MO State Rep Proposes State Constitutional Amendment on Candidate Eligibility; Update: Withdrawn
This should drive the “illegitimizers” (my term for those who don’t believe there’s a need to enforce constitutional eligibility requirements) nuts.
Of all places, from the Politico.com:
Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly have signed on to a state constitutional amendment [HJR34; status page] that appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.
The language is contained in a proposed “voter’s bill of rights,” which would serve “as a defense against corruption, fraud, and tyranny.”
See the links (those added are in brackets) to the resolution in the above quotation. State Rep. Robert Cooper is the main sponsor.
Here is the title:
Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article VIII of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to a voter’s bill of rights.
The pertinent verbiage:
Section A. Article VIII, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 8, to read as follows: …
3. The right to have only qualified candidates placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall determine that each person is qualified for the office he or she seeks, according to the law, before placing his or her name on the ballot. For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted. Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot. The secretary of state shall verify the qualifications of any elected officeholder who was previously placed on a Missouri ballot. Should any elected officeholder fail to provide the required documentation or birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall turn the matter over to the attorney general who shall within twenty days file suit to obtain the required documentation.
When it would take effect:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose…
To date, Oklahoma has been another State known to be seriously considering a citizenship bill that has passed Committee muster; Arizona has similarly introduced a candidate eligibility bill to revise their State’s election statutes.
Update: Per commenter “Jez:”
Just as an FYI: HJR 34 was withdrawn on Thursday. You will have to scroll down almost to the bottom of the document.
WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSE BILL
March 12, 2009
Adam Crumbliss, Chief Clerk
Missouri House of Representatives
State Capitol Building
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Dear Adam,
I am requesting that House Joint Resolution No. 34 be withdrawn.
Sincerely,
/s/ Wayne Cooper
To date, no reason was given for the withdrawal.
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
-Phil
State laws are uniform defining what a ‘certified copy of original birth certificate’ is.
The C.O.L.B. submitted unofficially by Barack Obama is not a birth certificate. It is a computer generated printout of limited information from birth registration data.
That data may have been data-entered from the original birth certificate, or other forms of registration. There are ‘late’ registrations, registrations altered due to sex change or adoption, etc.
Of particular interest in the Obama case is Haw. Stat. Rev. §338-5. This is a law making it compulsory for the Dept. of Health clerk to register a new born baby of a Hawaiian resident. Even if the information comes solely from one parent, and the clerk can not verify that information from official sources of birth data, e.g., licensed midwives and hospitals, the birth is registered.
If discovered under HRS 338-18 or 14.3, Obama’s original registration lacks witnesses or other licensed birth reporters (the Hawaiian Advertiser information came from the Dept. of Health, not a hospital), the “prima facie” value of the C.O.L.B. is void and the burden of proof of place and time of birth on Obama.
To date, Obama has spent almost $1 million to block access to his original birth data.
Note: There are affidavits and personal testimony of Obama’s Kenyan birth. Those would supercede the evidentiary value of the challenged Hawaii C.O.L.B. in a court of law.
Therefore, Rep. Posey’s proposed revision is an important measure to assure voters their candidates are legitimate, something that until now has been taken for granted as a matter of ethics and honesty, or responsible due diligence from secretaris of state.
http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/
I had to go to a Radiological website to find the Senate makeup for OK. Apparently States do not like to have that information on their websites, including mine.
For OK Senate:
26 Republicans, 22 Democrats for a total of 48 Senators.
April 23rd is the deadline for action on the senate floor.
May 29 is the end of the first session.
The Gov. is Brad Henry, Democrat
Each session must adjourn their business by the last business day in May.
The next session is in 2010. I don’t know if it can be held over to the second session.
I don’t know where AZ’s bill is and TX just introduced theirs. SO it looks like OK is going to be our only best shot.
This is very bad news. I guess that leaves AZ, OK, TX.
From reading the various bills and constitutional amendments, it would seem like this is a no brainer. The bills written didn’t seem to target anyone. All candidates for State Legislature, Sheriffs, appointments, Congressional poistions, and the President, etc..
What’s wrong with that? Its so simple. I would like my rep to be an American citizen period, how can someone find fault with that??
This is just wearing me out.
Another bill failed for voters to show ID. What the heck is wrong with that? Well I found out everyone wanted to attach their little crap to it, so it failed.
HEY REPS GET SOME COMMON SENSE, WILL YA AND PASS A DARN BILL, geez
Jez,
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve put your comment in the posting.
