Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

Well I cant say that I blame her. Bringing down Obama would exciting, but in the same token, probably kill her career. But why have this bill when its already within the confines of the Constitution? Kinda seems like an oxymoron.

Article II section 1.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by backinblack
So tell me, how does a Short Form 100% prove all requirements of "natural born citizenship" ??

It's clear that you are unaware of how birth certificates work here in the US. Undoubtedly, you haven't researched the issue as some of us have, or you wouldn't be saying the things you are and asking the questions you ask. But it's good to ask and learn.

In 2001, when The Hawaii Dept of Health went "paperless", they entered the information from ALL their birth records (long forms) into the computer. When someone orders a Birth Certificate, the Health Dept prints out, on colored security paper, a birth certificate (known as the short form).This is what Obama scanned and put on his website and what Factcheck.org borrowed and took pictures of. The information on this short form comes directly from the file of the long form. So, that means that the long form says "Place of Birth: Honolulu, HI." That means Obama was born in Hawaii to a US citizen, and is therefore, without a doubt, a US citizen at birth.

Now, you can argue that being a US citizen at birth is not necessarily proof of being a natural born citizen, but that argument only gets made on forums and blogs by people who think they know the minds of the framers, who didn't, in fact, define the phrase 'natural-born citizen'.

Has it not already been shown that by illegal means and very few people involved, a short form was quite easy to obtain back then?

Back in 2007? That's when Obama got his short form. You seem to think that a long form and a short form have different information on them. That's NOT the case. EVERYTHING on that short form came DIRECTLY from the long form, which is kept (physical original and on record on the computer) in the Hawaii Health Dept.
.

Originally posted by tungus
Yes. You either show your birth certificate or you don't qualify.
How hard could that be?

Nice try, but that’s not what the Arizona bill would do.

The Arizona bill isn’t asking for a birth certificate, it’s asking for a specific format of birth certificate. When several states, including Arizona, have stopped issuing birth certificates in the format the Arizona bill requires, don’t you think that creates a problem?

Of course, that might be a problem for someone with dual citizenship so you might want to keep that locked.

Since automatic involuntary operation of foreign law — like acquiring another citizenship by virtue of birth — has no influence over US citizenship, no, there’s no problem.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Though i understand your view, there is evidence that would support a counter claim.

Once again the Obama campaign has bungled a matter that should be fairly easy to resolve by ponying up a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. This is not a “Birth Certificate.” The title alone is troublesome. I am looking at the Birth Certificates for my wife and me. We were born in Missouri. The documents state, “Certificate of Live Birth.” I check my son’s, who was born in the District of Columbia. It also states, “Certificate of Live Birth.” Barack’s campaign is offering up a “CERTIFICATION.” That’s different. A normal Certificate also includes: 1. No attending physician signature or license number 2. No address for the attending physician or hospital 3. No parent signature 4. No parent DOB or age of parent or parent place of birth. 5. Father’s race would not be “African”, that is country of origin. Race would be black or Negro (1960′s) 6. Was this a single birth or multiple birth. 7. No Registrars name or signature.

www.noquarterusa.net...


There is available evidence that may support the counter claim that Obama isn't a citizen. Now we the citizenry will never know the truth. But regardless, for the sake of the thread, I think Brewer knew that it could end her career if she pushed further with this bill. The backlash from such an investigation could either make you a hero or zero.

reply to post by aptness

Nice try, but that’s not what the Arizona bill would do.

Um no. As a resident of Az, I can assuredly tell you that you are wrong.

The Arizona Senate has approved a revised bill requiring presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens eligible to run for the office. The bill approved Wednesday gives candidates additional ways to prove they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

It has been all over the news and papers, and assuming that they are looking for a particular format is spreading misinformation. Thats what the liberal media may have told you but ...uhhhh..NO!

The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the right to determine how federal elections are conducted.

www.abc15.com...'birther'-bill

Originally posted by tungus
This could go away really fast and forever....if we only saw the birth certificate.

