The Upcoming Arizona "Birther" Law...

[piasabird]

Isnt this what everyone has to submit to get a job?

 

[piasabird]

I have a report of child born abroad for American Parents. It is a Department of State Birth Certificate. I was born overseas in Marocco, near Casablanca, because my dad was in the Air Force. I am a white African American.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Obama never would have been allowed to run if he wasn't born in the US. I still don't understand why this is an issue. Clearly, if he ran and got elected, he is a citizen of this country.

Just to nit pick you don't have to be born IN the United States. You have to be a "natural born citizen" under the constitution. Most often referred to now in law as citizen of the United States at birth.

Sorry see that same comment perpetuated repeatedly but it has no basis in fact/law. Not picking on you specifically.

 

[werepossum]

We all know the real issue here... he's black

Oh no, the race card! Your blinding acumen and razor sharp wit have left us all speechless.

 

[Engineer]

Isnt this what everyone has to submit to get a job?

A birth certificate? Not that I know of. I've never had to submit a bc to get a job.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

A birth certificate? Not that I know of. I've never had to submit a bc to get a job.

I love the "I had to submit my BC for XXX" argument from birthers such as passport, SSN, etc... As if Obama didn't obtain any of those before becoming president.

 

[Fern]

Just to nit pick you don't have to be born IN the United States. You have to be a "natural born citizen" under the constitution. Most often referred to now in law as citizen of the United States at birth.

Sorry see that same comment perpetuated repeatedly but it has no basis in fact/law. Not picking on you specifically.

Link to SCOTUS case (or any other for that matter) defining the term "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes.

IIRC, this matter has not been addressed as the issue has never arisen. I.e., it is speculation to say that the term doesn't mean a person is required to have born here.

Fern

 

[Aegeon]

Except state law, not federal law, governs elections, candidate selection, and how one gets on a ballot. They aren't trumping federal law by requiring proof of citizen ship by form of birth certificate.

Second of all. There are many instances that require long form birth certificates. Many people are required to provide that to obtain a US passport.

You're just making indisputably false claims now.

Now its true that the official birth certificates and certificates of births of some states are not viewed as enough evidence on their own today, but there is absolutely no requirement for them to present a long form version of their birth certificates, which doesn't exist for many naturally born US citizens from some states.

Instead, they merely have supply one of a variety of other pieces of evidence, and the two pieces are sufficient for the person in question to get a US Passport.

The claim they are not effectively trumping Federal Law in this case is preposterous and any court would find it so. States are allowed to set certain procedures, but not ones which would make impossible for completely Constitutionally legitimately qualified candidates to appear on the ballot. (The procedures might take a bit of effort, but certainly can't actually be impossible.) As noted before, the net effect of states disqualifying a candidate from running in their state could easily make it impossible for a specific candidate to be elected.

There is an additional practical legal issue on top of everything else in that if every state set its own standard to provide from of being a naturally born US citizen would create a considerable additional burden to appearing on the Presidential ballot of every state. (This is a legitimate issue to some degree as currently there are various candidates from minor parties which appear on the Presidential ballot for whom such a requirement could be a considerable burden, and who could at least theoretically be voted in as President under the current system, and not appearing on ballots in some states would make this outcome even more highly unlikely.)

Even a Federal law would be struck down by the courts as improper if it did something like arbitrarily prevent naturally born US citizens from running for President merely because the Federal Government has retroactively found that they don't find the state's birth certification procedures to be acceptable since the state uses the short form only as the designated official certificate.

 

[Deeko]

Every state has a department of vital statistics. If you were born in a state, they have an official record of your long form birth certificate.

In some instances you must provide a long form birth certificate to get a US Passport.

I have one of the highest levels of security clearance the government offers. The birth certificate I've had my whole life (which I only found out was not the "real thing" until this whole birther crap started) was good enough for that.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Link to SCOTUS case (or any other for that matter) defining the term "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes.

IIRC, this matter has not been addressed as the issue has never arisen. I.e., it is speculation to say that the term doesn't mean a person is required to have born here.

Fern

Save for the fact that INA 301(g) would still be the test that a citizen of the United States at birth is measured by. Not a change of the Constitution but more a closing of some of the many gaps contained in the Constitution.

