You're right, the Constitution doesn't say anything about birth certificates and so a state could presumably come up with some different kind of test. Maybe a state could require that a candidate produce a live witness who can testify that he/she was present at the birth and observed the child often enough thereafter that he/she is certain that the candidate is the same person he/she saw being born. But, who can pass that test?
I don't think the Full Faith & Credit clause requires the use of birth certificates, but if they are used, I believe that a state will have to accept the certificate recognized by the issuing state as a public record.
Wouldn't it be easier for the House of Representatives to just subpoena the Hawaiian records?
Without a legal record like a Birth Certificate.....how is one able to determine the age and National Born Citizenship of a potential Presidential Candidate? The other states don’t have to accept any BullSH!T when it comes to possible questions regarding the future Commander in Chief.
I think the Framers intent for presidential eligibility is that there would be NO DOUBT or controversy surrounding a candidate who would become Commander in Chief of our armed forces.
Barry has no witnesses to his birth, No documentation, No proof of his legal age, his legal name, or his citizenship status. Obama couldn’t get a job at Burger King with his credentials. Obama is applying for the most powerful position in the world. It’s his duty to supply all his bona fides, character witnesses, etc. He has refused to do any of that.
There should be no DOUBTS. There is no RIGHT to run for the Presidency.
He should have never even been considered for POTUS much less put on the ballot. He is ineligble no matter how you look at it and a national security risk.
The proof is his last 2 years. He is an anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-capitalist, Marxist, Muslim, narcissistic-sociopath bent on destroying America from within.
The Republican congress should start impeachment hearings until Barry proves that he is eligible to be POTUS. Of course he can’t and he should be removed from office.
If the Congress won’t do it, the Supreme Court should.
I looked at that some more, and there was a case where someone went through a sex change operation to become female, had their BC from that state amended to show the new gender, and got married in Kansas to a guy. When the husband died a relative showed up contesting whether the wife could automatically inherit as a wife because Kansas doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. At issue was whether Kansas had to accept the BC-issuing state’s ruling that gender was determined by current anatomy or whether Kansas could use their own criteria for determining gender (based on anatomy at birth).
The court and the appeals court agreed that Kansas could apply its own criteria, not necessarily having to accept the amended BC’s determination that the person was now female at the time of the marriage in Kansas. SCOTUS wouldn’t take the case so the lower rulings stood.
And there’s the big issue whether marriage certificates issued by states which have same-sex marriage have to be accepted in other states which only allow male-female marriage. AND whether the certificates, if accepted, have to mean that people in same-sex “marriages” get the same benefits.
There’s also this at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf which talks about how prevalent document fraud is, including with documents that appear genuine. It talks about states needing to decide what documentation to require in order to catch and stop document fraud. The idea is that states SHOULDN’T just automatically accept a birth certificate as proof without other documentation as well.
I haven’t fully digested that report but from the first reading of it I think that the way a person would get to the bottom of identity fraud where a fake is used to create genuine documents would be to have the birth and citizenship records and look at the logs which say when they were generated and/or amended and on what basis. Which is actually what this kind of bill would require.
It would be great if the House would subpoena the records. I contacted Issa and a couple others asking them to do exactly that. They’re not going to though. The media would eat them alive, and they don’t think it would be an effective use of their time.
I begrudgingly looked at other options when I realized they weren’t going to do it. The CRS says the states are responsible for vetting so the states would be a good place to do it, if only because we can quote the “experts” as agreeing. But there are other advantages to the states doing it as well.
The states by actually using the 2-citizen-parent interpretation can force the courts to rule on the definition of NBC, which is critical.
And the states can grant regular people the chance to both scrutinize the records and to present an argument before the court, which is important because that is the only way to insure that an AG who likes the candidate doesn’t just deliberately leave out information or otherwise screw up the court case.
To specifically get rid of Obama before 2012 would require the House or a state AG to investigate, but even at that the process probably wouldn’t be done by the time 2012 got here, and there would be political heck to pay because of the media.
Going the route with the states, we can bring back all the quotes people gave saying that if we had problems with Obama we should pass an eligibility law - which they acknowledged would be a reasonable way to resolve these questions and issues. There isn’t a decent argument that the media could even attempt to make (although I’m sure they will amaze me with their stupidity anyway. lol)
My first choice in dealing with Obama would have been a Congressional or state AG investigation. Believe me, I’ve tried to get that, and it’s just not gonna happen. But we eventually need state eligibility bills anyway, and there are some bright sides to doing it this way as well.