Says the guy who previously alluded to Obama’s dual citizenship as “a problem.” You could at least be honest and admit “nothing Obama can do or show will convince me he is eligible to be President.”

Obama is the troll here. He is the one trolling by creating the issue in first place.

The issue, besides being completely of their own invention, exists only in the minds of birthers.

I wonder how much costs the taxpayer the legal fees for his records to be kept sealed?

Obama’s vital records are sealed, by law, just like anyone else’s. Including yours.

If you’re worried about the Department of Justice spending money defending the President when he is sued, like their job mandates, maybe you should tell your bither friends to stop filing suits. I mean, after the 80+ suits dismissed, rational people would have understood the courts’ decisions by now.

I am more interested in his papers from Harvard than the birth certificate.

This is telling about your motivations, but your personal curiosity about what the President wrote when he attended school is neither a meritorious nor a relevant reason to disclose his vital records, being absolutely immaterial to his Article II eligibility.

reply to post by HabaneroPepper


Then obviously it was signed into law no problem too, right?

As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates'… this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."

link

""""There is more than enough proof of his birth certificate and even pictures of it,"""""


You post a picture of his Long Form Birth Certificate and I will give you my Home...Yes, it is paid for....Valued at $212,000.00 right now....It's your's just for a picture of his long form birth certificate you say there is a picture of....

That will end this lie right here...There can't be a picture of something that does not exist.....TPTB may make him up a fake one but it will be disproven because of ink and paper content of that era....Barry is screwed and it's just a matter of time now....

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
Um no. As a resident of Az, I can assuredly tell you that you are wrong.

I don’t have to be a resident of Arizona to read the bill and know what it says. You, on the other hand, seem to be getting your ‘information’ concerning this bill from news reports (“it has been all over the news and papers”).

and assuming that they are looking for a particular format is spreading misinformation.

House Bill 2177—

16-507.01(B) The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include ... attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn under penalty of perjury:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

How is specifically requesting a “long form birth certificate” that includes the “signatures of any witnesses in attendance” not “looking for a particular format”?

The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the right to determine how federal elections are conducted.

Not what the qualifications for federal offices are, or what the format other states birth certificates must use.

reply to post by HabaneroPepper


noquarter is a BLOG. In other words, the blogger can write whatever he wants. It cannot be used as a credible source of facts. And many of his 'facts' are wrong.

The title of the document is irrelevant and each state chooses what they use. The information on both is the same. HERE is my husband's short form and it's titled "Certificate of Live Birth", so that blows your guy's theory.

The long form just has MORE information than the short. And the registrar's name and signature are absolutely on Obama's CoLB. See the Second Picture

You can read more about birth certificates HERE

And I did a thread a while ago looking into it all - and that's HERE

I love Habanero peppers!

16-507.01(B) The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include ... attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn under penalty of perjury:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance


This should be mandatory for ALL PUBLIC Servants...They are PUBLIC servants and that being the case should be made to furnish anything the public requires to satisfy them as to who and what they are.....their health, past records, etc......BUT, we'll never get this as long as TPTB run this country.....Might as well quit talking about it till people get off their A$$es and do something to change this Nation back to the Nation is was created to be...

200 Yrs. ago the U.S. was sugar, we have turned it now, to $hit....We let it happen so WE are to Blame.....You cannot deal with EVIL and come out ahead.....We need to remember this......

reply to post by Caji316


Not all states issue long forms. In fact very few do. I THINK, but I'm not sure yet, that even Arizona does NOT issue the long form! This law would make Arizonans ineligible to be on the ballot in AZ!

Long forms may become obsolete in years to come, as many states have begun to use Electronic Birth Registration systems.
..
Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database
...
Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels .

Source

reply to post by Sinnthia

As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates'… this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona."

Whats apparent, is the lack of Constitutional knowledge on Brewers part.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I love Habenerro Peppers

Me too! Got my garden growing again!

