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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Gee, that's surprising.

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

Using Hawaii's long form as an example.

The doctor and hospital name are irrelevant to establishing citizenship at birth. You can personally desire to know that, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.



>>>>

 

[Doc Jerry]

Whooah!!!

News, Views and Tattoos

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Gee, that's surprising.

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

Using Hawaii's long form as an example.

The doctor and hospital name are irrelevant to establishing citizenship at birth. You can personally desire to know that, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.



>>>>

The doctor and hospital name are irrelevant to establishing citizenship at birth.

One more time it will show specifcs of the place of birth. there will be records on file at that hospital

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

Did I say that no I did not I said the long form document will show if the document was accepted by the state registrar of 1961

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.

It's called verifing, naming the hospital as a phyical address would show where he was born. You cannot uproot a hospital and move it to another state or country without some type of record. So the hospital is a good indicator of birth place.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Gee, that's surprising.






Using Hawaii's long form as an example.

The doctor and hospital name are irrelevant to establishing citizenship at birth. You can personally desire to know that, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.



>>>>

One more time it will show specifcs of the place of birth. there will be records on file at that hospital

The "specifics" under the 14th Amendment are none of your business, the only thing that matters is the location of birth and 6c (Hospital) does not define that, 6a (Place of Birth) does.

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

Did I say that no I did not I said the long form document will show if the document was accepted by the state registrar of 1961

Your attempted word games are silly, once the State of Hawaii accepts and issues a birth document the date (whether filed or accepted) is irrelevant. Either is fine as the both show Hawaii is in possession of the originals.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.

It's called verifing, naming the hospital as a phyical address would show where he was born. You cannot uproot a hospital and move it to another state or country without some type of record. So the hospital is a good indicator of birth place.

The "Place of Birth" is already indicated as the City, County, Municipality. Under the Constitution that is all you need to determine whether the location was in the United States, your personal desire to know the hospital is irrelevant to determining citizenship at birth.

"Verifying" is for the State of Hawaii to define under it's laws, you want "verification" you talk to Hawaii, it's not a Constitutional function of Arizona to mandate.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gee, that's surprising.






Using Hawaii's long form as an example.

The doctor and hospital name are irrelevant to establishing citizenship at birth. You can personally desire to know that, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The doctor and hospital do not show that the forms were accepted by the State Registrar. The doctor and hospital show - well - the doctor and hospital.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.



>>>>

One more time it will show specifcs of the place of birth. there will be records on file at that hospital

The "specifics" under the 14th Amendment are none of your business, the only thing that matters is the location of birth and 6c (Hospital) does not define that, 6a (Place of Birth) does.





Your attempted word games are silly, once the State of Hawaii accepts and issues a birth document the date (whether filed or accepted) is irrelevant. Either is fine as the both show Hawaii is in possession of the originals.

The Hospital is contained in box 6c of the Hawaii Long Form, the Place of Birth is located in box 6a. 6c is irrelevant to determine citizenship, all that is needed is 6a and that information is on the short form.

It's called verifing, naming the hospital as a phyical address would show where he was born. You cannot uproot a hospital and move it to another state or country without some type of record. So the hospital is a good indicator of birth place.

The "Place of Birth" is already indicated as the City, County, Municipality. Under the Constitution that is all you need to determine whether the location was in the United States, your personal desire to know the hospital is irrelevant to determining citizenship at birth.

"Verifying" is for the State of Hawaii to define under it's laws, you want "verification" you talk to Hawaii, it's not a Constitutional function of Arizona to mandate.


>>>>

The document according to Arizona is a fraud so no place of birth has been established.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The document according to Arizona is a fraud so no place of birth has been established.

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President submitted to a government representative (acting in an official capacity to require or receive such a document) for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.


Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".



Such a revaluation should be interesting.



[And no, posting a image on a web site is not submission to a government entity and no an analysis by an anonymous internet poster called "Dr. Demento" (or whoever it was) is not a declaration by the government of Arizona.)


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The document according to Arizona is a fraud so no place of birth has been established.

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.


Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".



Such a revaluation should be interesting.


>>>>

Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".

The new law is proof that arizona thinks the document is a fraud

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.

Translate please? Support what with what?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The document according to Arizona is a fraud so no place of birth has been established.

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.


Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".



Such a revaluation should be interesting.


>>>>

Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".

The new law is proof that arizona thinks the document is a fraud

No it's not. The author of the bill says has has nothing to do with past elections, it's about establishing a process for future elections.

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.

Translate please? Support what with what?[/QUOTE]


Exactly. You said that Arizona determined it was a fraud. IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED to the government of Arizona so it appears you are making stuff up.



>>>>

 

[kyzr]

WOW. I hope more states pass the birther law. That fight could take years to resolve!?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.


Then provide a link showing that the government entity that said document was submitted to performed an investigation and officially pronounced the document to be a "fraud".



Such a revaluation should be interesting.


>>>>

The new law is proof that arizona thinks the document is a fraud

No it's not. The author of the bill says has has nothing to do with past elections, it's about establishing a process for future elections.

Please support that any candidate for Office of the President was submitted to a government representative for the State of Arizona during the last presidential election cycle.

Translate please? Support what with what?

