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

[geauxtohell]

Providing an actual "hard copy" of the document is not the same as providing an "internet copy" of the same document.

The internet copy was just for the general public. If this AZ bill goes anywhere, then they will get a paper copy of the COLB per their request. If they try and demand the "vault copy", then they will most likely be told by the state of Hawaii to piss off.

As I said, all candidate should have to provide evidence of eligibility.

For the record, I do not support this AZ bill.

Immie

All candidates do provide evidence of elgibility.

I don't understand the rub.

 

[Immanuel]

Yeah, there's been a lot of white noise about the issue. There's also been a lot of forgeries of documents from Kenya that the birthers have held up as evidence and then been completely embarassed by.



I don't think he's ever chimed in on it either way. The campaign provided a copy of COLB that was varified, twice, by the state of HI. Thus, satisfying the legal requirements for proof of birth.



I think it was a tacet statement to the birthers to "F' off". They don't get special dispensation to make new laws and standards simply because they are paranoid.

When the State of Hawaii made the statement that they had the evidence was about the time that I decided that it was time to drop the issue.

Until that time, I was suspicious.

As I said in my first post, every candidate should be required to provide proof of eligibility. I believe President Obama did to those that were entitled to the proof.

Immie

Right. And I don't blame him for not capitulating to the demands of the lunatic fringe. Once you open those flood gates the demands become more and more and get progressively bizarre.

The bottom line is this: the birthers are not interested in Justice. They are interested in trying to find a way to circumvent the will of the people after a legal election. Since they have no real recourse, they are left to grasp for straws.

Like that never happened before? Gore v. Bush? or was it Bush v Gore?

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

When the State of Hawaii made the statement that they had the evidence was about the time that I decided that it was time to drop the issue.

Until that time, I was suspicious.

As I said in my first post, every candidate should be required to provide proof of eligibility. I believe President Obama did to those that were entitled to the proof.

Immie

Right. And I don't blame him for not capitulating to the demands of the lunatic fringe. Once you open those flood gates the demands become more and more and get progressively bizarre.

The bottom line is this: the birthers are not interested in Justice. They are interested in trying to find a way to circumvent the will of the people after a legal election. Since they have no real recourse, they are left to grasp for straws.

Like that never happened before? Gore v. Bush? or was it Bush v Gore?

Immie

That was a legitimate legal challenge. However, once the SCOTUS made the ruling, the vast majority of the left accepted it and moved on.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Lol. Go Arizona!
2012 is only 2 years away. Thank goodness.

"The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection."

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

What fucking idiots. They don't even realize that its the ELECTORS that are actually being voted for. Do they intend to require electors to submit proof they hold no office in government that would disqualify them from running as electors?

 

[Yurt]

link...i know of no court decision deciding whether he is or is not eligible

link to the decision and link to the request by the court to see documentation

The case was presented to the Supreme Court and the Court threw it out based on the fact that they had been provided with sufficient evidence to the contrary that the case had no credibility.

now you're changing you're story, first you said the court "asked" for evidence....now you're saying they simply threw it out

again, what is the case....unless you give the exact case and we can pull it up, i'm calling BS

 

[Immanuel]

The internet copy was just for the general public. If this AZ bill goes anywhere, then they will get a paper copy of the COLB per their request. If they try and demand the "vault copy", then they will most likely be told by the state of Hawaii to piss off.

As I said, all candidate should have to provide evidence of eligibility.

For the record, I do not support this AZ bill.

Immie

All candidates do provide evidence of elgibility.

I don't understand the rub.

And that was what I said, when I first entered the coversation:

I am under the assumption that he provided the required documentation to those who were required to verify his eligibility.

I am also under the assumption that we already require candidates to prove eligibility.

If we don't then damn it, it should not just be one state requiring this, but all fifty states should be requiring such proof for the next election for every candidate who would like to run.

Immie

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Right. And I don't blame him for not capitulating to the demands of the lunatic fringe. Once you open those flood gates the demands become more and more and get progressively bizarre.

The bottom line is this: the birthers are not interested in Justice. They are interested in trying to find a way to circumvent the will of the people after a legal election. Since they have no real recourse, they are left to grasp for straws.

