Arizona Senate passes Obama birther bill after boost from Donald Trump

Biz Journals ^ | 04/13/2011 | Mike Sunnucks

[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.

[butterdezillion]

And that is a big bugaboo. Crap. The bill needs to be amended to require the transaction logs and complete vital records history. If this stays as it is Obama is going to get away with everything. Fukino as much as told us that they’ve got the forged long-form in their office ready to go.

I wonder if the House can amend this.

[matt1]

i think this is GREAT news... and if the bill is approved in AZ, then none of the other states’ bills would actually be necessary...

[Revel]

And just what are those other documents? Me thinks this bill is now worthless. Nothing should be allowed besides a long form birth certificate. And yes that includes from people born in Hawaii. If HI want to prevent people from getting those then we have no presidents from HI. Simple as that.

[cinciella]

Oops. I forgot.

[LyinLibs]

Exactly — they need to require ALL records even remotely related to BC be submitted.

This bill is absurd — looks like it was written by Bill Ayers or the Saudi King.

[maine-iac7]

b) a certified birth certificate that includes:

i. the date and place of birth,

ii. the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and

iii. signatures of any witnesses in attendance if applicable.

that aught to do it? COLB’s do not include the above info

[ASA Vet]

requiring 2012 presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. and are thus eligible to run for president.

The diversion from the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen requirement to merely born here is working.

[LyinLibs]

“If HI want to prevent people from getting those then we have no presidents from HI. Simple as that.”

Exactly. If HI wants to play “We have the BC but we’re not showing it,” let them play any game they want, but HI candidates cannot become president.

This whole thing jumped the shark about 2 years ago. It’s a pathetic joke, and riding atop that joke is a dirty scheming moslem.

[cinciella]

“i think it will only take one state. If Obama fails to produce the required certificate for AZ - he is done.”

You would certainly think so, and I hope so, but I could see the media spinning this to make this into a racist issue...they already see AZ in that light. I just would really love to see him shut out of all the states’ ballots. Puts a huge smile on my face, ya know?

[norwaypinesavage]

I wouldn’t get too excited about these requirements. Obama will simply file his already released “Certificate of Live Birth”, and claim that it is the only document that Hawaii will release. Then a liberal judge will declare that this meets the requirements of whatever law is passed anywhere.

[john mirse]

Let's hope and pray that Arizona passes this bill no matter how weak we think it is, because we desperately need that first state to stand up and be counted by having the courage to require presidential candidates in 2012---all of them---to provide legal proof that they are who they say they are.

Again, let's hope and pray that the courageous lawmakers of Arizona pass this historical eligibility bill, and, in the process, motivate other states to follow Arizona's great example and pass their own presidential eligibility laws: One state, then another state, then another state, and on and on right up to the 2012 presidential campaign season.

[MrB]

Actually, you’d be more accurate in stating

“then no presidential candidates from the state of HI get on the AZ ballot”

[Two Kids' Dad]

What if the AZ Secretary of State simply sues the Hawaii records people and asks for a copy of anything that proves 0bama was born there and claims standing based on the need for an honest election result in their state. There’s no way the Supremes could claim that an entire state doesn’t have standing.

[AmusedBystander]

changes that allow for other documents beside birth certificates...

Like a note from your mother or your spouse if mom is dead.

[LyinLibs]

The bill should require candidates to surrender all turbans and magic carpets at the door.

[Carry_Okie]

The Arizona Senate approved the so-called ‘birther’ bill requiring 2012 presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. of parents who were both American citizens at the time of the birth and are thus eligible to run for president.

There, fixed it, at least how it should be.

[for-q-clinton]

here’s what he’ll do.

Just show that he’s the current president of the US; therefore, he must be a natural born citizen since no one can be a US president unless they are a natural born citizen.

Now try to argue against that...you know some rat judge would accept that as an answer.

[LyinLibs]

“I wouldn’t get too excited about these requirements. Obama will simply file his already released “Certificate of Live Birth”, and claim that it is the only document that Hawaii will release. Then a liberal judge will declare that this meets the requirements of whatever law is passed anywhere.”

Exactly - this bill will land the sideshow in court, where a commie judge will rule in favor of the nearest moslem communist.

Why is AZ wording this bill to be so easily circumvented with easily-forged documents? Why not require a “recently used napkin” or a “carnival ticket torn in half?”

You either have a LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, signed by the doctor, or you DON’T.

If you were born in a tent, then you’re out of luck.

[butterdezillion]

There is if your DOH is crooked enough to steal somebody else’s BC# and give it to Obama - and the Hawaii DOH has already indicated that a prime person to have their number stolen (supposedly) has no birth records even though she’s in their birth index. IOW, either they’re lying about not having records for her, or else they have changed that record so it no longer has her name on it.

They have a forged long-form in their system already; I am almost certain of it.

And the only way anybody would be able to prove it for sure is through the transaction logs which would show that the BC# Obama’s fake long-form has originally belonged to somebody else. That would have to come through a subpoena.

I don’t know what it means that registered voters are able to initiate action to enforce that law. If all they can initiate is that the documents need to be submitted and the SOS decide whether they’re good enough, then they wouldn’t be able to challenge actual eligibility of a candidate as long as the forms were submitted and the SOS made a decision. Or am I misunderstanding something?

I think, given the abysmal record of the courts on this issue, we need a law that specifically says that a registered voter can challenge the eligibility decision of the SOS and that they specifically have legal authorization to subpoena all the birth and citizenship records for the candidate AND the transaction logs and complete vital records history for the birth and citizenship records, to determine their veracity.

I think if we have anything that doesn’t come right out and say those things, the courts will keep any law from being effective.

[phockthis]

let’s hope this one gets done