Exactly. You said that Arizona determined it was a fraud. IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED to the government of Arizona so it appears you are making stuff up.



>>>>[/QUOTE]

If arizona thought that document was obama's true birth record and deed to citizenship it never would have any need of this law.


Support what?

 

[Toro]

WOW. I hope more states pass the birther law. That fight could take years to resolve!?

Thus far, 15 states have introduced birfer laws. Only AZ has had one that has gone to the governor. The rest have died. Most are in Republican states.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/156813-the-birfer-state-law-tracking-thread.html

Also, it is unlikely that this will take years to resolve. If it does, it will most likely be set aside until after the election.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

You can keep repeating it all you want, it doesn't matter in the least. Hawaii has affirmed that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, multiple times. That is all that's needed. I don't care if that form was signed by Santa Claus, it just doesn't matter.

The only authority that can contradict the State of Hawaii on this matter is the Congress of the United States, as per the Constitution.

You can make up all the additional requirements you want, the State of Arizona cannot make a law that requires any of them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

You can keep repeating it all you want, it doesn't matter in the least. Hawaii has affirmed that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, multiple times. That is all that's needed. I don't care if that form was signed by Santa Claus, it just doesn't matter.

of course the democratic run state of hawaii 2007 would accept it they are corrupt enough to do it. However the 1961 state registrar did not.

 

[Ravi]

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

You can keep repeating it all you want, it doesn't matter in the least. Hawaii has affirmed that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, multiple times. That is all that's needed. I don't care if that form was signed by Santa Claus, it just doesn't matter.

of course the democratic run state of hawaii 2007 would accept it they are corrupt enough to do it. However the 1961 state registrar did not.

the governor at the time was a Republican. Of course she is Jewish so I fully expect the birfers to now take up the conspiracy that the Jews are plotting to take over the world and that is why she pretended Obama was an American citizen.



I honestly can't imagine how anyone could be stupider than you, bigreb. Mind boggling.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can keep repeating it all you want, it doesn't matter in the least. Hawaii has affirmed that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, multiple times. That is all that's needed. I don't care if that form was signed by Santa Claus, it just doesn't matter.

of course the democratic run state of hawaii 2007 would accept it they are corrupt enough to do it. However the 1961 state registrar did not.

the governor at the time was a Republican. Of course she is Jewish so I fully expect the birfers to now take up the conspiracy that the Jews are plotting to take over the world and that is why she pretended Obama was an American citizen.



I honestly can't imagine how anyone could be stupider than you, bigreb. Mind boggling.

Honestly a rino is a rino nothing but democratscan come from a democratic controlled state.

the governor at the time was a Republican

The govenrnor never varified anything. try again.

 

[The T]

of course the democratic run state of hawaii 2007 would accept it they are corrupt enough to do it. However the 1961 state registrar did not.

the governor at the time was a Republican. Of course she is Jewish so I fully expect the birfers to now take up the conspiracy that the Jews are plotting to take over the world and that is why she pretended Obama was an American citizen.



I honestly can't imagine how anyone could be stupider than you, bigreb. Mind boggling.

Honestly a rino is a rino nothing but democratscan come from a democratic controlled state.

the governor at the time was a Republican

The govenrnor never varified anything. try again.

DANG Big Reb? YEW fer-got JEEWISSSH!

What is mind boggling is RAVIOLI...

 

[WorldWatcher]

the governor at the time was a Republican

The govenrnor never varified anything. try again.

"You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it's, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It's been established. He was born here."

Linda Lingle
Republican
Governor, State of Hawaii

Right Now - Hawaii Gov. Lingle answers the birthers, who remain surprisingly unconvinced​

>>>>

 

[Vast LWC]

"You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it's, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It's been established. He was born here."

Linda Lingle
Republican
Governor, State of Hawaii

Right Now - Hawaii Gov. Lingle answers the birthers, who remain surprisingly unconvinced​

>>>>

And that, according to the Constitution, is the end of Arizona's legislation.

 

[Flopper]

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.

The point is that the long form provides documentation for the state to disqualify him claiming he is not a natural born citizen, thus not meeting the constitutional requirements. If he submits the short form, they can claim he does not meet the requirements of the bill.

The short form just provides the names of parents. The bill does not ask for just a birth certificate. It asks for proof that the candidate meets the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 (The Presidency).

 

[Wicked Jester]

"You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it's, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It's been established. He was born here."

Linda Lingle
Republican
Governor, State of Hawaii

Right Now - Hawaii Gov. Lingle answers the birthers, who remain surprisingly unconvinced​

>>>>

And that, according to the Constitution, is the end of Arizona's legislation.

How so, buddy?

Arizona is still going to require it of all future contenders, too include Obama in '12. And they rightfully should if they want to be put on a state ballot.

You lib's can't help yourselves but think that everything is an attack on your beloved annointed one failure of a president. What this bill will do is put to rest rumours once and for all. If it had been in place during the last election, and Arizona held up the validity of his birth, Obama's incompetent ass would be facing far less questioning of his status.

Quit playing the victim card lib's, and look at the bigger picture. I know you all are scrambling to defend a miserably failing president, but it's time to open up your minds.