 

[Fern]

Save for the fact that INA 301(g) would still be the test that a citizen of the United States at birth is measured by. Not a change of the Constitution but more a closing of some of the many gaps contained in the Constitution.

IMO, as I have stated elsewhere, that's going to require the SCOTUS.

IMO, Congress can't pass a law that changes or "closes a gap" in the Constitution. If the Constitution said "a natural born citizen, as defined by Congress", it would be a different matter.

Fern

 

[Aegeon]

Link to SCOTUS case (or any other for that matter) defining the term "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes.

IIRC, this matter has not been addressed as the issue has never arisen. I.e., it is speculation to say that the term doesn't mean a person is required to have born here.

Fern

While technically true, if would be clearly rather stunning if the courts ultimately ruled otherwise today. For instance it would mean if someone was the child of a US diplomat serving overseas, the diplomat would be presented with the requirement of sending his wife away when she became heavily pregnant or end up disqualifying his child from ever running for the Presidency. Even if being born in the embassy counts and is allowed, there would be cases, including ones with medical complications where a hospital birth would be necessary. (While admittedly many wouldn't care there certainly would be diplomats for which this would be a legitimate issue.)

You could also have a situation where because an 8 month pregnant woman unexpectedly goes into early labor while on a brief tourist trip to Canada or Mexico for example, and even if the baby merely spent a day or so in the foreign hospital and never left the US again, would be disqualified from running for President under such a ruling.

The basic point is there is clearly nothing about the US Constitution requiring such a ruling (and most it would be a possible interpretation) and such a ruling would clearly be a bad one which would disqualify assorted candidates for really arbitrary reasons. (There simply isn't a good rational reason to apply the law in the ways I mentioned.)

At most, I could see a court trying to create some standard on its own requiring the person in question to have at least lived in the US (or served in the US military or diplomatic corps) for a certain amount of time at some point before running for President, but frankly such a ruling would represent a pretty striking display of judicial activism.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

IMO, as I have stated elsewhere, that's going to require the SCOTUS.

IMO, Congress can't pass a law that changes or "closes a gap" in the Constitution. If the Constitution said "a natural born citizen, as defined by Congress", it would be a different matter.

Fern

You might want to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution then.

Among other things it gives Congress the power to, and I quote:

To establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Sounds like they can pass those laws to me...

 

[HomerJS]

Oh no, the race card! Your blinding acumen and razor sharp wit have left us all speechless.

Kinda odd we never questioned the citizenship of a presidential candidate until we got a black one, not even one born outside the United States.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You might want to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution then.

Among other things it gives Congress the power to, and I quote:

To establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Sounds like they can pass those laws to me...

Just want to add. I commend the civil tone of the discussion. Just goes to show that conflicting ideas can still have a normalized discussion.

 

[Wreckem]

You're just making indisputably false claims now.

Now its true that the official birth certificates and certificates of births of some states are not viewed as enough evidence on their own today, but there is absolutely no requirement for them to present a long form version of their birth certificates, which doesn't exist for many naturally born US citizens from some states.

Instead, they merely have supply one of a variety of other pieces of evidence, and the two pieces are sufficient for the person in question to get a US Passport.

The claim they are not effectively trumping Federal Law in this case is preposterous and any court would find it so. States are allowed to set certain procedures, but not ones which would make impossible for completely Constitutionally legitimately qualified candidates to appear on the ballot. (The procedures might take a bit of effort, but certainly can't actually be impossible.) As noted before, the net effect of states disqualifying a candidate from running in their state could easily make it impossible for a specific candidate to be elected.

There is an additional practical legal issue on top of everything else in that if every state set its own standard to provide from of being a naturally born US citizen would create a considerable additional burden to appearing on the Presidential ballot of every state. (This is a legitimate issue to some degree as currently there are various candidates from minor parties which appear on the Presidential ballot for whom such a requirement could be a considerable burden, and who could at least theoretically be voted in as President under the current system, and not appearing on ballots in some states would make this outcome even more highly unlikely.)

Even a Federal law would be struck down by the courts as improper if it did something like arbitrarily prevent naturally born US citizens from running for President merely because the Federal Government has retroactively found that they don't find the state's birth certification procedures to be acceptable since the state uses the short form only as the designated official certificate.

I said in certain circumstances you have to have a long form birth certificate.