-Phil
Just as an FYI: HJR 34 was withdrawn on Thursday. You will have to scroll down almost to the bottom of the document.
Georgetown: WHERE IN THE HAWAII STATUTES 338 DOES IT SAY
Cerificate of foreign born?
If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama he could easily say “from” Hawaii”,
then if Obama was adopted by his grandparent’s they would have
a Indonesian colb that list’s Hawaii as Barry Soetoro’s birthplace. Then
Obama/Soetoro amend’s the Hawaii colb to read Obama.
If Obama’s colb was amended it would be sealed. Amended from what
is the question.
It’s obvious that his grandparent’s had “legal guardianship” of
Obama in order for him to go to school in Hawaii while his mother
was out galavanting. Someone had to have “adopted” him after his
mother divorced Lolo Soetoro, or he would have to take a oath to
become a “naturalized citizen”, even if his Kenyan or Indonesian
citizenship expired at 21 years of age.
natural born citizen mean’s being born to “parent’s” (plural)(both)
who are u.s. citizen’s. Obama’s father was NEVER a u.s. citizen,
and his mother was not old enough to pass citizenship to the son.
Obama inherited his father’s nationality and citizenship as a
british subject of Kenya.
When Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro he became a Indonesian
citizen. To become a u.s. citizen again you can only become a
naturalized citizen, not natural born.
Once a natural born citizen changes to citizenship of another country, the “natural born” citizenship becomes lost forever.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
§338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) The department of health may make regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and copies made therefrom.
(b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [L 1911, c 96, §1; am L 1923, c 246, §1; RL 1925, §196; am L 1927, c 202, §1; RL 1935, §7610; RL 1945, §12910; am L 1951, c 132, §1; RL 1955, §57-40; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §9; am L 1965, c 96, §39; HRS §338-41; am L 1970, c 11, §1; am L 1972, c 66, §1(4)]
Case Notes
Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69.
The eligibility issue is of such importance that some service members have taken risks with their reputations and careers.
Their choice to deem it important enough to risk their careers and liberty. The “wisdom” in doing so is altogether debatable.
A state is trying to legislate eligibility requirements.
And poorly. Substantiation of eligibility is fine, but it must be done in a constitutional manner. This particular effort was so plainly not, and done with a rather obvious intent.
Yes, there are those on the fringe whom I wish would either reign in their comments or “stifle.”
Agreed.
I don’t think you are being fair if you think that every person who has commented on this issue is on the fringe.
Never said that’s what I think. Try saying something nonfrigeworthy.
Same question,
Did anybody see the definition of a natural born citizen in the amendment? If they don’t define it in the amendment, it’s back to the courts again…
please someone comment on this.
You are conflating “simple” citizenship with natural born citizenship.
According to Wong Kim Ark, there is no doubt that children born in the U.S. to citizen parents are natural born citizens.
But there is doubt about the citizenship of children born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
I see that Wong Kim Ark ruled on the doubtful case. Is a judge going to rule on something about which there is no doubt?
Clearly, there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen. A candidate for the House or the Senate need only be a citizen; a canidate for the president must be a natual born citizen.
I don’t see that it was the intent of the 14th amendendment to change the constitutional requirments for president.
“SCOTUS routinely denies applications and cert. petitions without an opinion.”
I know that, Bob. That is part of my point. The eligibility issue is of such importance that some service members have taken risks with their reputations and careers. A state is trying to legislate eligibility requirements. This is not a routine issue. Yes, there are those on the fringe whom I wish would either reign in their comments or “stifle.” I don’t think you are being fair if you think that every person who has commented on this issue is on the fringe. You seem to be fighting so hard against an issue that an attorney should find fascinating. I was a tepid McCain supporter (I voted for him but not enthusiastically). Should he have won and should eligibility have been resolved against him, then I would have been behind that decision. I would like to see Jindal as President but if the natural born citizen issue should be resolved against him, then I would not support him either.
The case could have been denied on standing with an opinion.
SCOTUS routinely denies applications and cert. petitions without an opinion. And any justice who thought those denials were in error could have written a dissenting opinion.
Neil, that is not the holding of Wong Kim Ark. You are quoting from a portion of the case where Justice Gray was citing to previous authority, quoting from The Slaughterhouse Cases.
In Wong Kim Ark the court held that under the 14th Amendment, there are two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
The court specifically held that that citizenship by birth within the US includes all children here born of resident aliens, and added:
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
You can read the case here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
Merely showing a birth certificate that you were born in the U.S. is necessary but not sufficient to establish that you are a natural born citizen.
