Posted on 04/13/2011 12:39:01 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
The Arizona Senate approved the so-called ‘birther’ bill requiring 2012 presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. and are thus eligible to run for president.
The measure, House Bill 2177, is aimed at President Barack Obama and those on the political right who want him to produce a birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, where his father if from.
The Arizona Legislature passed the bill 20-8 on a party-line vote in the State Senate with Republicans backing and Democrats opposing.
The measure includes some changes that allow for other documents beside birth certificates to be produced by presidential contenders. It now goes back to the Arizona House of Representatives for another vote. The House previously approved the birther bill without new Senate changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizjournals.com ...
If Obama skips Arizona, he opens up an entirely new can of worms.
Just what is he desperate to hide, anyway?
What do you think of this law as it stands Butter?
If he skips Arizona, he opens up a completely new can of worms.
Obama hasn’t released a “Certificate of Live Birth”. He’s released a Certification of Live Birth.
Important Difference Between a Certificate - vs. Certification - of Live Birth
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/important_difference_between_a.html
Actually, it should only take ONE state.>>>>>
Correct and if Trump runs you have synergy on Obaama’s birth certificate. The more Donald pounds Obama the more states will steel their spines and make a verified BC required if you want to be on the ballot. Arizona and others should make a long form BC a requirement to be on the ballot for any statewide or national office
If he skips Arizona, he opens up a completely new can of worms.>>>>>
It takes just one state to drop this bomb and force Bammy Boy into having to make a million lies, explanations and excuses
If this bill passes, I wonder what bearing it will have on the Hawaii Department of Health’s apparent decision to stop giving out copies of the original birth certificates which was being reported here earlier this week. There were reports coming out as of Monday that Hawaii would no longer give the long form birth certificates but only short forms. Previously, the state had given out the short form unless the a copy of the original was specifically asked for. Interestingly enough, before Obama’s election short forms weren’t acceptable by many government agencies, but after Obama’s birth certificate controversy, the state has moved to extend the the authority of the short forms for legal purposes. Apparently, now it doesn’t sound as though Hawaii will even give out the long form anymore.
If Hawaii simply says our state only gives out short forms to our citizens and effectively says that short forms are now full legal birth certificates in the state of Hawaii, would Arizona accept that or would a Court force Arizona to accept that?
The issue is NOT whether presidential candidates are born in the U.S., it is whether they are Natural Born Citizens. How hard is that concept to grasp? Has the majority sunk that low in intelligence?
Pray for our country on so many aspects...
That’s really funny! Who is his father? You don’t know and can’t prove who his father is. You try to convince someone that he isn’t eligible on the word of who about who his father is?
I think it needs to be amended to specifically give registered voters standing to challenge the SOS’s eligibility decision and legal authorization to subpoena all birth and citizenship records for the candidate in question - including the transaction logs and complete vital records history which alone would show whether the records have been manipulated.
Either that, or flat-out require the SOS to subpoena all the birth and citizenship records and their transaction logs and complete vital records history.
The value of granting legal standing to registered voters is that NBC can be brought before a court, rather than having a SOS who is not trained in the Constitution make such a decision. It also means that the records will be more likely to get non-politicized scrutiny. It also keeps the SOS accountable, which is important when Soros has already targeted that position to be filled with America haters. It also means that even if Obama claims he can’t get his BC because Hawaii is breaking their UIPA law by denying individuals access to their own records, those records can still be accessed because Hawaii still has to follow another state’s subpoenas.
For a million reasons, specifically giving registered voters legal standing to challenge in court the eligibility of a candidate - and specifically to subpoena the records needed to catch any records manipulation regarding birth and citizenship - is what is needed.
A person who is not at this moment in time a US citizen cannot be a “natural born citizen”. Both birth and citizenship records are critical. In an eligibility lawsuit that is heard on the merits, with discovery of critical records allowed, ALL the relevant facts can/should be addressed. And that is what we need.
