the 1st 'birther' state

[Kulindahr]

To be honest, I'm not a hundred percent sure. Though I've heard it means all of the information was entered into a database and the originals were disposed of. Either way, there is no difference. If a "Certificate of Live Birth," which is only a fancy for a birth certificate, is valid to get a passport, join the military, enter college and prove citizenship it is more than enough to certify that he is eligible to the President.

Yet the myth persists that a person can just pay a fee and get a "Certificate of Live Birth", but a Birth Certificate shows that a person was actually born in a certain place.

Where did that come from?

 

[MercuryJones]

The "Certificate of Live Birth" document that was released very clearly states that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Were he not born there, it would list another city within the state. It also lists his parents, the date of birth, etc.

The State of Hawaii does not have any other official document to provide. It's not like he's choosing between two options. He's released what everybody born in Hawaii can provide if they ask the state for a copy of their "birth certificate."

And this nicely illustrates the futility of dealing with the lunatic birthers.

The state has already verified his birth and provided documentation. That's not enough.

And if that's not enough, there is nothing that can possibly be enough. If the birthers already allege the state of Hawaii is lying to the world, why wold they accept a birth certificate from the same state? They wouldn't - they have already established that they believe Hawaii is a conspirator.

 

[bankside]

And this nicely illustrates the futility of dealing with the lunatic birthers.

The state has already verified his birth and provided documentation. That's not enough.

And if that's not enough, there is nothing that can possibly be enough. If the birthers already allege the state of Hawaii is lying to the world, why wold they accept a birth certificate from the same state? They wouldn't - they have already established that they believe Hawaii is a conspirator.

They would clearly need to also produce a Certificate of Non-Conspiracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Huh? You can pay a fee and get a Certificate of Live Birth.

The myth is JUST pay a fee -- in other words, that you just say, "Well, I was born here, and I need to be able to prove it, so here's some money", and they print a document. That's why people say he could have really been born in Kenya, but still get that certificate.

 

[Kulindahr]

They would clearly need to also produce a Certificate of Non-Conspiracy.

Priceless!

 

[frankfrank]

Isn't GEORGIA now considering a similar bill? This is going to get ugly. I'm expecting the entire South to try to pass such laws, as well as other "red" states, and I fully except that it WILL pass in Arizona. They're recently showing us how reactionary and Nazi-esque they are in their leadership there, and keep in mind they were basically dragged, kicking and screaming, into recognizing MLK Day.

Some of these birthers will NEVER be satisfied, no matter what may ever be provided by Hawai'i or anybody else. I'm sure that many birthers are suspicious that the document has been photoshopped or something. Their minds are made up. Uh-huh, yeah, I guess BOTH newspapers conspired to pretend he was born in Hawai'i, because there was the possibility that he may someday become the President and the issue would be important.

THERE MAY ACTUALLY BE A SILVER LINING TO THIS HUGE CLOUD. A lot of Republicans and the media (led of course by Flush Bimbo, Faux Noise, etc.) will of course do all they possibly can to make Obama UNELECTABLE. Perhaps the Democratic Party will realize early that they may need to run another Presidential candidate against Obama in the primaries, such as [strike]The Bi[/strike] Hillary Clinton...maybe there will be a candidate which has a chance of beating the Republican...

 

[opinterph]

Isn't GEORGIA now considering a similar bill?

The bill was introduced in Georgia by six of the most conservative Republicans in the House and is modeled after the bill passed in Arizona. The Georgia Legislature has ended its 2010 session and the bill did not come up for a vote.

The author of the bill (Mark Hatfield) is the same legislator who recently filed a resolution to bring articles of impeachment against Georgia’s Attorney General, for his refusal to file a legal challenge to the new federal health care law. [Link]

[State Representative] Hatfield acknowledged that there's not enough time remaining in this year's legislative session to bring up his bill for a vote, but he introduced it anyway "to start a conversation" in Georgia, with the idea of re-introducing the bill in time for consideration in next year's legislative session. Hatfield believes other states will also consider imposing similar proof of citizenship on presidential candidates beginning with the 2012 presidential campaign. [Link]

An Act to amend Article 5 of Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated​

 

[MercuryJones]

These laws are just grandstanding to get the birther base in some areas excited and to instill loyalty to the fucktards proposing them.

They know nothing will come of them. Just pure politics with no actual policy implication at its most cynical.

 

[Kulindahr]

Isn't GEORGIA now considering a similar bill? This is going to get ugly. I'm expecting the entire South to try to pass such laws, as well as other "red" states, and I fully except that it WILL pass in Arizona.