Like that never happened before? Gore v. Bush? or was it Bush v Gore?

Immie

That was a legitimate legal challenge. However, once the SCOTUS made the ruling, the vast majority of the left accepted it and moved on.

As have the vast majority of the right in regards to the President's eligibility.

Immie

 

[Yurt]

it is absolutely untrue that the original is lost, HI claims to have it and no one has ever claimed to have lost the original, pure conjecture on your part and really, unnecessary spin.

also, i want to see a link to this case that ruled obama is eligible...i keep hearing this rumor and everytime i ask for a link i get cases that never ruled on his eligibility, rather, only ruled the person bringing the suit lacks standing

edit: it does not infringe on HI to demand a copy of the orginal, all we have is pure hearsay

My point was not that it was lost or not.

It was that IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was lost or not. If it wasn't lost then Hawaii has it somewhere, if it was, then they don't, but still have the authority to verify his citizenship as his state of birth.

Are you trying to claim that Hawaii is not in fact a valid state? Are they some sort of foreign nation?

How dare you infringe on the state rights of Hawaii? Who the hell do you think you are?

?

it is not HI's job to provide evidence in this case. they only did so because they were sick of the repeated requests. you're making absolutely zero sense here. if the original is in the file, the best evidence is a copy thereof. not what anyone in HI says. their proclamation has no force of law and can't be used anywhere in court.

it does not infringe upon the state of HI to require obama to produce a copy of the original to ensure constitutional eligibility for office. you're catching a ride on the crazy horse here.

 

[geauxtohell]

As have the vast majority of the right in regards to the President's eligibility.

Immie

I agree. The birthers are a special lot of stupid that are in no way representative of the right.

 

[geauxtohell]

?

it is not HI's job to provide evidence in this case. they only did so because they were sick of the repeated requests. you're making absolutely zero sense here. if the original is in the file, the best evidence is a copy thereof. not what anyone in HI says. their proclamation has no force of law and can't be used anywhere in court.

But the COLB can.

 

[goldcatt]

The internet copy was just for the general public. If this AZ bill goes anywhere, then they will get a paper copy of the COLB per their request. If they try and demand the "vault copy", then they will most likely be told by the state of Hawaii to piss off.

actually, i believe it requires the candidate to secure a copy of the original, which obama can do

Then I suspect Gold is right when she doubts they will be successful due to the faith and credit clause.

AZ can't compel a different state to change it's policies.

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

 

[geauxtohell]

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

This seems logical to me.

So does HI's practice of issuing a COLB. Can you imagine the precident that would be set if the "vault copy" were required as definitive proof of citizenship? It means that anybody who lost their copy through whatever reason, could not prove they are a NBC of this country.

 

[Yurt]

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

This seems logical to me.

So does HI's practice of issuing a COLB. Can you imagine the precident that would be set if the "vault copy" were required as definitive proof of citizenship? It means that anybody who lost their copy through whatever reason, could not prove they are a NBC of this country.

not true, HI code clearly states that if the original is lost, damaged etc....the COLB or another certificate can have the same force of law

§338-19

 

[Yurt]

actually, i believe it requires the candidate to secure a copy of the original, which obama can do

Then I suspect Gold is right when she doubts they will be successful due to the faith and credit clause.

AZ can't compel a different state to change it's policies.

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

you know as well as i, that a copy of the original is the best evidence...unless the original is lost, which i doubt, the original is and should be required

 

[Yurt]

?

it is not HI's job to provide evidence in this case. they only did so because they were sick of the repeated requests. you're making absolutely zero sense here. if the original is in the file, the best evidence is a copy thereof. not what anyone in HI says. their proclamation has no force of law and can't be used anywhere in court.

But the COLB can.

of course it can, but it is only prima facie evidence...good lord, why is it you guys have such an issue with providing a copy of the original when the original exists?

 

[geauxtohell]

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

This seems logical to me.

So does HI's practice of issuing a COLB. Can you imagine the precident that would be set if the "vault copy" were required as definitive proof of citizenship? It means that anybody who lost their copy through whatever reason, could not prove they are a NBC of this country.

not true, HI code clearly states that if the original is lost, damaged etc....the COLB or another certificate can have the same force of law

§338-19

First of all, if any of the birthers respected HI's policies on this, then it would be a non-issue.