Like if you were born in California that State Dept. will not take a short form. Yes you can offer other evidence IF you do not have a primary form(birth cert). So if you were born in CA, and you have a birth cert, YOU HAVE TO USE A LONG FORM. If uou are using birth certificates, the State Dept. rejects short forms from CA, and have occassionaly done so with other states in the past.

I also might add, many countries require you to produce a long form to obtain a long term student or work visa.

 

[Wreckem]

Kinda odd we never questioned the citizenship of a presidential candidate until we got a black one, not even one born outside the United States.

McCain WAS challenged when he went against Bush and Obama....

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

McCain WAS challenged when he went against Bush and Obama....

Well he wasn't born in the US, admitted as much himself.

I sincerely doubt someone tried to create a law which would disqualify him from running for not being able to show one sort of identification which he didn't have though.

It wouldn't matter what Obama would provide now, just like it doesn't matter how many videos and how many rescue workers, experts or what have you you can assemble to show that the WTC were not bombed by the Bush admin, the fucking nutters will believe what they believe until hell freezes over.

 

[Baasha]

We all know the real issue here... he's black

^this

LOLZ.. so true.. racists can't stand Obama and so they go to great lengths to give him trouble..

 

[Wreckem]

Well he wasn't born in the US, admitted as much himself.

I sincerely doubt someone tried to create a law which would disqualify him from running for not being able to show one sort of identification which he didn't have though.

It wouldn't matter what Obama would provide now, just like it doesn't matter how many videos and how many rescue workers, experts or what have you you can assemble to show that the WTC were not bombed by the Bush admin, the fucking nutters will believe what they believe until hell freezes over.

He was born on a US Military Base in the Panama Canal Zone.

The Panama Canal Zone was under U.S. control, as an unorganized US territory. The Panama Canal Zone was include in several US Censuses.


Furthermore,
1. Military bases are sovereign US soil.
2. Laws were passed in the 30s that established natural US citizenship to those born in the Panama Canal Zone.

To say no one challenged anyone before Obama is completely misleading. People challenged McCain because of ancient SCotUS rulings about unorganized territories, failing to forget the Federal government passed laws making those people citizens regardless.

 

[Lanyap]

I used to have a copy of my "long form" birth cetificate, but it was lost somewhere in years of moving from state to state. I asked North Carolina to provide a duplicate, and they sent me a new certificate remarkably similar to what the state of Hawaii provided candidate Obama.

Does that mean I'm Kenyan, too?

No, but you might be a Redneck.

 

[Lanyap]

If McCain had won these threads would be reversed.

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

February 28, 2008
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”

The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Ms. Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born.” But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the “natural-born” phrase.

Mr. McCain’s citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

“I don’t think he has any problem whatsoever,” said Mr. Nickles, a McCain supporter. “But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win.”

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”

“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”

 

[UberNeuman]

If McCain had won these threads would be reversed.

Sorry, babydoll - I was among those that thought it silly back then...

/I also mused over the "gop" members of the forum quite willing to shit on him as well...

 

[YoungGun21]

Just to nit pick you don't have to be born IN the United States. You have to be a "natural born citizen" under the constitution. Most often referred to now in law as citizen of the United States at birth.

Sorry see that same comment perpetuated repeatedly but it has no basis in fact/law. Not picking on you specifically.

Sorry, what I said still stands though. If he wasn't actually qualified, he never would have been allowed to run. There is regulation and oversight on these types of things. If he isn't a legal citizen, he would NOT be our President right now. The fact that he is the President seals the deal. Why people think otherwise is truly ridiculous...

 

[trenchfoot]

Sorry, what I said still stands though. If he wasn't actually qualified, he never would have been allowed to run. There is regulation and oversight on these types of things. If he isn't a legal citizen, he would NOT be our President right now. The fact that he is the President seals the deal. Why people think otherwise is truly ridiculous...

I think the problem we have in this regard is that the same folks who are making Obama's birthplace an issue are the very same ones who distrust the government with a passion only when a Democrat is elected to the presidency. Throw in the fact that Obama went through the Rove slander chopper/grinder/slicer/dicer during his campaign and what you got is a whole lot of nutzoids running around in a fearful panic with Limbaugh and the Fox propagandists banging away, ceaselessly echoing in their empty heads.