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. Stamford Liberal

    Are you saying that Obama was born in a hospital and the record of birth was signed by the nurse or doctor?

  2. Vince Treacy

    You are avoiding the question that it can’t be proven without a shadow of doubt. You argue the legality but that does in no way prove 100% certainty.

  3. Anonymously Yours

    You proved my point. When Utah went to statehood, women lost that right.

  4. buddha

    like your idea about strapping the sheriff to the chair, but lets hook it up to a tall steel post during a thunder storm and find out about the power of prayer.

    i know what i’ll be praying for.

  5. Elaine,
    I want my country back from the Teapublicans and the Birthers and the tenthers! That was one crazy video

  9. You know something is interesting Jim… That although women may not officially had the right to vote in elections they certainly were very instrumental in all sorts of aspects….

    One interesting tidbit of history is Jeannette Pickering Rankin…. she was the first woman in the U.S. Congress. A Republican, she was elected statewide in Montana in 1916 and again in 1940. A lifelong pacifist, she voted against the entry of the United States into both World War I and World War II, the only member of Congress to vote against the latter. She is the only woman to be elected to Congress from Montana.

    Now look at those dates…. initially she could not vote for herself…but could vote in legislation affecting the rest of the country….

    Utah…very progressive….gave women the right to vote….guess what….in going from a territory to a state…women lost that right… It is about as crazy as your Obama birth certificate issue…

  10. That moron Trump, and I use the term advisedly, was shown on the O’Donnell segment saying ignorantly that a COLB is not a birth certificate.

    Donald, it IS a birth certificate.

    Omadon!

  11. Jim, April 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm asked Vince Treacy

    “Just because Hawaii granted a COLB, Does that mean they can prove without a shadow of doubt that Obama was actually born in HawaII?”

    Jim, in a courtroom, the COLB is prima facie evidence, and stands as proof of birth unless competent evidence is introduced to rebut it.

    So the COLB is proof in any criminal or civil proceding.

    There is no known legal concept of beyond a shadow of a doubt, as Mike noted.

    Now, do you have a valid birth certificate showing that Obama was born elsewhere. Like Kenya. Like one produce by LDS?

    Thought not.

  12. Jim, since you asked me, yes, a woman can be President.

    The idea that a woman cannot be President is a stupid, crank constitutional theory that has no serious support anywhere.

    I debated this with a character named James E Boyle. That wouldn’t be you, would it?

    Readers can follow the argument starting here; I am not repeating it.

    http://jonathanturley.org/about/#comment-58955

    Quote:

    James E. Boyle 1, June 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    When have we changed the constitution to allow women to run for national political office? Which amendment allows for this? Under the Articles no founder wrote that women should run for office let alone vote. We changed the vote but what about political office?

    Vince Treacy 1, June 2, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    This is an old and totally invalid argument. It has been argued and refuted on this site already.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/09/presidential-pronouns-is-hillary-barred-from-taking-office-as-a-female/

    Professor Turley has a search window on this site, and the discussion can be accessed by keyword search.

    Incidentally, women were NEVER barred from office by the Constitution. They were just denied the vote by the state. Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, and was elected in 1916, four years before the 20th Amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified in 1920! She was elected in Montana, which had granted women the vote.

    The use of the he or her pronoun never excluded women from the protections of the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment’s ban on anyone being a “witness against himself.”

    I hope this news is not too shocking to you.
    Unquote

  14. BIL,

    “Smells like an electrical fire.”

    Smells more like … wood. A block of wood to be exact 🙂

    ——————————————–

    rafflaw,

    “It is a 1005 certainty that Birther Jim and WOW are one and the same. Would they be Birther Twins?”

    Lol

  18. Jim,

    “No, any doubt I have is simply my gut instinct and the fact that the state of Hawaii could only go on what was given to them.”

    Dingleberry … the Department of Health receives birth records from hospitals. An individual just doesn’t walk into the Health Department and say, “Here are birth records. Record them.” Just as birth announcements aren’t information based on information given to the papers by someone who just walks in off the street. They are given the information by the Health Department … and where does the Health Department get the information … just don’t hurt your lonely brain cell mulling that over.

  19. That’s precisely what I mean, Elaine.

    After all, such a clever ruse took such effort to see through, Oh Sarcastic One. 😉

Comments are closed.