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

[goldcatt]

ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?

what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.

The case was brought by Philip J. Berg in Berg v. Obama et al.

Mr Berg bypassed the lower courts after an initial ruling against him and took the issue to the Supreme Court.

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was summarily denied on January 21, 2009.

On November 12, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dismissed the Berg v. Obama et al. case "because there is no case or controversy."

Case or controversy = standing.

Article 3 of the constitution states the Federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is a case or controversy. There's a whole bunch of requirements and technicalities about standing, but basically the Federal courts have no power to hear any case where they would be issuing a decision to hear themselves talk. Maybe the person who brought the suit isn't directly affected by the issue and so they aren't a party to a conflict or controversy the court can fix. Maybe the issue is already settled and done with so anything the court does is moot, they can't fix it. And there are other situations where a person can lack standing. But where there is no standing, the Federal court cannot hear or decide on the merits of the case.

 

[Yurt]

Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.

And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

No, but it also does not require it. Which means a sister State cannot require it.

Think about FF&C and what it says, it is Congress' responsibility to set the guidelines for accepting records under FF&C, not the individual States. That would defeat the entire purpose of having a FF&C clause to begin with. And since a COLB is proof of citizenship for all other purposes in federal law, for a State to require more is violative.

the FF&C is about recognizing other contracts, laws, public records etc...there is nothing in HI law that says you can't produce a copy of the original....until there is such a law, requiring the original does not at all infringe HI law or violate the FF&C....if AZ wanted something more than what is contained in a copy of the original, then you would have a point. also, isn't the FF&C mainly used to enforce court decisions? i know of no HI court that has said you don't have to produce a copy of the original if required. as such, i don't see any violation of the FF&C.

and again, it is only prima facie proof....it does not have the full force or effect of the original unless the original is lost or damaged.. as i showed you above....

 

[Yurt]

ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?

what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.

The case was brought by Philip J. Berg in Berg v. Obama et al.

Mr Berg bypassed the lower courts after an initial ruling against him and took the issue to the Supreme Court.

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was summarily denied on January 21, 2009.

On November 12, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dismissed the Berg v. Obama et al. case "because there is no case or controversy."

as i thought, the case was tossed solely due to standing, not on whether there was evidence, IOW, it was not decided on the merits. you misunderstood the ruling.

your original contention is incorrrect.

 

[goldcatt]

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

No, but it also does not require it. Which means a sister State cannot require it.

Think about FF&C and what it says, it is Congress' responsibility to set the guidelines for accepting records under FF&C, not the individual States. That would defeat the entire purpose of having a FF&C clause to begin with. And since a COLB is proof of citizenship for all other purposes in federal law, for a State to require more is violative.

the FF&C is about recognizing other contracts, laws, public records etc...there is nothing in HI law that says you can't produce a copy of the original....until there is such a law, requiring the original does not at all infringe HI law or violate the FF&C....if AZ wanted something more than what is contained in a copy of the original, then you would have a point. also, isn't the FF&C mainly used to enforce court decisions? i know of no HI court that has said you don't have to produce a copy of the original if required. as such, i don't see any violation of the FF&C.

and again, it is only prima facie proof....it does not have the full force or effect of the original unless the original is lost or damaged.. as i showed you above....

We're arguing two separate points now. My point is neither the State of HI nor the State of AZ can determine by their laws what form of record is or is not acceptable as proof of birthplace in a sister State. Under FF&C that is Congress' responsibility, not the States'. And under Federal law the COLB is proof of citizenship for all purposes. Requiring a "long form" is more than required by Congress, therefore it is making the bar higher than FF&C allows. And vital records of birth and death do fall under FF&C, not comity. Which is why you have relatively standard BC and DC forms and procedures, but not relatively uniform standards for things like marriage licenses - or lack thereof, in common law states.

 

[Vast LWC]

Case or controversy = standing.

Article 3 of the constitution states the Federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is a case or controversy. There's a whole bunch of requirements and technicalities about standing, but basically the Federal courts have no power to hear any case where they would be issuing a decision to hear themselves talk. Maybe the person who brought the suit isn't directly affected by the issue and so they aren't a party to a conflict or controversy the court can fix. Maybe the issue is already settled and done with so anything the court does is moot, they can't fix it. And there are other situations where a person can lack standing. But where there is no standing, the Federal court cannot hear or decide on the merits of the case.

