Posted on 10/26/2009 3:42:44 AM PDT by jay099
Here is a list of government and civilian websites that require a long form birth certificate.
1.) Snyder County, PA requires a long form birth certificate to obtain a US passport for anyone 15 years of age or younger:
"Even with a previous passport - a LONG form birth certificate is required..."
http://www.snydercounty.org/snyder/cwp/view.asp?a=730&Q=408544
2.) In the state of Massachusetts, a long form birth certificate is required to obtain a passport:
"A long form birth certificate is required for obtaining a passport and for travel outside the country."
http://www.dighton-ma.gov/Public_Documents/DightonMA_Clerk/clerk?textPage=1
3.) Once again, the state of Massachusetts requires a long for birth certificate for "proof of citizenship":
"If you were born in the United States, then a LONG FORM birth certificate is required – the long form must be certified with a raised seal (no photocopies)."
http://www.cityofmelrose.org/departments/assessing.htm
4.) In the state of Massachusetts, a long long for birth certificate is required in certain adoption cases:
"However, if grandchild is a dependent of a dependent under age 19, copy of grandchild’s certified (Long Form) birth certificate is required."
http://www.townofmarshfield.org/public_documents/MarshfieldMA_HR/PCHG%20Rules.pdf
5.) In Laredo, Texas a long for birth certificate is required for passport or immigration purposes:
"The long form Birth Certificate is required for PASSPORT or IMMIGRATION purposes."
http://www.laredotexas.gov/health/Birth%20-%20Death%20Application%20Final%20English%20%20Spanish%20Revised%20January%202009.pdf
6.) Presenting a short form birth certificate to obtain health insurance at IMS Health is "not acceptable":
"Photocopy of dependent's birth certificate. Must be a complete birth certificate which includes both parents' names; short form birth certificate is not acceptable."
http://staging.dakotagrp.com/3756_IMS_enrollment_guide_web/enroll/
7.) The only type of birth certificate that is acceptable by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is a long form birth certificate.
"The only type of birth certificate acceptable for travel is a birth certificate long form."
"A short form certification or birth card (cannot be used for travel)."
http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/vr/birth.htm
8.) And last of all, to play little league in San Dimas, California, you must present a (yep, you guessed it) long form birth certificate. An abstract, like Obama's COLB, is "not acceptable".
"Supply a certified birth record and proof of residence. Abstract birth certificate is Not acceptable."
http://www.leaguelineup.com/sdlittleleague/files/Registration%20Flyer%202008.pdf
So, if a short form birth certificate is not sufficient evidence of citizenship in any of these cases, then why would it be sufficient to be President of the United States?
Yes, you were arguing that. It’s obvious.
I said “candidate” because we were demanding to see his BC back when he was a candidate!
No one has ever said that a birth certificate is a requirement in the constitution. They would not have put that in there weren’t too many people at the time who had one. Today, every person running for president would have one and since it is the best evidence for birth and since the requirement in the constitution is that you must be natural born, the birth certificate must be seen. This is especially important in Obama’s case because his place of birth absolutely crucial to his natural born status.
We’re simply asking to see his BC and justifiably so. The burden of proof is on Obama. He has the BC. So what exactly are we supposed to prove?
You can’t criticize us for not having proof when so much of the evidence is being hid by Obama! It’s like a cop trying to figure out the identity of a suspect, so the suspect tells the cop that his name is Bill Smith, and the cop asks for a driver’s license for proof that his name is actually Bill Smith, but the guy refuses to give him his license and instead tells the cop that the cop has no proof that his name isn’t Bill Smith! And instead of just showing the cop his license he just goes on and on about being falsely accused and how the cop has no proof that he’s lying. Your logic just doesn’t make any damn sense!
Let me ask you this: Should Obama have even showed us his certification of live birth? The words “certification of live birth” isn’t in the constitution either. Using your flawed argument, he shouldn’t even have had to show a COLB, right?