On topic: I think the argument between whether Obama is or isnt a citizen will go on for decades to come. I was trying illustrate that regardless of what information is presented, if that information doesn't coincide with yours ( using you as an example ) then it is deemed null and void. Same can be said for those who wish to believe that he isnt a citizen.

The only thing that raises my eyebrow, is the very fact that in the 60's, ( knowing hawaii became a state in 59 ) didnt have the racial option " African American " back then. Thats the only thing that concerns me. The option available for race determination in the 60's was " Negro ".

Former Hawaiian Senior Elections Clerk, Tim Adams, Provides Sworn Affidavit Indicating Obama was Not Born In Hawaii - And Joins Hawaiian Governor and Former DPH Chairman, Brian Schatz, As List of Eyewitnesses To Shocking Roster of Mounting Evidence Against Obama Grows

thedailypen.blogspot.com...

Former senior elections clerk, Tim Adams, became the third of current or former Hawaiian officials bearing intimate knowledge about Obama's natal documentation to formally indicate that the Aloha State does not possess an original, 1961 birth certificate documenting the natural-born citizenship of Barack Obama. Adams says Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii, but he does not know where else Obama might have been born because there is no original documentation showing his attested birthplace.

reply to post by aptness

The Arizona bill isn’t asking for a birth certificate, it’s asking for a specific format of birth certificate.

The above quote suggests that your stating that the bill is asking for a specific format. According to HB 2177, they are simply suggesting that the Constitution be followed. Is that to much to ask? that the constitution be followed as it was written?

A. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR 9 PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE 10 BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT 11 POLITICAL PARTY'S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND 12 VICE-PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE 13 CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT 14 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE 15 CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS 16 THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE 17 CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS 18 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, 19 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Subsection 1:

1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S LONG FORM BIRTH 24 CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF 25 THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF 26 ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE. IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM 27 BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO 28 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM 29 BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY 30 AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO 31 DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II,

I think you attempted to make an argument of the " format", but clearly that is not the case. According to the bill, they are suggesting that Article 2 section 1 be followed.

Really, is that to much to ask?

www.azleg.gov...

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Whats apparent, is the lack of Constitutional knowledge on Brewers part.

You're going to have to be more specific if you want someone to understand and agree with that. Nothing I have seen illustrates that she has a lack of Constitutional knowledge. The Constitution does not require the "long form".

Arizona Does Not Issue Long Forms!

Arizona Republic

However, in Arizona, "long-form birth certificate" refers to a specific document: the paper version of the birth record of a person born before 1997. People born in 1997 and subsequent years do not have long-form certificates; their records are available as electronic certified copies, also known as "short form."

Read more: www.azcentral.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

People born in 1997 and subsequent years do not have long-form certificates; their records are available as electronic certified copies, also known as "short form."

What year was Obama born? That's right, 60's. Source provided nothing for your argument.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
The only thing that raises my eyebrow, is the very fact that in the 60's, ( knowing hawaii became a state in 59 ) didnt have the racial option " African American " back then. ... The option available for race determination in the 60's was " Negro "

You're calling this a FACT. Can you back up this 'fact' with proof?

First Mitt...Now Brewer...RINO'S Inc.

Either sh't or get off the pot...Not the one Barry smokes!

Trump/Bachmann 2012

Dr. Taitz: Attorney General

Three true American heros!!!!

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
What year was Obama born? That's right, 60's. Source provided nothing for your argument.

I'm not talking about Obama. What I'm saying is that IF the governor had signed this bill into law, it would have prevented future candidates BORN IN ARIZONA from being a presidential candidate on the AZ ballot. Because AZ doesn't issue the "long form" that SB2177 calls for.

Seems like most people are thinking only Obama has to present his long form, but EVERY candidate, including Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann would have to present a LONG FORM. There's a REALLY good chance that some of them don't have a long form.