I think it needs to be amended to specifically give registered voters standing to challenge the SOS’s eligibility decision and legal authorization to subpoena all birth and citizenship records for the candidate in question - including the transaction logs and complete vital records history which alone would show whether the records have been manipulated.
Either that, or flat-out require the SOS to subpoena all the birth and citizenship records and their transaction logs and complete vital records history.
The value of granting legal standing to registered voters is that NBC can be brought before a court, rather than having a SOS who is not trained in the Constitution make such a decision. It also means that the records will be more likely to get non-politicized scrutiny. It also keeps the SOS accountable, which is important when Soros has already targeted that position to be filled with America haters. It also means that even if Obama claims he can’t get his BC because Hawaii is breaking their UIPA law by denying individuals access to their own records, those records can still be accessed because Hawaii still has to follow another state’s subpoenas.
For a million reasons, specifically giving registered voters legal standing to challenge in court the eligibility of a candidate - and specifically to subpoena the records needed to catch any records manipulation regarding birth and citizenship - is what is needed.
A person who is not at this moment in time a US citizen cannot be a “natural born citizen”. Both birth and citizenship records are critical. In an eligibility lawsuit that is heard on the merits, with discovery of critical records allowed, ALL the relevant facts can/should be addressed. And that is what we need.
Um...what about an attended or unattended birth outside a hospital?
This still happens! My mom barely made it to the hospital to deliver me. Seems kind of obvious.
Maybe they are trying to force Obama to ask for an exception if that is what is on his LFBC...
I had heard, some place, that if three states demanded proof of citizenship and the person refused, that person could not run for President. Don’t know if this is true or not.
My question is answered in comment #55, where they backtrack and offer alternate documents...
Good work AZ!
Glad to see that all citizens have standing!
Have you spoken to the main sponsor of the bill? Rep. Carl Seel? Speaking to his office right now might have a positive effect as the bill out of the senate now goes back to their house...
Unless there is a provision so that the genuineness of the document can be audited - both forensically and through the transaction logs and complete vital records history in the state’s database - they will just present the forged long-form that Abercrombie was preparing the public to see, back in December.
Now that Abercrombie, Okubo, and the HI AG have gotten rid of Neal Palafox (who showed some integrity by not lying and saying he resigned for “personal reasons”), Abercrombie obviously has a new HDOH Director who is willing to break whatever laws are necessary - as evidenced by her willingness to throw out the window both HRS 338-13 (which says that copies SHALL be issued upon request, in accordance with HRS 338.16, 338.17, and 338.18) and UIPA (which allows individuals to get copies of any records naming them, with very few exceptions).
Perhaps unlike Neal Palafox, this gal would have no problem with replacing vital records microfilms in their office and at the State Records Center. She would have no problem giving Obama somebody else’s BC#.
That’s what happens when you have lawless thugs occupying positions of power. This blatant public move to disobey both HRS 338-13 and UIPA tells us all we need to know about the HDOH Director appointed to replace Neal Palafox, and may well tell us exactly why Palafox had to be replaced, and why the gang getting rid of him included 3 documented liars/deceivers: Abercrombie, Janice Okubo (the dragon sitting on the treasure to keep anybody from seeing what’s there), and the AG (who lied about the long-form not being able to be disclosed and refused to simply say whether Palafox was being investigated for Medicare fraud, and whose representative just lied about Hawaii law not allowing photocopies to be made, when HRS 338-13 says straight out that copies can be made by photocopy).
It looks to me (non-lawyer) like it does keep Obama off the ballot given his current non-offer of evidence (never even entering his COLB into evidence).
Thank you Arizona.
All that’s needed is one state to force him to do what every Presidential candidate should have done every year since 1781.
You have the courage there that’s lacking around the rest of the country.
So just what are these "other documents"? Do they include the HI "certification"? My guess is that they do, and this bill is a waste of time.
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.