Date and Location as no exception to that requirements has been passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 authority.



>>>>

 

[Liability]

What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?

Citizenship

Here is the sample long form birth certificate.

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.



Citizenship is determined by Date and Location of birth. That information the State of Hawaii includes on their short form and under Full Faith and Credit that is all that is needed. Arizona does not have the authority to demand that another state include anything other then what is needed on the documents that Hawaii issues.

Now I'll ask you what is it about forcing obama to produce a long form BC that you fear? If he and the DNC have nothing to hide it would have been produced two years ago. I suspect that your fear is that everyting said is true, but are to partisan to say it.

I don't "fear" anything. My issue is not with candidates being required to submit documentation that shows they meet the qualifications to for the elected position they are running for.

Again I support 100% ALL candidates from Dog Catcher to President having to submit legal proof that they meet the requirements as specified in the Federal Constitution, State Constitution or under applicable State law.

My ONLY opposition is to the specific unconstitutional nature of the law in Arizona stating that the State of Arizona will reject official birth documents issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii if it does not contain information irrelevant to the purpose of the document. The ONLY information that is needed are the date and location of birth, the name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the delivery room is irrelevant to that purpose. Under the United States Constitution Arizona is required to accept the Short Form to certify birth Date and Location as no exception to that requirements has been passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 authority.



>>>>

6a. PLACE of Birth. Going out on a limb....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Citizenship

Here is the sample long form birth certificate.

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.



Citizenship is determined by Date and Location of birth. That information the State of Hawaii includes on their short form and under Full Faith and Credit that is all that is needed. Arizona does not have the authority to demand that another state include anything other then what is needed on the documents that Hawaii issues.

Now I'll ask you what is it about forcing obama to produce a long form BC that you fear? If he and the DNC have nothing to hide it would have been produced two years ago. I suspect that your fear is that everyting said is true, but are to partisan to say it.

I don't "fear" anything. My issue is not with candidates being required to submit documentation that shows they meet the qualifications to for the elected position they are running for.

Again I support 100% ALL candidates from Dog Catcher to President having to submit legal proof that they meet the requirements as specified in the Federal Constitution, State Constitution or under applicable State law.

My ONLY opposition is to the specific unconstitutional nature of the law in Arizona stating that the State of Arizona will reject official birth documents issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii if it does not contain information irrelevant to the purpose of the document. The ONLY information that is needed are the date and location of birth, the name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the delivery room is irrelevant to that purpose. Under the United States Constitution Arizona is required to accept the Short Form to certify birth Date and Location as no exception to that requirements has been passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 authority.



>>>>

6a. PLACE of Birth. Going out on a limb....

The statement to the question ("What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?") was "Citizenship", the title of the box you indicate is not "Citizenship" it's Place of Birth. Places of birth are a location like Richmond, Orlando, Huston, etc. Information is not entered as "American", "Canadian", "British", etc. which would indicate citizenship.


Now I agree 100% that the Place of Birth (box 6a), establishes citizenship, as currently understood under the 14th Amendment. (I say "currently understood" because personally I have issues with Illegal Aliens being considered as "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but that's an issue for another thread.)


However the location of birth, which you correctly pointed out establishes citizenship, is also on the short form birth certificate that Hawaii issues and that is the only thing needed to establish citizenship at birth for someone born within the territory of the United States.



>>>>

 

[BlindBoo]

LMFAO!!! I read the comments there by the libs-- OMG, TOO FUNNY!! They're freaking out, spewing and cracked lips- worried their messiah is done~ Liberals would rather the Constitution be usurped than give up power.. Make no mistake about it. Oh well-- TOOO BAD! I'd say that's checkmate once the House passes it.. DingleBarry will HAVE to show a legal BC or not run. Hahahahahahahaha LOLOL Ohhh, it's just too good.

That's something.

The law won't stand up to the Constitution and you talk about usurped?

Where in the Constitution does it say a person doesn't have to show their BC to get vetted for possible run to be president?

LOL Where does it say they must show a BC.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?

Citizenship

Here is the sample long form birth certificate.

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.



Citizenship is determined by Date and Location of birth. That information the State of Hawaii includes on their short form and under Full Faith and Credit that is all that is needed. Arizona does not have the authority to demand that another state include anything other then what is needed on the documents that Hawaii issues.

Now I'll ask you what is it about forcing obama to produce a long form BC that you fear? If he and the DNC have nothing to hide it would have been produced two years ago. I suspect that your fear is that everyting said is true, but are to partisan to say it.

I don't "fear" anything. My issue is not with candidates being required to submit documentation that shows they meet the qualifications to for the elected position they are running for.

Again I support 100% ALL candidates from Dog Catcher to President having to submit legal proof that they meet the requirements as specified in the Federal Constitution, State Constitution or under applicable State law.

My ONLY opposition is to the specific unconstitutional nature of the law in Arizona stating that the State of Arizona will reject official birth documents issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii if it does not contain information irrelevant to the purpose of the document. The ONLY information that is needed are the date and location of birth, the name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the delivery room is irrelevant to that purpose. Under the United States Constitution Arizona is required to accept the Short Form to certify birth Date and Location as no exception to that requirements has been passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 authority.



