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
That this is naked racism is obvious to anyone who has more than two working synapses. I had a “conversation” with a guy yesterday. I use the term conversation loosely because he prattled on and an on. No one else could get a word in edgewise. He kept referring to “that thing we got now” for President, and never once mentioned Obama by name, nor did he call him the President. Not once in a half hour. It was “that thing we got now,” over and over.
If anyone thinks they can convince me this clod was not a birther racist, it ain’t gonna happen.
Bill Oreilly said the other night that Obama got the Conn. ss# no pun intended 🙂 because his father lived in Conn for several years and thats how Obama got the number.
Categorically false
p.s. Orly’s false allegations about SS# is an unmitigated load of crap – I assume that the reporter didn’t call her on it because he’s not familiar with how to debunk that
could you provide us a link to Doc C’s or would you like to debunk it yourself
Not interesting enough Kev, I’ll pass.
Kay,
Bdaman is right – President Obama hasn’t ‘released’ anything on that list. Which makes him the 44th president not to do so. It can also be said (entirely truthfully) that President Obama has released more information regarding his natural born status (including what is considered indisputable proof [at least lacking evidence to the contrary] in any US court including the SCOTUS) than any of his opponents or predecessors. Asking for his kindergarten records (and claiming he hasn’t been transparent regarding his background) is just an attempt by bigots that don’t like the president to go on a fishing expedition through his records. When you start demanding more documentation from the first black president than has ever been demanded of a president before and accuse him of obfuscation when he is the most open president (as regards released personal information, anyway…) in the history of the country the obvious question is why. I would suggest you consider that carefully before you buy into Bdaman’s bigoted meme.
Bdaman,
Get Orly on TV as much as possible! Your entitled to your opinion that Trump and the birthers hurt the President’s reelection chances, but Turdblossom (he’s a slimy fuck, but he’s not stupid and he’s been trying to cast the birthers as a Democratic ploy for months…) and I disagree. I think that you’re politically naive if you think the birthers cost the president even a single vote – or do you know someone who thinks President Obama is doing a good job, but wont vote for him unless he proves he was born in Hawai’i (again)? If not, there is no political cost to NOT appeasing the birthers. In fact, I believe there is substantial gain in letting the birthers get media attention – as in more people watching when the birthers hoist themselves on their own petards (like the Arizona law – it’s already failed to do the job that Vince pointed out it was designed to do [bar President Obama from the ballot – not a tactic that any patriotic American would have anything to do with…] so all it can do now is generate litigation costs for the state and potentially bar Republicans from the ballot (although even that is unlikely). The clause granting standing to everyone is going to be a nightmare for the Arizona SoS until the bill is struck down (just more evidence that this was an incompetent attempt at a nakedly partisan scheme against the POTUS [not to mention that it is repugnant to the Constitution…]).
p.s. Orly’s false allegations about SS# is an unmitigated load of crap – I assume that the reporter didn’t call her on it because he’s not familiar with how to debunk that (most people are unaware of the great breadth and depth of fallacious birther memes created out of whole cloth for their seditious purposes. The only thing you do by repeating such horse shit is to show yourself to be an unprincipled liar (if you were ignorant of the fact that Orly’s allegations are complete and utter BS that’s no excuse at all, given the source). This charge(like the rest of Orly’s allegations) has no merit whatsoever, wouldn’t you agree? (If you disagree, then I will expect you to argue Orly’s SS# case on its merits – which is impossible as it is a baseless charge made an incompetent mail order lawyer who is beating the odds every day she goes without being sanctioned or disbarred.
Don’t you love it
It took me a while to notice it, but my earlier post should read as follows: Birthers are just wackos in sheeps clothing!
You are a glutton for punishment, bdaman.
Mr Treacy, You seem to be under the impression that merely being born in the United States makes one a citizen. However, in the year following the Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case if Lee Sing Far (1899). In that case, the Ninth Circuit interpreted Ark as follows;
“lf appellant was born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of her birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were here carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, she would become at the time of her birth a citizen of the United States, and be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, as such, including her right to land and remain in the United States.”