Everyone is missing the obvious one- the entire reason this Birther thing got started. The left was challenging McCain’s NBC status. McCain provided to congress his birth certificate showing his Panama military base birth to citizen parents, and congress saw the issue so important they issued a statement declaring McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
The entire Obama Birther issue got started because, at first, the left was challenging McCain on this issue. The New York Times ran a story on what documents the candidates had released, and Hillary Clinton supporter, Phil Berg noticed that Obama hadn’t released anything- thus, the entire Birther movement was started- not by “Right Wing Nutjobs”, but by Liberal Democrats questioning both McCain and Obama’s NBC status.
Now you have given up the ‘I am defending the constitution’ argument ?? Good! I will get that one again a few times before this day is over.
Unfortunately this line of reasoning is just as silly.
Nothing personal?? LOL, First thing is he is elected president after being elected Senator of IL. He is not our friend or our business partner not our idea of the ideal president. He was elected. You sound like you have some idealistic ideas of standards of morality of those that hold office in Washington DC. I don't think you are that naive. As I remember it GWB didn't release his military records until pressure was turned up on him by press in 2004. Where was your idealistic morality then?? It was pure politics that got him to do that, much like this is pure politics. Except in this case no one will touch it because ,as I said many times on this thread, this is political poison.
‘Trolls’ LOL. As I said earlier, some of you birth-certificaters are just MSNBC trolls looking to make all Obama opposers look nuts. That’s why MSNBC is the only one that gives your ‘issue’ air time.
We didnt say any of those things you posted in #100 before the election. It was up to McCain to decide what would sell politically and he wouldnt touch it. You could have formed a 527 then and ran ads on Obama’s BC, are you saying we talked you out of doing that??
I applied for a passport in California using my Illinois birth certificate, a short form that looks pretty much exactly like the Hawaii short form, with no more or less information on it. The guy at the passport office didn't question it. What isn't acceptable is a document that California issues called a Certified Abstract of Birth, because it lists the place the certificate was issued as the place of birth.You can find the information about what the State Dept accepts and doesn't accept here.
OK, I’ll play. Consider the pressure turned up. Now comes the part where Barry yields to the pressure....
I applied for a passport in California using my Illinois birth certificate, a short form that looks pretty much exactly like the Hawaii short form, with no more or less information on it. The guy at the passport office didn’t question it. What isn’t acceptable is a document that California issues called a Certified Abstract of Birth, because it lists the place the certificate was issued as the place of birth.You can find the information about what the State Dept accepts and doesn’t accept here.
RE :” Consider the pressure turned up. Now comes the part where Barry yields to the pressure....”
Considering that only MSNBC (and maybe CNN) wants to report on it, only to embarrass other non-birth-certificater Obama opposers. I wouldnt call that much pressure. Seems like he has all the cards on this one, and you birth-certificaters have the joker.
So you don’t have a California birth certificate? You instead used your Illinois birth certificate to obtain a US passport. Obviously, it’s a California short form BC that is not acceptable for passport purposes. You couldn’t figure that out on your own? You had to attempt to correct me on something that you should’ve figured out yourself, huh?
Your comments about not using the constitution argument should be addressed to the person who made those comments, not me. Why don’t you just respond to what I actually said instead.
I don’t like how you are constantly trying to attribute comments and claims to people who have never made them.
Perhaps if you hadn't phrased yourself so sloppily and said "the California Certified Abstract of Birth is not acceptable as identification to obtain a passport" rather than claiming that, for some reason, the state department's requirements in one state are different from those in another state, I wouldn't have felt compelled to correct you.
Yes, he does have all the cards: he has the BC, he has the passport records, he has the college records, and on and on. It’s time for him to lay down his cards and try some of that transparency he’s been talking about for so long.
“Yes, he does have all the cards: he has the BC, he has the passport records, he has the college records, and on and on. It’s time for him to lay down his cards and try some of that transparency he’s been talking about for so long.”
