‘Birther’ bill is an embarrassment to Georgians, Republicans
I don’t normally make a big deal out of loopy legislation that has just one sponsor, or maybe a couple of them. I figure that such bills are bound for a quick dead end, and that paying attention to their sponsors only encourages them.
But when there are 94 signers on a loopy bill — as is the case with the “birther” bill in the General Assembly — it’s time to speak up. And HB 401, the so-called Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act, is a farce.
The “birther” movement is a fringe movement everywhere — except, evidently, in the Georgia House Republican caucus. Although there are opinion polls that suggest “birtherism” has become more widespread, I agree with my colleague Jay Bookman that such poll results are more reflective of tribal loyalty than of a genuine belief that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii (or that Hawaii is not in fact one of the United States).
The popular appeal of wild conspiracies — birtherism, 9/11 trutherism, Trig Palin trutherism, etc. — is a hallmark of our age. But is it too much to ask of our legislators that they not try to enshrine such conspiracies in state law?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Or tweet this blog post:Tweet
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
345 comments Add your comment
td
March 2nd, 2011
10:25 am
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:12 am
td – “Is my “rights” being violated?”
No, your rights “is” not being violated. However, under the terms of this bill, your rights “are” being violated
How is it different?
khc
March 2nd, 2011
10:26 am
thank you kyle
flintrock70
March 2nd, 2011
10:28 am
Just throwing it out there? Where was this rush to make candidates prove this before Obama took office?
Anyone?
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:30 am
NRBD2 – “False. There is no “right” to vote for a president who isn’t eligible to hold office.”
Have you ever actually read the Constitution, or did they stop requiring civics when you were in school?
If a Presidential candidate has proven eligibility, then you have the right to vote for them. Just because said candidate doesn’t meet your particular state definition of eligibility, does not give said state authority to remove them from the ballot, thereby eliminating “your right” to vote for them.
What part of this is in any way unclear to you?
Who cares about the Constitution?
March 2nd, 2011
10:31 am
@flintrock70 I was shocked that there WASN’T a law on the books to make candidates to prove eligibility until after the latest election. It’s a joke this law wasn’t on the books already.
Quite frankly, we weren’t adequately protected in the past. If you don’t comport with the legal requirements to run for POTUS, you have no business doing so.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:32 am
td – “How is it different?”
If you need a lesson in grammer, then trust me, the POTUS is the least of your worries.
td
March 2nd, 2011
10:32 am
flintrock70
March 2nd, 2011
10:28 am
Just throwing it out there? Where was this rush to make candidates prove this before Obama took office?
Anyone?
There was only a few time in the history of the country that this has even been a question (Calvin Coolidge most prominent) because most candidates have always submitted their BC that shows the state of actual birth. Obama has made this an issue by refusing to release this information.
Bill
March 2nd, 2011
10:33 am
GA legislature is messed up. Last year, it was guns in churches vs jobs, jobs, jobs.
NRBD2
March 2nd, 2011
10:33 am
What part of this is in any way unclear to you?
——————————————————————
The state will only remove them from the ballot if they’re ineligible, what part of that is unclear to YOU?
td
March 2nd, 2011
10:35 am
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:32 am
td – “How is it different?”
If you need a lesson in grammer, then trust me, the POTUS is the least of your worries
Typical liberal answer. When you know you have lost the argument resort to name calling or change the subject. Just go ahead and admit it. You head says I am right and this should be the law but you bleeding left wing heart just can not let you type it on the page.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:36 am
NRBD2 – “The state will only remove them from the ballot if they’re ineligible, what part of that is unclear to YOU?”
And since Georgia would be the only state requiring this particular process to make a candidate ineligible, then they would inherently be in violation of the constitution defining the citizens right to vote.
Next?
Steve
March 2nd, 2011
10:37 am
What is sad is all of this turmoil, when all that is needed is for Obama to prove them all wrong by showing the documents. If he has them…
jt
March 2nd, 2011
10:37 am
Kyle will insist that a tomato picker from Mexico jumps through a document hoop,
but gives the president a pass.
Go figure?
Statists all.
NRBD2
March 2nd, 2011
10:40 am
they would inherently be in violation of the constitution defining the citizens right to vote.
—————————————————–
There is no defining “right to vote” in the constitution, actually. The constitution merely states that if there is a vote, that there can be no discrimination based on sex,race, or gender.
But since you’re such a scholar, you knew that already.
This bill does not discriminate based on race, sex, or gender. It states that a person not born in the United States cannot be on the Georgia ballot.
That other states don’t have a similar bill (yet) is irrelevant. NEXT.
td
March 2nd, 2011
10:41 am
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:30 am
“If a Presidential candidate has proven eligibility, then you have the right to vote for them. Just because said candidate doesn’t meet your particular state definition of eligibility, does not give said state authority to remove them from the ballot, thereby eliminating “your right” to vote for them”
I thought we have already established the FACT that you do not have the right to vote for a President. You vote for a set of electors that votes for the President (and they do not have to vote the way you voted). Also, the states have the rights to keep any candidates electors off the ballot if they do not meet the states qualifications (No constitutional parties electors will be on the ballot in Georgia).
