Constitutional Law, Politics

Arizona Bill Would Require Proof of U.S. Birth For Presidential Candidates

Arizona legislators are again wading into national politics. With the controversial immigration bill moving toward the Supreme Court, House has passed a bill that would require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. by producing their birth certificates. It is a bill that this clearly crafted to exclude the current documents produced to show the birth of President Barack Obama. I am currently scheduled to discuss this legislation with Lawrence O’Donnell tonight

The legislation that would require presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate before they can be on the ballot in Arizona to show that he or she is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and eligible to be president.

The bill requires that Arizona’s Secretary of State actually inspect the birth certificate. In a bizarre twist, it will also accept a baptism certificate.

Of course, any barrier to Arizona for Obama would not be a huge loss since, in 2008, Obama lost the state by nine percentage points. While that was a race against a native son (McCain), Arizona has only gone Democrat once (inn 1996) since 1948. However, 13 other states are not following suit with their own proposals.

Here is the full language of the bill.

The language is crafted to specifically require a long-form birth certificate or an array of other documents, including the bizarre addition of a baptismal record (which is hardly more authoritative than the current Hawaiian record).

The question is whether this will violate the U.S. Constitution. On one level (as with the immigration law), Arizona can claim to be merely carrying out federal conditions (in this case the conditions of Article II, Section I of the Constitution).

However, it would run against the language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause under Article IV, Section 1. Hawaii already recognizes this birth and Arizona would be refusing to accept that recognition. A birth certification would appear to fall under the language of “”public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

Of course, Arizona can claim that, when there is a rivaling express provision under Article II, a state is not required to give Full Faith and Credit. Moreover, the state could argue that Full Faith and Credit requires proof in the form of these documents. On this latter argument, they are likely to cite the statement of Justice Joseph Story in Mills v. Duryee that makes references to authenticated copies:

It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.

Notably, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not generally viewed as requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage under a public policy exception as discussed in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident.

However, the issue of Arizona imposing higher showings to establish eligibility for office raises significant constitutional questions. I will be discussing this issue tonight on MSNBC.

Here is the key language:

A. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

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

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.

2. A sworn statement or form that identifies the presidential candidate’s places of residence in the United States for fourteen years.

C. In addition to the requirements of subsection B, the presidential candidate may also submit a notarized affidavit from two or more persons who witnessed the presidential candidate’s birth.

D. If the secretary of state receives any documents in place of a long form birth certificate pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 1 and cannot determine if the presidential candidate meets the requirements prescribed in Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States, the secretary of state may establish a committee to assist in the determination or hold hearings and submit any documents for forensic examination.

E. If both the presidential candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state. If the candidate and national political party committee for that committee submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, but the secretary of state believes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state.

F. A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.

Source: Arizona Republic

Jonathan Turley

395 thoughts on “Arizona Bill Would Require Proof of U.S. Birth For Presidential Candidates”

  1. I’ve said it before, but it merits repeating:

    Birthers are the superfluous nipples of politics.

    Amusing, but ultimately non-functional and a little embarrassing at the beach.

  2. W.O.W said:

    Jim presents a simple statement and everyone piles on calling him a bigot a racist a fool and on and on.

    That was mostly me and I explained why I feel justified in calling Jim out as a lying, bigoted birther idiot.

    Real nice argumentation. Lots of logic too.

    Funny, the only solid arguments I’ve seen have been refuting Jim – or would you care to explain how Vince is wrong?

    My only question is where is it? I have a long form and can present it, my wife has one, my son and daughter have one too. I am older than Obama (by a few years and so is my wife) so it isn’t an issue with technology.

    Hawai’i doesn’t issue them anymore, but, more importantly, the ‘long form’ doesn’t have any information relevant to the president’s natural born status so there is no reason to look at it.

    Show the dam long form birth certificate and move on down the road.