J. Gray in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark said the following:
This is the issue that needs to be clarified. Is the definition of a natural born citizen as stated above the operative definition today? If so, then Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Bobby Jindal are not natural born citizens.
This issue needs to be decided once and for all!
Florida, like Hawaii, will issue a certificate of foreign birth. From the state’s DOH website:
“Vital Statistics is able to file Certificates of Foreign Birth for children born in foreign countries to non-US citizens, based on orders of adoption whose judgment occurs in the State of Florida . The court reports a foreign born adoption on the same form, DH Form 527 as used to report an adoption for a child born in Florida. The Certificate of Foreign Birth shows the adoptive name, the adoptive parents, and will show the true country of birth. The record also bears information regarding the court order, and has a disclaimer regarding the record not being proof of citizenship.”
This is the rough equivalent of H.R.S. 338-20.5, which provides at subsection (4)(b): “The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3].
Phil,
I apologize for mis-speaking, or rather, mis-writing. A Florida COLB is substituted when an adoption has occurred, but Florida would have the original COLB only because the birth occurred in that state. If a baby was born in another state or foreign country, he/she would not have a State of Florida COLB to begin with, thus no substitution.
And that is the case with the other states as well. I know that the State of Vermont substitutes the adopting parent’(s’) name but not the place of birth, because my husband was adopted when he was six years old. The place of birth, in Vermont, was not altered, although a new BC was issued with the adoptive mother’s name was substituted as if she gave birth to him.
A friend who adopted her daughter from China has a District of Columbia COLB that reflects my friend giving “birth” to the girl in China. Other friends who adopted from Russia have a Virginia certificate reflecting place of birth in Russia.
I suggest that you or one of your readers contact the Hawaii DOH. When a foreign birth is registered, the child is issued a Certificate of Foreign Birth, not a COLB.
Where did you get the idea that COLBs are “rare”? The supreme irony of this is that a native son of Missouri would not be able to satisfy his state’s requirement because Missouri issues COLBs.
The principle is good, but as Phil has pointed out, the particulars need some fine tuning. It would help if the 15 sponsors first did some research and got the terminology straight. This is going to be struck down by the courts for vagueness. The drafting assistance of legislative counsel would have made this a better proposal. Perhaps in committee it can be properly amended.
“The courts cannot grant standing where none exists. If the courts lack jurisdiction to hear a case, that’s the end of the story; they can’t ignore that just because “it would have been better” to do it that way.”
The case could have been denied on standing with an opinion.
this is well-intentioned, but poorly drafted. I can’t see it passing. Every step taken is a step closer, however. The legislative process isn’t three strikes and your out.
This amendment is not good enough. They need to include language that allows the state to check into the citizenship of the candidates’ parents at the time of the candidate’s birth. You can be born in the US and not be a natural born citizen. Obama may have been born in Hawaii, but no matter what, we all know he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen. Obama Jr. inherited dual citizenship from his mother and father.
I’ll repost for exposure
An Original BC Sealed due to adoption – would not have been visible to Hawaii officials
Known:
An original birth certificate was obtained for Mr. O’s birth and Hawaii has confirmed that. If an adoption was recorded for Mr. O, the birth certificate would be sealed (as per Hawaii law) to protect the child.
Extrapolation:
The original birth certificate would have been amended if Mr. O was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in the State of Hawaii. The adoption may have been noted on the original BC before it was sealed. Would Obama Sr.’s paternal rights have been terminated? There may be a document in Hawaii to that effect. Stanley Ann bothered to officially divorce Obama Sr and she had custody of the child.
It is possible that the birth certificate was amended again to show that that Obama Sr. was the father. This could have happened when Mr. O returned to Hawaii to live with his grandmother. Stanley Ann, Obama Sr., and Mr. O are shown in a photograph taken at the San Francisco airport when Mr. O was ten. Mr. O stated in his book that he had contact with Obama Sr. for about a month about that time. All the parties were present except for Lolo Soetoro. What would have been required to legally reestablish Obama Sr. as Mr. O’s father? There may be a record of a hearing in Hawaii.
Speculation:
If Mr. O was born in Kenya or Canada or Seattle:
Stanley Ann could have phoned her mother and had her mother register the birth as a home birth.
Stanley Ann’s mother could have placed the birth announcements in the papers.