There is no question that the Ninth Circuit found the parents domicile to be integral to the determination of citizenship of someone born on U.S. soil. Domicile is the place you go home to. Obama Sr. went home after he completed his studies. He was only here on a student visa.
Knowing that the Ninth Circuit considered domicile of the parents to be a factor in determining citizenship, can you cite any subsequent cases in which the domicile of the parents was determined to be irrelevant? I know that you consider it to be irrelevant, but can you cite a decision of the Ninth Circuit or SCOTUS that supports your position? In addition can you cite a case in which the mother was permanently domiciled, but had recently married an alien (the father/husband) who was only here temporarily as a student, in which the child was determined to be a citizen.
Before debating whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen (IAW Article II, Section 1), don’t you think you should first establish that he is a citizen? Please support your position by providing citation from actual court cases that were decided on the merits.
In the midst of all this birther nonsense, there are two good questions that get lost: Who is responsible for qualifying the President and Vice President? If a President or Vice President is found to be unqualified for any reason after being elected, what happens under the law?
It’s my belief that the Constitution grants the power of qualification to presidential electors and to the U.S. Congress. In those states where electors are required to cast their votes according to the popular vote, electors could be forced to cast a vote for a candidate they know to be unqualified. However, there are states where electors can choose to be a “faithless elector” and cast a vote instead for a candidate that is qualified. Furthermore, after the electoral votes are cast, Congress–with the approval of one Senator and one Congressman–can file objections regarding a candidate’s qualifications. In any case, I don’t believe it’s the job of a state’s Secretary of State to determine the qualifications for federal office.
In the event that an unqualified person is elected, it’s the gut feeling of the birthers that all the laws the President signed are invalid, creating a constitutional crisis. It’s my gut feeling that the doctrine of “officer de facto” applies to the President, just as it would to any other government official. All the treaties and laws the unqualified President signed would still be legal. There would be no constitutional crisis.
It’s also the birthers’ gut feeling that an unqualified President can’t be impeached because he’s not the legal President. They have suggested he can be removed from office by the Supreme Court or by a military court. It’s my gut feeling that all Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty and an unqualified President would be treated as the legal President until proven otherwise by the process of impeachment, which is spelled out in the Constitution as the ONLY way a sitting President can be removed from office.
I know what my gut feeling is, but it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if the law doesn’t support it. What does the body of law say in answer to the two questions I posed in the first paragraph?
Believe it or not MS. Elaine all the girls I dated and one I married except for my current wife were all white, blond haired, blue eyed women. It was just something about there Lilly white skin pressed against my dark body 🙂
Bdaman,
C’mon, admit it–you have a thing for bleached blondes with fake eyelashes who are frequent fliers on the crazy plane.
😉
My bad Ms. Elaine
Bdaman,
I wasn’t blaming you. I think CNN has made some pretty bad decisions in the past year or so. To name two: The hiring of Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch as CNN contributors.
What Elaine said! Birthers are just rackets in shells clothing.
Thanks Buddha, I always like to ask what if.
Nice teapot you’ve got there, bdaman.
Too bad you can’t get that tempest out of it.
Bdadman
I didn’t know until I read what you wrote that the President hadn’t released all those other documents on your list.
And he’s suppose to be the most transparent president ever.
Notice how Orly raised the SS # fraud and John King didn’t try to rebut it but affirmed that Orly is claiming Obama committed a felony by using a fake SS# not assigned to him.
I would of suspected John King would of said, thats not true, the president is not using a SS# belonging to someone else. Notice the guest didn’t say anything either about the SS#. Then at the end she tried to raise the SS# again and King said he was pitting an end to this interview.
Bdaman,
Orly Taitz! Now, there’s a credible individual!!!
First of all don’t blame me, blame CNN. Second of all they gave her alot more time than the other guest. And third just what did John King try to infer by playing devils advocate at around the 9:45 mark.