    You are a naive fool if you think that ‘releasing’ (and exactly how would you do that if not by posting an image on the internet?) every single document demanded of him would make any birther ‘move on down the road’.

    It seems simple to me, this isn’t going to go away and with Trump sniffing around it is only going to get worse. If he isn’t eligible to serve it will only hurt the democratic party in the next election.

    You’ve got to be kidding! I can’t think of a better wedge issue for the Democrats. Republicans are forced to choose between crossing a vocal minority in their base (that WILL be voting in primaries) and alienating the independent voters (who decide presidential elections…). If I were the Obama administration, I would just be a little disappointed that this isn’t happening closer to the election (and I’d be praying that it didn’t go away…).

    You want a congress and senate full of “Tea Baggers”? Release the birth certificate.

    That’s right – releasing the BC now would just be trying to appease the birthers and would only embolden the teabaggers. The best way to reduce their numbers is to get them to show themselves as the bigoted whackjobs that they are – the ‘birther’ issue is a great way to do that.

  4. W.O.W.

    “I am older than Obama …”

    Proof postive that with wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age …

    “Show the dam long form birth certificate and move on down the road. ”

    What part of “Hawaii does not give long form birth certificates and the one that has been posted on Factcheck.org for almost three years is the only certified certificate of birth the Hawaii Department of Health will give any citizen who was born in Hawaii” escapes your feeble mind?

    As far as Trump is concerned? Pffft – he’s a lying sack of bad toupe and is rightly being ridiculed for the silly birfer he is. Trump will back out of his “presidential” campaign as soon as this season of his failing TV show ends. He’s a publicity whore. Nothing more than that.

  5. Well, WOW, when you learn not to be Jim’s sockpuppet, come on back and try to insult me again.

    It won’t work, but feel free to try again.

    It’s always good for a laugh to watch troll flail about and fail.

  7. Jim,

    I’m not answering your question because I can’t. I’m not answering your question because it’s inane and a fine example of Circulus in Probando; circular reasoning – your question assume the answer. The fact of the matter is the requirement of office were plainly spelled out in Art. II, Sec. 1 and they chose the words “person” and “citizen”, not “men”. Now if you want to argue that James Madison didn’t know the difference between the words “men”, “women”, “persons” and “citizens”?

    Well that would be about par for the course for someone with an admitted IQ of 40.

  8. “For one thing, my IQ is a considerably higher number than room temperature”

    Centigrade I should imagine.

    By the by W.O.W is an abbreviation for Woman of Wicca. So no, I am not shouting.

    My partner and I read your stuff all the time and really enjoy it. We both agree that if we ever decide to go straight we are going to give you a call.

    Guys with low eye ques usually are well endowed. I know, we are shallow in that regard.

  10. Buddha,

    I think Jim needs a triple dose of probiotics to get his gut healthy again.

    ******
    Jim,

    Forty degrees Celsius?

  11. I must go now but thanks for all of the fun debate! We may not all agree but we still are all American!

  12. You’re just like Scalia, Jim?

    A fascist boot licking corporate toady who wouldn’t understand the Constitution if it bit you on the ass?

    Yeah, I’d buy that one.

    Except then you’d have to be wrong about a woman being able to be President, Jimbo. Because a citizen who is a woman is a person and if she’s 35, she’s eligible. So really, you’re only partly like Scalia. The rest of you is marginally less intelligent.

  15. For one the founders didn’t believe in forcing an indiividual to buy health insurance. Wait till that hits the Supreme Court and Obama loses.

  16. Ooooo. Your “gut” again, Jim.

    Really, if it keeps making loopy noises like “Obama’s not a citizen” you should go see a gastroenterologist. Or maybe an oncologist. It might be a tumor.

  17. I am just like Scalia. There are some things that are easily interpreted as to the Founders intent.

  20. Buddha Is Laughing

    No, Persons in that statement were not intended to be women by our founding fathers. Why don’t you address all of the “he” words especially the one in the oath.

Comments are closed.