This is from the district court:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND SENATOR BARACK OBAMA TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 20) IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (DOC. NO. 24) IS GRANTED; AND PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF IS DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/24/08. 10/27/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES AND E-MAILED AND FAXED FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

BERG v. OBAMA et al Document 28 - :: Justia Docs

ORDER THAT HAVING DISMISSED PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IT IS ORDERED THAT ALL PENDING MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/27/08. 10/27/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES, E-MAILED AND FAXED TO COUNSEL FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

BERG v. OBAMA et al Document 29 - :: Justia Docs

I will look for the actual data from the court of appeals.

 

[Vast LWC]

It appears that the Third Circuit court of appeals dismissed the case mainly on the basis that it did not have "Subject Matter Jurisdiction".

The opinion of the court cites Berg's case "Wholly without merit" and "frivolous".

Though admittedly it does focus mainly on the fact that there was no proof of harm to the plaintiff.

 

[Yurt]

It appears that the Third Circuit court of appeals dismissed the case mainly on the basis that it did not have "Subject Matter Jurisdiction".

The opinion of the court cites Berg's case "Wholly without merit" and "frivolous".

Though admittedly it does focus mainly on the fact that there was no proof of harm to the plaintiff.

right...so it was never decided that berg's case or any case has merit or not, all the cases, including the scotus case you claimed said they requested evidence, which you later clarified that they reviewed evidence, which never happened, because they threw the case out based on standing.

like i said, no court has ever decided an obama birth case on the merits, nor has any court ever stated obama is eligible based on his being born here.

mccain's original (copy) was produced for a court, obama's has never made it that far..........fancy that

 

[goldcatt]

Case or controversy = standing.

Article 3 of the constitution states the Federal courts have jurisdiction only where there is a case or controversy. There's a whole bunch of requirements and technicalities about standing, but basically the Federal courts have no power to hear any case where they would be issuing a decision to hear themselves talk. Maybe the person who brought the suit isn't directly affected by the issue and so they aren't a party to a conflict or controversy the court can fix. Maybe the issue is already settled and done with so anything the court does is moot, they can't fix it. And there are other situations where a person can lack standing. But where there is no standing, the Federal court cannot hear or decide on the merits of the case.

This is from the district court:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND SENATOR BARACK OBAMA TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 20) IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (DOC. NO. 24) IS GRANTED; AND PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF IS DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/24/08. 10/27/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES AND E-MAILED AND FAXED FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

BERG v. OBAMA et al Document 28 - :: Justia Docs

ORDER THAT HAVING DISMISSED PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IT IS ORDERED THAT ALL PENDING MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 10/27/08. 10/27/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES, E-MAILED AND FAXED TO COUNSEL FROM CHAMBERS. (jpd) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

BERG v. OBAMA et al Document 29 - :: Justia Docs

I will look for the actual data from the court of appeals.

All right, here's what to look for if you're interested in going through these orders on the birfer cases:

Was it dismissed for any of the following reasons:

-Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
-Lack of case or controversy
-Moot
-Unripe (highly doubt you'll see this but I guess anything's possible)

If it was then the problem is standing, not the merits.

The rants about the cases being "frivolous", "without merit" and so on in the bodies of the orders I've seen are fun, and I'm sure the judges had a good time writing them, but they're not actually the order of the court. Think of that part as dicta. In other words it's really, really good, interesting and important bullshit that the judges wanted people to know - but for all the legal effect it has, still bullshit.

 

[Rinata]

If it wasn't a problem their heads wouldn't explode...

So true.

Jeny!!! Do you think that everybody would be so for this idea if anybody but Obama were president?? I don't think so. The reason I'm asking you is that I have found you to be very objective in the past. And I hope you will be so now, no matter what your response is. Thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

STANDING, NOT MERIT?

clarify, please

 

[US Army Retired]

If it wasn't a problem their heads wouldn't explode...

So true.

Jeny!!! Do you think that everybody would be so for this idea if anybody but Obama were president?? I don't think so. The reason I'm asking you is that I have found you to be very objective in the past. And I hope you will be so now, no matter what your response is. Thanks.

Jeny???Who in the world is Jeny????

 

[goldcatt]

STANDING, NOT MERIT?

clarify, please

Standing basically means a case the court can hear and decide, under Article 3 of the constitution and by the rules set down over the years defining exactly what is a "case or controversy".

It's a complex subject and sort of hard to explain in a brief post, maybe this will help:

The Case or Controversy Requirement of Article III

Basically if there is no standing, the Federal courts cannot hear the case.

 

[JBeukema]

So standing is similar to jurisdiction as opposed to merit or validity of claims?