My point is that if you cannot get a passport with a California short form BC (AKA abstract). That point should’ve been clear to just about anyone, including you. When I said “if you live in California”, I was talking about people who were born and are still in California. Yes, it was a little unclear but c’mon, I didn’t think that would confuse anyone.
Your point is pointless. It’s like correcting someone for misspelling something.
If he was born in Hawaii, like he says, why would showing his BC be damaging or incriminating?
I don’t really expect him to anyway, but I do expect the nation to demand it and the courts to force him to show it. The constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen and Obama is hiding the best evidence for it.
RE :”Yes, he does have all the cards: he has the BC, he has the passport records, he has the college records, and on and on. It’s time for him to lay down his cards and try some of that transparency he’s been talking about for so long.”
Why would he do that? He has all the cards. This is working for him. It must not be ‘time’ like you say. Is your watch broken?
The real problem with your post is a conflation of the Hawaii short form with the California Certified Abstract.There’s a specific reason that the California absract is not accepted for passport identification. That doesn’t mean that all short form birth certificates are invalid for that purpose.
Why? To prove that he meets the qualifications of the constitution. To prove that he’s not a hypocrite when he claimed that he was going to have the most transparent govt ever. But like I said earlier, I don’t expect him to ever willfully show his BC. Not someone like him. But he should and the country should force him to.
Why won’t you respond to what I said earlier? Is it because you know that your previous statements are illogical?
Here’s what I said:
“Yes, you were arguing that. It’s obvious.
I said “candidate” because we were demanding to see his BC back when he was a candidate!
No one has ever said that a birth certificate is a requirement in the constitution. They would not have put that in there weren’t too many people at the time who had one. Today, every person running for president would have one and since it is the best evidence for birth and since the requirement in the constitution is that you must be natural born, the birth certificate must be seen. This is especially important in Obama’s case because his place of birth is absolutely crucial to his natural born status.
We’re simply asking to see his BC and justifiably so. The burden of proof is on Obama. He has the BC. So what exactly are we supposed to prove?
You can’t criticize us for not having proof when so much of the evidence is being hid by Obama! It’s like a cop trying to figure out the identity of a suspect, so the suspect tells the cop that his name is Bill Smith, and the cop asks for a driver’s license for proof that his name is actually Bill Smith, but the guy refuses to give him his license and instead tells the cop that the cop has no proof that his name isn’t Bill Smith! And instead of just showing the cop his license he just goes on and on about being falsely accused and how the cop has no proof that he’s lying. Your logic just doesn’t make any damn sense!
Let me ask you this: Should Obama have even showed us his certification of live birth? The words “certification of live birth” isn’t in the constitution either. Using your flawed argument, he shouldn’t even have had to show a COLB, right?”
If he was born in Hawaii, like he says, why would showing his BC be damaging or incriminating?
I don’t really expect him to anyway, but I do expect the nation to demand it and the courts to force him to show it. The constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen and Obama is hiding the best evidence for it.
The Director of the State of Hawaii’s Health Department has verified the information contained on that Certificate of Live Birth and she has declared Obama to be a “natural born citizen.”
The Constitution requires birth in the US and not to a foreign diplomat parent and being 35 years of age, ONLY. The Constitution does not ask what hospital you were born in or who was your father.
The Attorney General of Hawaii (a Republican named Mark Bennett) has the power under Hawaii statutes to seek a subpoena for Obama’s original birth records but in the year and a half that this controversy has been in the public, Bennett has not chosen to seek such a subpoena.
No one who opposes Obama would trust a document released by him anyway. Its best that the courts do it, if that is their legal will.
Thus far all attempts to secure release of Obama’s birth records through the courts and through the Supreme Court have failed. The Supreme Court has had five opportunities to entertain cases on Obama’s eligibility and it only takes four Justices to agree to hear a case before the full court (the “rule of four). That means that the conservative justices: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts have not agreed to take on a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.