>>>>

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.

The box that says place of birth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is the sample long form birth certificate.

Please identify the box on the form that indicates the citizenship of the child. I don't see one.



Citizenship is determined by Date and Location of birth. That information the State of Hawaii includes on their short form and under Full Faith and Credit that is all that is needed. Arizona does not have the authority to demand that another state include anything other then what is needed on the documents that Hawaii issues.






I don't "fear" anything. My issue is not with candidates being required to submit documentation that shows they meet the qualifications to for the elected position they are running for.

Again I support 100% ALL candidates from Dog Catcher to President having to submit legal proof that they meet the requirements as specified in the Federal Constitution, State Constitution or under applicable State law.

My ONLY opposition is to the specific unconstitutional nature of the law in Arizona stating that the State of Arizona will reject official birth documents issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii if it does not contain information irrelevant to the purpose of the document. The ONLY information that is needed are the date and location of birth, the name of the hospital and who may or may not have been in the delivery room is irrelevant to that purpose. Under the United States Constitution Arizona is required to accept the Short Form to certify birth Date and Location as no exception to that requirements has been passed by Congress under it's Article IV Section 1 authority.



>>>>

6a. PLACE of Birth. Going out on a limb....

The statement to the question ("What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?") was "Citizenship", the title of the box you indicate is not "Citizenship" it's Place of Birth. Places of birth are a location like Richmond, Orlando, Huston, etc. Information is not entered as "American", "Canadian", "British", etc. which would indicate citizenship.


Now I agree 100% that the Place of Birth (box 6a), establishes citizenship, as currently understood under the 14th Amendment. (I say "currently understood" because personally I have issues with Illegal Aliens being considered as "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but that's an issue for another thread.)


However the location of birth, which you correctly pointed out establishes citizenship, is also on the short form birth certificate that Hawaii issues and that is the only thing needed to establish citizenship at birth for someone born within the territory of the United States.



>>>>

What I want to see is when the the 1961 state registrar accepted the birth certificate that would be on the long form.

 

[rightwinger]

6a. PLACE of Birth. Going out on a limb....

The statement to the question ("What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?") was "Citizenship", the title of the box you indicate is not "Citizenship" it's Place of Birth. Places of birth are a location like Richmond, Orlando, Huston, etc. Information is not entered as "American", "Canadian", "British", etc. which would indicate citizenship.


Now I agree 100% that the Place of Birth (box 6a), establishes citizenship, as currently understood under the 14th Amendment. (I say "currently understood" because personally I have issues with Illegal Aliens being considered as "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but that's an issue for another thread.)


However the location of birth, which you correctly pointed out establishes citizenship, is also on the short form birth certificate that Hawaii issues and that is the only thing needed to establish citizenship at birth for someone born within the territory of the United States.



>>>>

What I want to see is when the the 1961 state registrar accepted the birth certificate that would be on the long form.

How does that impact the state certified date of birth on the COLB? Are you now questioning whether Obama was 35 years old?

 

[PixieStix]

Now it heads to the Arizona republican dominated house and then to Governor Jan Brewers desk to be signed. This is going to make the White House implode over this as this is now mainstream thanks to Trump making this constitutional crisis come to light. Now since Arizona Senate has taken the first step in becoming the first state to pass a presidential eligibility bill to make sure a candidate produces more documentation to ensure that they are actually a natural born citizen, I think it will make other states like Texas go ahead and pass theirs with other states following. Obama is in trouble.

Arizona Senate Passes Proof of Eligibility Legislation; One Step Closer To... Got Papers!? | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records


As reported, Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut, Missouri and Iowa are pursuing legislation that will require presidential and vice-presidential candidates prove they're Constitutionally Eligible. The Arizona legislation just passed HB 2177 in the Senate and it now moves on to the Arizona House and then to Gov. Brewer for her signature.

I likey

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The statement to the question ("What information is contained on the long form that impacts eligibility for President?") was "Citizenship", the title of the box you indicate is not "Citizenship" it's Place of Birth. Places of birth are a location like Richmond, Orlando, Huston, etc. Information is not entered as "American", "Canadian", "British", etc. which would indicate citizenship.


Now I agree 100% that the Place of Birth (box 6a), establishes citizenship, as currently understood under the 14th Amendment. (I say "currently understood" because personally I have issues with Illegal Aliens being considered as "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but that's an issue for another thread.)


However the location of birth, which you correctly pointed out establishes citizenship, is also on the short form birth certificate that Hawaii issues and that is the only thing needed to establish citizenship at birth for someone born within the territory of the United States.



>>>>

What I want to see is when the the 1961 state registrar accepted the birth certificate that would be on the long form.

How does that impact the state certified date of birth on the COLB? Are you now questioning whether Obama was 35 years old?

obam's original document never was accepted by the 1961 state registrar. It was filed but never accepted. Maybe there was an error on the original appilcation maybe there wasn't enough proof of his birth place back in 1961. For what ever reason it never was accepted by the 1961 state registrar.