 

[goldcatt]

So standing is similar to jurisdiction as opposed to merit or validity of claims?

Exactly. It's called subject matter jurisdiction, meaning it's something about the case itself that means they can't hear it rather than the plaintiff filed it, for example, in the wrong state.

So if it's a standing issue, the merits were never heard to judge the validity of the claims.

ETA: Many of the orders give the judge's opnion of the validity of the claims, but they weren't officially heard and the opinions aren't legally effective.

 

[Yurt]

So standing is similar to jurisdiction as opposed to merit or validity of claims?

decent analogy, and one 'could' say it is similar, in that, if the court lacks jurisdiction, it will dismiss based on that and not based on the merits, meaning, you can bring the claim again with no prejudice attached as long as you bring it in the proper forum/venue.....

same with standing, if the court believes you do not have standing, the court lacks the power to adjudicate or listen to the case and decide its merits....

as goldcatt said, the issue can be very complex, but it can be broken down for its essential meaning

 

[Zona]

The black guy won

get over it

You know......if you think about it, JB is right..........McStupid is the senator from AZ, he was pissed because he got his ass kicked in the election by a liberal black man.

What did he do? Go back, bitch piss and moan about it, and some of his cronies in the state government decided that their little bit of "I'll take my bat and ball and go home" comes in this stupid idea.

They figure that if he's not on the ballot, he can't get elected.

AZ is a fucking racist state, I hope they decide one day to secede and then they get absorbed by Mexico, which turns the whole state into a marijuana patch.

uhm, i live here, I HAVE to disagre with you. OH I agree it is a racist state, but the rest of that....uh...no..

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.

And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

No, but it also does not require it. Which means a sister State cannot require it.

Think about FF&C and what it says, it is Congress' responsibility to set the guidelines for accepting records under FF&C, not the individual States. That would defeat the entire purpose of having a FF&C clause to begin with. And since a COLB is proof of citizenship for all other purposes in federal law, for a State to require more is violative.

Watching and listening with interest here.

Are you sure that states cannot set the terms by which people qualify to be on the ballot in their individual states? And if that can include the number of qualified signatures on a petition to qualify somebody, why couldn't it include other things without challenge? All the Constitution specifies is that the President be 35 years of age, born in America, and not have been convicted of certain crimes.

I claim no expertise or experience with this topic.

I am simply asking.

 

[goldcatt]

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

No, but it also does not require it. Which means a sister State cannot require it.

Think about FF&C and what it says, it is Congress' responsibility to set the guidelines for accepting records under FF&C, not the individual States. That would defeat the entire purpose of having a FF&C clause to begin with. And since a COLB is proof of citizenship for all other purposes in federal law, for a State to require more is violative.

Watching and listening with interest here.

Are you sure that states cannot set the terms by which people qualify to be on the ballot in their individual states? And if that can include the number of qualified signatures on a petition to qualify somebody, why couldn't it include other things without challenge? All the Constitution specifies is that the President be 35 years of age, born in America, and not have been convicted of certain crimes.

I claim no expertise or experience with this topic.

I am simply asking.

That's a really good question.

With a few exceptions for issues covered in Federal law or the Constitution, anything strictly related to the election is a State issue. So that includes how many signatures are required, filing fees and deadlines, the type of ballot or machine used to vote, and so on.

The probelm is, this bill touches on an issue covered in the Constitution. That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4:

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.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv

So birth certificates being a public record of the state, they fall under this provision. Of course since this is a Constitutional requirement specifically directed at the States, the States have to follow it as it applies to accepting the birth certificate - and it is up to Congress to define the acceptable forms and effect of those records. Not the State. So the clause applies to the record, the birth certificate itself, not the election.

It's a fine distinction, but important if you're talking about the difference between requiring a standard short form or COLB, which is acceptable for all Federal purposes as proof of place of birth, or if you want to up the ante and require something more than Congress requires, which would be the so-called long form. AZ or HI or any state doesn't get to decide what to accept as far as a public record from another state or what its effect is, only Congress can under the Constitution. So if Congress says a COLB from any state is effective to prove citizenship, it's effective to prove citizenship no matter what AZ or any other State says. They have to accept it.

Hope that makes more sense?

 

[Modbert]

Full faith and credit clause would nullify this "law" anyway. It is ridiculous that this is still being argued about.

You lost birthers, get over it, we have a President who is half African American.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes it does GC, and thank you; however, reserving the right to rebut if I later find a hole in your argument.

I suspect you're right on the money though.