Replies

1. Tired and old is no excuse for ignorance. The full faith and credit clause is a non-sequitur. There are, however, national standards for vital records and birth documentation. So, yes, most states, if not all, issue by default a birth abstract, rather than a traditional long form birth certificate, however, when such a document is actually presented, it can be physically acertained as legitimate, especially if its provided directly from the state of issue rather than from a candidate or staff member. A jpg of alleged vital record would not be sufficient. It’s dumb to sit here and pretend like we’re not talking about Obama and instead some hypothetical candidate. You’re worred about a law requiring some mythical ‘excess’ documentation, when in Obama’s case, we wouldn’t even have the minimum standard legal documentation to begin with.

The other part of your problem is that people whose births were originally registered on long forms can still get copies of these long forms. Their generally used for genealogical purposes because they list information about the parents and not just the child. If it was necessary for such documentation in order to resolve a question, such documentation can be provided. It’s silly to believe otherwise.

At least you understand the issue now. But states do, in fact, vary as to what they will produce anymore. And no one but you is even talking about a jpg. If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official. And yes, everyone with a functioning brain stem knows that has not happened to date with Obama.

And again, those are your interpretations of the legal record. Actual courts are on record disagreeing with them, so it's kind of silly to believe your personal opinion is fact. But as I said, pass a law in a given state triggering a legal test of the issue, and then the matter will be clearly documented.

At least you understand the issue now. But states do, in fact, vary as to what they will produce anymore.

I understood it from the beginning. I haven't changed my commentary except to painfully explain to you what should have been immediately obvious. But no worries, I'm here to help.

And no one but you is even talking about a jpg.

You do understand that a jpg is the entire reason that any laws are being considered?? Why do I have to keep explaining the obvious to you???

If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official. And yes, everyone with a functioning brain stem knows that has not happened to date with Obama.

Several folks here show themselves to be lacking, no offense. That's why I pointed this out ... for their benefit as well as yours.

And again, those are your interpretations of the legal record.

Feel free to explain what if any part you think is wrong.

Actual courts are on record disagreeing with them, so it's kind of silly to believe your personal opinion is fact.

I know of one court that sketchily covered this issue, but its opinion is easily dissected. Again, if you think there is something specifically unfactual, by all means, point it out and provide some actual reasoning for your belief. Appealing to unidentified cases under a presumption of infallibility is not a substantive rebuttal.

If a state passes a law requiring birth documentation for the ballot, the candidate in question will have to produce a certified document from his state, or more likely simply authorize the originating state to transmit such a document to the relevant requesting state official.

May a state constitutionally pass a law requiring candidates to provide different/more birth documentation than is required by the U.S. State Department to demonstrate citizenship? For example, the U.S. State Department accepts COLBs (or similar documents) from some states, but not from others. Stated differently, if a COLB from State X or a Long Form Certificate from State Y is sufficient to prove U.S. citizenship for purposes of the federal government, may State Y say "we don't accept that COLB or that Long Form" as sufficient to prove U.S. citizenship for purposes of placing a candidate on the ballot; we require [different documentation]?