Known:
Stanley Ann was in Seattle about 3 weeks after the birth, rather soon to be wandering around with an infant in those times. And she claimed not to even know how to change a diaper! Either she was “working” her friend to avoid the task or someone else had been changing diapers for her for 3 weeks. All a little unusual. But Stanley Ann was unusual.
To a greater or lesser degree, I think that’s precisely what some who believe the President is ineligible have to say about Hawaiian COLBs.
HRS 338-17.8 was enacted after Obama was born.
The Mills case is not on point here.
Although Mills dealt with a court judgment, its reasoning is completely applicable. And here’s some cases discussing the full faith and credit clause and birth certificates:
Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007); Kappler v. Shalala, 840 F.Supp. 582 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Bennett v. Schweiker, 543 F.Supp. 897 (D.C. D.C. 1982); Tindle v. Celebrezze, 210 F.Supp. 912 (D.C. Cal. 1962); U.S. v. Casares-Moreno, 122 F.Supp. 375 (D.C. Cal. 1954).
Should your scenario occur, there will be a constitutional crisis which is why many have suggested it would have been better for the Supreme Court to have provided some kind of guidance in the eligibility cases before it.
The courts cannot grant standing where none exists. If the courts lack jurisdiction to hear a case, that’s the end of the story; they can’t ignore that just because “it would have been better” to do it that way.
Phil:
I would suggest that the States require more documentation in addition to birth certificate to prove eligibility.
GeorgetownJD:
Certainly distinguishes who’s who and what’s what. It appears that COLB’s are issued in certain and rare cirumstances. Otherwise, a birth certificate is issued.
Starting to get the picture?
GeorgetownJD,
You said, “Hence, it is possible to be foreign born and have a Florida COLB.”
To a greater or lesser degree, I think that’s precisely what some who believe the President is ineligible have to say about Hawaiian COLBs.
-Phil
Missouri’s document is a certificate of live birth, as is the District of Columbia’s.
In Florida, the “certificate of live birth” refers to the original certificate completed at the time of birth. When a child is adopted, a new certificate of live is created. Hence, it is possible to be foreign born and have a Florida COLB.
GeorgetownJD,
You said, “Arizona Vital Records uses the terms “birth certificate” and “certificate of live birth” interchangeably. However, the actual document issued is a certificate of live birth.”
That would make the most sense to me as well.
-Phil
Arizona Vital Records uses the terms “birth certificate” and “certificate of live birth” interchangeably. However, the actual document issued is a certificate of live birth.
Virginia is one such state. See 12 VAC 5-550-100.
Good day to everybody and thanks for tuning in. ‘bamy is starting to sweat based on everything that I have been able to ascertain on Lou Dobbs tonight. Let’s take a look at the response from homeowners over his proposed bailout of those who can’t or don’t have the ability to pay for their mortgages. Survey says 2/3 against. It is time to stop worrying about if you are cute for the cameras ‘bamy. You are a failure and it is time to resign no matter where you are from. This law will be enforced in Missouri and you will not I repeat will not be allowed on their ballot which pretty much sinks you. Other states will follow as I have great pull with my representatives and have already contacted them to get the ball rolling on this matter. Time to dust off that old BC ‘bamy you’re going to need it. I don’t want to hear any feeble excuse like “oh it’s in the vault and nobody is allowed to look at it”. Sorry that won’t work you big crybaby you. The reason that they keep it all these years is because it is a vital record and is needed for such things as military service, driver’s license, passports, running for president etc. If you lose your original or it gets burned up in a house fire or gets flooded in Hurricane Katrina you simply go down to the vital records office pay them $10 bucks and they mail out to you a replacement copy within four weeks or so complete with the embossed seal at the bottom showing that it is not fake. OK now let’s look at that again for those of you who are to stupid to accept what is going down. They drag out the copy on file at the State Capital of it’s respective state look at it and transfer the information over to a certified copy with the embossed seal that can be used for such things as getting a driver’s license or in your case ‘bamy running for president of the United States of America. Now quit playing the charades with Ms. Taitz because one way or the other your going to be coughing up a BC. You’ll have a good one.
glsmarlton,
Since you’re specifically addressing me, my opinion is that anyone who thinks that grand conspiracies are behind the actions of the government have automatically put themselves into a powerless, unempowering position.
I also don’t believe that such conspiracies are true.
-Phil
glsmarlton,
I am not yet aware what the Oklahoma State Senate has done with their sovereignty bill.