I guess you must have failed you civics class because these are the basics.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
10:42 am
td – “left wing heart just can not let you type it on the page.”
Again, I haven’t labeled anyone. I’ve stated quite clearly several times that 1. I didn’t vote for Obama. 2. I don’t hold with either the Left or the Right. and 3. If the Democrats came up with something as completely full of $hit as this bill, I would take the same position.
In truth, I’m a GOP wet dream. Educated, white middle aged male, independent business owner who resides in the evil upper 2% and takes advantage of any and all tax breaks I can get. However, when I see stupid or ignorance, I don’t immediately step in line and become a bobble head for ANY side.
Joe
March 2nd, 2011
10:50 am
Who cares?
You accusing me of being an Obama apologist indicates the primary reason that you support this legislation, to get Obama off the ballot. Unfortunately, you’re still struggling with reality.
I do stand corrected. I wasn’t aware of that clause. The reality that you can’t face now is that, under the clause you cited, Obama would be eligible to be on the Georgia ballot. He, of course, has produced birth records (birth certificate from State of Hawaii), a U.S. Passport, really the ONLY items indicated that would show that Obama meets the natural born citizenship requirement. Undoubtedly, he could also produce social security records, medical records, school records, etc.
So, why are you still insisting on the “long form” from Obama, as you did in your earlier post, when you can’t produce one yourself, nor for example, can anybody born in Indiana? Why are you still insisting on this so-called long form from Obama when he could easily comply with the legislation you cited by providing the Hawaii birth certificate and a U.S. Passport?
Again, you and your birther friends continue to request that Obama provide “long form” documentation to “end the controversy” —documentation hat you yourselves wouldn’t be able to produce and now you’re supporting legislation that doesn’t even require such documentation to…what? Get back at “Obama apologists?”
Fix-It
March 2nd, 2011
10:51 am
It is quite embarrassing that states have to make state laws that are exactly the same a federal law, because the fed refuses to enforce their own laws.
killerj
March 2nd, 2011
10:54 am
The only “farce” is the Bozo running the show,Go Tea Party.
Left wing management
March 2nd, 2011
10:57 am
But when there are 94 signers on a loopy bill — as is the case with the “birther” bill in the General Assembly — it’s time to speak up. And HB 401, the so-called Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act, is a farce.
Good for you. You’re right!
James Thomas
March 2nd, 2011
11:00 am
What is embarrassing is that the entire American political class let Obama get on the ballot last time without his having to provide documentation of his eligibility to be president. Do you not believe in the rule of law, Mr. Wingfield? I congratulate the Georgia assemblymen who do.
Left wing management
March 2nd, 2011
11:02 am
Interesting that there’s not a single female among the sponsors of this legislation. Nor is there a single black member. All pasty white Giowgya Boyz. Can that be coincidence?
Gm
March 2nd, 2011
11:04 am
Boy I wish these idiots could pass liqor sale this fast”"”
Joe
March 2nd, 2011
11:04 am
“Who cares…?” cited a clause in the legislation that shows what this legislation is really about. The bill first requires a “long form” birth certificate that most, if not all, states do not offer. Then the bill essentially says, hey, if you don’t have the “long form”, then we’ll accept other records like your certified birth records (in other words, the birth certificate that you do have), your U.S. Passport, etcetera. Of course, Obama does have and has produced these documents.
So, this legislation accomplishes nothing except to play to the Republican base (i.e. Birthers) to satisfy their rabid Obama hate. It’s just like the legislation being proposed in various states to block courts form considering Shariah law when deciding cases. Of course, there’s already such a ban in the…wait for it…Constitution (Establishment Clause of the First Amendment). Again, this is legislation tailored to make their uninformed base jump up and down with joy, even though it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
So, the likes of “Who cares…?” can jump up and down with joy about this legislation, and run to the polls to vote the guys who voted for it and against the guys who voted against it, but guess what. This legislation does absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Chilidog
March 2nd, 2011
11:12 am
@NRBD2 “The state will only remove them from the ballot if they’re ineligible, what part of that is unclear to YOU?”
================================
The state is not authorized to make that determination.
That right is reserved to the electoral college and Congress.
Snafu
March 2nd, 2011
11:15 am
Why don’t people stop dancing in the asylum! The only reason why they have introduced this bill is because of the color of the current President’s skin. I don’t here anyone talking about Piyush Jindal or Nimrata Haley both who equally were not born here. Its just the fact that there are Caucasians who think they are the only ones entitled to be President.
Snafu
March 2nd, 2011
11:16 am
And further more John McCain was born in Panama but was weclomed as a Presidential Candidate WHY! Because just look at the color of his skin. And there is not such thing as WHITE PEOPLE.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
11:19 am
Chilidog – “The state is not authorized to make that determination.