Why should it get ugly? They're only asking that candidates provide proof that they meet the requirements set forth in the law.

I don't see the big deal.

 

[frankfrank]

Hasn't the proof been shown over and over again?

Even without any birth certificate, I think having both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin report his birth in Hawai'i is pretty convincing, but the certificate posted above in this thread has been public for quite a while now. Do birthers think that it was photoshopped or something?

I swear, if there was FILM of the birth, and the surroundings proving that the birth was taking place in Hawai'i, the birthers would STILL find a reason to doubt it. No amount of proof will ever convince them otherwise, no matter what.

It's an agenda - nothing more.

 

[bankside]

Why should it get ugly? They're only asking that candidates provide proof that they meet the requirements set forth in the law.

I don't see the big deal.

Hey, why is it that you are really annoyed in the other thread about the prospect of people being required to carry government ID to prove their citizenship on demand to a police officer....

...but in this thread you think it is okay for the state to make essentially the same demand of presidential candidates.

If it is good enough for a citizen to know he is a citizen without having to have the permission of a government official to hold that fact in his head, how is that any different for a citizen to know he is a citizen when running for government office?

If it would be the state's burden to show that any ordinary person going about his business is not a citizen, it would equally be the state's burden to figure out that a candidate for office was not a qualified citizen. In neither case, if I follow your logic, should the citizen be accountable to a bureaucrat to prove something which is already a fact.

 

[MercuryJones]

Why should it get ugly? They're only asking that candidates provide proof that they meet the requirements set forth in the law.

I don't see the big deal.

Of course we know that in the current President's case, the proof was issued by the State of Hawaii and then ignored.

 

[JB3]

Hey, why is it that you are really annoyed in the other thread about the prospect of people being required to carry government ID to prove their citizenship on demand to a police officer....

...but in this thread you think it is okay for the state to make essentially the same demand of presidential candidates.

If it is good enough for a citizen to know he is a citizen without having to have the permission of a government official to hold that fact in his head, how is that any different for a citizen to know he is a citizen when running for government office?

If it would be the state's burden to show that any ordinary person going about his business is not a citizen, it would equally be the state's burden to figure out that a candidate for office was not a qualified citizen. In neither case, if I follow your logic, should the citizen be accountable to a bureaucrat to prove something which is already a fact.

There's a HUGE difference between having to carry your social security card or birth certificate with you every single day and less than 10 people having to present their birth certificates once every four years.

They're HUGELY different.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey, why is it that you are really annoyed in the other thread about the prospect of people being required to carry government ID to prove their citizenship on demand to a police officer....

...but in this thread you think it is okay for the state to make essentially the same demand of presidential candidates.

If it is good enough for a citizen to know he is a citizen without having to have the permission of a government official to hold that fact in his head, how is that any different for a citizen to know he is a citizen when running for government office?

If it would be the state's burden to show that any ordinary person going about his business is not a citizen, it would equally be the state's burden to figure out that a candidate for office was not a qualified citizen. In neither case, if I follow your logic, should the citizen be accountable to a bureaucrat to prove something which is already a fact.

Being a citizen and being a candidate for president are two entirely different things.

It doesn't matter in the least if a citizen running for public office knows he's a citizen. He's not running for citizen, which is a private matter, but for office, which is a public matter. There's no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have to prove to anyone at all that he's a citizen, because he isn't responsible to anyone else. But when a person is running for public officer, he's responsible to everyone, and thus must satisfy everyone that he is in fact a citizen.

To look at it another way, one is requiring a candidate for public office to prove to the public, to which he is accountable, that he's a citizen. The other one would be requiring a citizen to prove to himself that he's a citizen, in order to be a citizen.

Totally different.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course we know that in the current President's case, the proof was issued by the State of Hawaii and then ignored.

If Arizona decides to refuse Hawaii's certificate this next time for getting Obama on the ballot, Hawaii should sue Arizona in the Supreme Court.

They'd win in a flash -- it's in the Constitution already.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a HUGE difference between having to carry your social security card or birth certificate with you every single day and less than 10 people having to present their birth certificates once every four years.

They're HUGELY different.

Good answer, on a practical level.

I've had to present my ID twice this last year for governmental things. No big deal; I dig the stuff out of the file, show it, and put it back. But I'm not going to carry it with me all the time.

 

[JB3]

Good answer, on a practical level.

I've had to present my ID twice this last year for governmental things. No big deal; I dig the stuff out of the file, show it, and put it back. But I'm not going to carry it with me all the time.

I'm almost never asked for anything except my driver's license. That'll change when I start interviewing for teaching jobs, etc., but for now my DL will suffice.