-Phil
Also, Phil, since this take over by Obama I have really be researching as much as I can about this entire mess.
When I discovered that Bush Sr was the one who wanted one world order and GWB along with John Kerry being free masons and skull and bones I lost all respect for W–. That was hard for me, I really respected W and thought he did a great job until now.
We have been brainwashed—-exactly what Yuri Bezmenov states is the first step to communism. And W did it so calmly and quietly.
Phil,
Do you know, or have your heard if the Oklahoma Senate passed our sovereighty bill? I know it passed in the House and was headed for the state senate but I have not heard anything else.
I have just watched a video from Dr Orly’s site that dates back to 1984 with Yuri Bezmenov being interviewed about why he defected to Canada from Russia all those years ago. The video is a little long, about an hour, and omg he knew in 1984 that this was going to happen in America. Communism………. and according to him, we are just about where they have planned for us to be.
I am horrified – and don’t understand why our politicians that love America have not taken a stand against this.
I know that the bilderbergs, the trilateral commission, the central bank, the fed reserve, the council of foreign relations, and the BIS are behind this—they have made it know for years that they want to control the world–to include America.
The cloward piven manufactured crisis strategy is here.
How do we take back our country and govt?
This is the video if anyone is interested in viewing it—and now after watching this, I just want to puke.
ahttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916
AzGo:
Good for AZ.
Phil,
Sorry, I forgot you had already reported on the Arizona’s citizenship bill.
Here is another and interesting Concurrent Memorial.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scm1004p.htm
Governor Janet Napolitano was hot on this when she was governor and George Bush was President, I wonder what she and Mr. Obama thinks of this now that she is in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
1Lishell:
How many states issue COLB and not a certificate of birth?
Mills is on point here. Gay marriage is not on point. Congress passed DOMA, which does not extend full faith & credit to same-sex marriages. Point to any such law passed by Congress that removes birth certificates from the scope of the full faith & credit clause.
Whether is passes or not or works or not I got say:
AAAAHHHH HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!!!! AHHHH HAAA HAAA HAAA HAA HAAA!!! This is hilarious!!!! State governments are dealing with this issue and people are still calling this fringe? AHHH HAAA HAA HAA HAAA!!!!
“…appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president…”
You better believe it!!! AHHH HAAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAAA!!!!!
The Mills case is not on point here. That case concerned enforcement of a judgment and referred to the full faith and credit clause, but it doesn’t automatically resolve the circumstances here, as the issue of gay marriage exemplifies. (For example married in MA, divorce requested in another state or death occurs in another state. There will be many issues on the horizon there). Should your scenario occur, there will be a constitutional crisis which is why many have suggested it would have been better for the Supreme Court to have provided some kind of guidance in the eligibility cases before it.
AzGo,
Actually, I simply forgot that I was tracking Arizona’s citizenship bill until you made note of it just now.
I’ll update the posting.
-Phil
Sorry Phil,
SB 1158. This bill has been in since 1/26/09.
I should have let you know sooner.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1158p.htm#
Also they have a concurrent resolution to recinding of call for a constitutional convention. First reading 2/2/09.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/scr1034p.htm
Exerpt:
……
‘Whereas, there is no need for, and in fact there is great danger in, a new constitution or in opening the Constitution of the United States to radical changes, the adoption of which could create legal chaos in this nation and begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation; and’ ……
Thanks for all you do !!!
Phil,
I think “Constitution Deniers” is fitting for those who label law-respecting,Patriot Americans as ‘fringe”.
This is way cool. About how many states are getting anywhere on this? Even if its three or four surely its enough to stop the a repeat of the TERROR of 08′.
1Lishell,
In response, here’s the pertinent part of the legislation:
The question arises concerning the definition of the phrase, “official birth certificate.”
Excellent comment. I think you’re right. The idea has merit; the particulars could take some working out.
-Phil
If Candidate X is born in State Y, and State Y only issues COLBs, or treats COLBs as record evidence, other states are required to give COLBs from State Y as record evidence. See Mills v. Duryee, 11 US 481 (1813).
1Lishell,
You said, “Pretty sure that violates the “Full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
Explain.
-Phil
Pretty sure that violates the “Full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
does missouri have a GOP or DEM governor?
Unlike OK who has a DEM governor, who would veto
the measure now in legislature (assuming that
the legislature in OK passes it, gov vetos it,
and OK legislature does not have votes to over ride
veto?). Appears that we are stymied again
in this issue.