Secondly, if the COLB can have the same force of law what is the rub again?

 

[geauxtohell]

?

it is not HI's job to provide evidence in this case. they only did so because they were sick of the repeated requests. you're making absolutely zero sense here. if the original is in the file, the best evidence is a copy thereof. not what anyone in HI says. their proclamation has no force of law and can't be used anywhere in court.

But the COLB can.

of course it can, but it is only prima facie evidence...good lord, why is it you guys have such an issue with providing a copy of the original when the original exists?

Because the COLB has been deemed as sufficient evidence on the matter.

Additionaly standards shouldn't be created to placate the lunatic fringe.

 

[goldcatt]

What it can probably do is require proof of citizenship in the form of a certified record from the State of birth. What it cannot do is reject a duly and routinely issued, certified vital record verifying the place of birth and therefore citizenship, which is what the COLB is. The name of the doctor who delivered the infant Obama or any other detail beyond the certification itself is irrelevant to the Constitutional requirements.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

This seems logical to me.

So does HI's practice of issuing a COLB. Can you imagine the precident that would be set if the "vault copy" were required as definitive proof of citizenship? It means that anybody who lost their copy through whatever reason, could not prove they are a NBC of this country.

Short form BC's or COLBs have been around a while, they're easier and cheaper to issue for the States with computerized records. So when a BC is requested as a replacement or when an original certified record will be kept on file with the election commission (as I assume would be the case here), a COLB is issued.

Federal law and US State Department guidelines make no distinction between the so-called "long form" and the "short form" or COLB as proof of citizenship. A COLB will get you a passport, for example. Or a social security card. Or a driver's license. It is proof of birthplace for all other purposes.

To be honest the birther shit is so dumb I haven't followed the whole argument on where Obama's long form is, whether he could theoretically get one or why it matters. The Constitution does not require us to know who was the attending physician at his birth. Nor does that information need to be dug up so the media and opposition can go hound his ass if he's alive and his family if he's not. Only that the State will certify that he was born on US soil within thier boundaries.

 

[JBeukema]

Nothing unconstitutional about it.

Silly rabbit.

Arizona ‘birther’ bill forces Obama to show birth certificate | Raw Story

The Republic notes that there are concerns about the bill's constitutionality.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett also expressed concern about Burges' amendment, saying that creating state-level eligibility requirements to run for federal office could violate the U.S. Constitution.

"While everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens run for president, there are obvious issues with states implementing what could become a patchwork of different tests for a presidential candidate to prove his/her citizenship," said Bennett's spokesman, Matthew Benson, in an e-mail.

While I'm sure you have no problem with states passing laws that you can't run for President if you're not a Christian, if you're gay, or if you're a atheist, the rest of us sane folk do.

Don't you know? Laws are only unconstitutional to many conservatives when its something they don't like.

The confuse 'unconstitutional' and 'unconscionable'. Both words are just hoity-toity libspeak from ivory towers of academia, you know

 

[geauxtohell]

Short form BC's or COLBs have been around a while, they're easier and cheaper to issue for the States with computerized records. So when a BC is requested as a replacement or when an original certified record will be kept on file with the election commission (as I assume would be the case here), a COLB is issued.

Federal law and US State Department guidelines make no distinction between the so-called "long form" and the "short form" or COLB as proof of citizenship. A COLB will get you a passport, for example. Or a social security card. Or a driver's license. It is proof of birthplace for all other purposes.

To be honest the birther shit is so dumb I haven't followed the whole argument on where Obama's long form is, whether he could theoretically get one or why it matters. The Constitution does not rquire us to know who was the attending physician at his birth. Nor does that information need to be dug up so the media and oppostiion can go hound his ass if he's alive and his family if he's not. Only that the State will certify that he was born on US soil within thier boundaries.

You got it right that the birther shit is dumb. It's the epitome of stupidity.

My interest is, from a philosophical view, that in a larger sense, the concept that a small radical fringe group doesn't get to change the law to suit their own purposes.

Actually, I only really became interested in the birther issue when military officers started to use their rank to try and push overtly political causes. That was my personal interest in the matter. Everything else I've learned is just ancillary.