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
Goodnight, Birthers!
Now would somebody call me a cab?
Bdadman
I didn’t know until I read what you wrote that the President hadn’t released all those other documents on your list.
One thing you might not know is that the DOJ Data Integrity Board (see 5 USC 552a (u))hasn’t had a meeting in at least 5 years. I don’t think there is a single article about this, only what I posted on blogs. I found this out through the FOIA by writing to Stuart Frisch to get minutes. He is the appointed Board secretary.
Another thing no one seems to know is that DOJ doesn’t have a system for keeping records of either Privacy Act complaints or complaints of criminal acts. If you file a FOIA petition they give it a number and track it but they don’t have a system for keeping track of letters that doesn’t ask for a record.
There is an organization called Government’s Attic that has been publishing lists of FOIA complaints. If you compare that with Privacy Act lawsuits you will see that they aren’t listed. Plus I have letters from DOJ referring to other letters I wrote to DOJ that the FOIA officers claim don’t exist. They claim that they have an exemption from (e)(7) to keep records that people voluntarily sent them. They must actually have a system of records to keep letters of complaint though, even it if is just a manual file cabinet with files labeled by the names of complaining parties, and it is supposed to be a misdemeanor to create a system of records and not publish it in the Federal Register. But DOJ doesn’t prosecute its own employees.
Bdaman,
Orly Taitz! Now, there’s a credible individual!!! Some Americans don’t believe Obama was born in the United States. Some Americans don’t believe US astronauts ever walked on the moon. Some Americans believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Unfortunately, there ain’t no cure for “stoopid.”
Sorry, birther trolls, it is all over before it began. The AZ Secretary of State just accepted the COLB!
A round of beer on the house for the birthers to drown their tears.
Doc Conspiracy broke the news:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/arizona-secretary-of-state-accepts-obama-certificate/
QUOTE In a Phoenix NBC affiliate interview, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett examined a copy of President Obama’s published Certification of Live Birth and said that its contents meet the requirements of the Arizona birther bill, HB2177, which was passed by the Arizona house last Thursday and is headed to the governor for signature. Bennett stated the hospital, physician and witness signatures mentioned in the bill are not absolute requirements, but only required “if applicable”. Bennett stated that as important as the birth certificate itself is, the accompanying certification of the copy is equally important.
UNQUOTE
Of course, there can be court challenges to try to overturn the Secretarys postition. But the cases will lose. The Secretary’s ruling carries a lot of weight. And the COLB is the document that the courts will always admit as evidence under state and federal rules of evidence.
Say goodnight, birthers.
According to the interview above 11% of democrats do not think Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Looks like Orly is getting airtime on CNN
In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.
Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.
One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.
“The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch, and to obtain advice in furtherance of this supervisory authority,” he wrote. “The President also has the prerogative to obtain advice that will assist him in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities, and do so not only from executive branch officials and employees outside the White House, but also from advisers within it. Legislative efforts that significantly impede the President’s ability to exercise his supervisory and coordinating authorities or to obtain the views of the appropriate senior advisers violate the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibilities and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill.html
What was that Obama said about signing statements ?
And almost forgot. This whole issue was started by a former member of Pennsylvania’s Democratic State Committee and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and Hillary supporter. He was the first to file a lawsuit and you never heard of this being an issue for any democrat.
Now Trump is towing the Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-donald-the-gop-plays-a-crazy-trump-card/2011/04/15/AF3Mg1kD_story.html
In one of his weekly radio and Internet address’s, Obama blamed Senate Republicans,for blocking legislation that would have placed restrictions on corporate or union campaign spending after the court’s Citizens United ruling lifted many of the regulations.
Obama said
“This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark,” Obama said. “They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
This statement
The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”
Would certainly explain why he has not released
Long Form birth certificate
Kindergarten records
Punahou School records
Occidental College records
Columbia University records
Columbia thesis “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
Harvard Law School records
Harvard Law Review articles
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Original Passport record before issuance of Presidential Passport
Medical records
Complete files and schedules of Obama’s years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
Illinois State Bar Association records
The list goes on and on but remember Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN. John Podesta reiterated the point when he said Obama’s would be “the most open and transparent transition in history.”
But as we’ve seen this is a totally lie including conducting meetings accross the street from the White House to avoid it being logged in at the White House. Look at the treatment of FOIA request. Then the guy gets a Transparency Award that was closed to the media. You just can’t make this stuff up.
bdaman, It is not an issue for democrats.
bdaman Chris Matthews is very critical of the birthers, and he commended Romney for not being one of them. The country is not divided over this. The republican party is, and it will play out in their primaries.
The way you tell it it should be 100% of democrats believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
The numbers are on par with CNN’s Poll
Thursday, 14 Apr 2011, 7:21 PM EDT
A FOX News poll released earlier this month found that four in 10 American voters think there is “cause to wonder” whether the president was born in the US while 24 percent believe outright that he wasn’t.
The poll found that 84 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Independents, 47 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of self-described Tea Party members believe Obama was born in the country.
Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/obama-to-birthers%3A-i-was-born-in-hawaii-dpgonc-km-20110414_12770151#ixzz1Jgz6dHuB
“Eighty-five percent of Democrats say that Obama was definitely or probably born in the U.S., compared to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/?fbid=v40EUzlb4tt
Never heard a democrat or even an independent mention it
So when Chris Mathews asked you never heard of it?
Chris Matthews: Why Doesn’t Obama Just Release The Birth Certificate?
bdaman, Never heard a democrat or even an independent mention it. It is certainly not an issue for the anti-Obama independents on this blog.