That right is reserved to the electoral college and Congress”
Which I belive are in the Constitution, and tied to the invidual right to vote. Inherently, if you try to remove one, you will remove the other.
Thanks for the support CD.
stands for decibels
March 2nd, 2011
11:20 am
is it too much to ask of our legislators that they not try to enshrine such conspiracies in state law?
sadly, yes.
Anyway, just a drive-by to say “thanks, Kyle,” and remind myself that there are some somewhat rational Republicans out there, still.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
11:22 am
Snafu – “And further more John McCain was born in Panama but was weclomed as a Presidential Candidate WHY! Because just look at the color of his skin. And there is not such thing as WHITE PEOPLE.’
Gotta back you down on that one. McCain was born in Panama, but at the time it was considered to be U.S. soil. It’s a moot point though since both parents were U.S. citizens. I’m not defending anyone, but the fact that he is white has little to do with his acceptance as a candidate.
The Original Get Real
March 2nd, 2011
11:25 am
Sean Smith @ 6:41 am Where are the jobs???
Ask Obama and Harry Reid
Was not raised in Georgia
March 2nd, 2011
11:25 am
For the party of “small government”, how many more government jobs will the Sec. of State’s office need to deal with all the requests allowed by the bill.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
March 2nd, 2011
11:34 am
For anyone who wants to know where the jobs are, they are overseas, so that our corporations can get bigger profits. Try Mexico, India for starters. Americans don’t want to make anything anymore. They want to buy things. They don’t want to serve. They want to be served. Where is the money? Try the portfolios? Check Switzerland, Cayman Islands . . . start there. Why not American companies to bring jobs back to America so that America can flourish; instead of sending them overseas, so the corporations can flourish and the rest of us can flounder. Where is your Brain? Where is your sense of justice? Where is your reason?
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
March 2nd, 2011
11:36 am
I dare you to write your congressmen to lobby these big corporations getting huge tax breaks to bring the jobs back to America. Now there’s a movement for you! BRING JOBS B A C K to America! How about that? We can’t have it both ways; we sacrificed our way of life, our great society for great profits. So now we all up the creek, so get over yourself? Where are the jobs? Why are you not hiring?
joe
March 2nd, 2011
11:46 am
I have a huge problem with BO being President, but we’d be much better off voting him out instead of suggesting bills such as this. If the state wants to pass some much needed legislation, how about requiring employers to hire americans and have police question the legal status of people stopped for violations.
Who cares about the Constitution?
March 2nd, 2011
11:51 am
@Joe I am not a “birther.” I’ve never claimed that Obama was not a citizen. I do, however, think that the interpretation as to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” is a very interesting question of LAW that’s open to debate. There’s a difference.
Under the terms of the bill, if a long form birth certificate is available, any POTUS candidate would have to produce that first. If there isn’t one, they can go to the other documentation to prove that the candidate is a “natural born citizen.”
@Snafu It took an act of Congress to clarify McCain’s eligibility under Art. 2, Sect. 1 of the Constitution. He was born to two service members who were stationed in the Panama Canal Zone in an off-base hospital.
Eligibility is something to be taken very seriously, no matter what political party the candidate comes from. For me, it rings true with Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan as much as it does Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Was not raised in Georgia
March 2nd, 2011
11:52 am
Does anyone actually think the GOP nominee will not win GA in 2012 anyway; all they need is the “R” by their name. What a waste of time, money, and resources.
Snafu
March 2nd, 2011
11:53 am
Fletch
Bull! WHITE is the reason why this is going on. If this was a matter of policy then there would be no question. But to say a “birther bill” and there is no overt racism here is quite a disingenious to say the least. Why was this not brought forth with all the previous Presidents? Why well because their skin color was not “Brown”.
Since you brought up parents as in McCain..well, President Obama’s mother was in fact AMERICA..was she not? Can you see the hypocrisy of these Caucasians who are trying to put forth this bill. Would this also apply to Caucasians who claim their parents were Irish, German, Russian etc. Where are those long forms since these Caucasians want talk about birth certificates. The problem is America is being dumbed downed by the asylum escapees and no one is beating them back at the stupidity.
flintrock70
March 2nd, 2011
11:56 am
@Joe
The GA GOP won’t do much for making employers require legal workers since the backed down when the Agri-Business community told them to. So they failed at that, again.
The GA GOP thinks doing this shows they are doing actual work to help the state.
Jim Pierce
March 2nd, 2011
12:01 pm
Requiring proof of citizenship shouldn’t be a requirement for the highest office in the land? lol Some of you people are simply freakin NUTS.
the mehlman rings twice
March 2nd, 2011
12:03 pm
NRBD2@ 8:31am
Fifty bank failures.
My point is that our elected officials should be concerned that the state and federal government agencies that are tasked with overseeing banks, supposedly to protect the public, are doing their jobs. The last 2 crises in the financial services industry happended because the Executive Branch turned a blind eye to the risky practices by these institutions. In the case of President GHWB, one of his sons was actively participating in fraud, for which he is now banned for life from ever participating in the S&L industry. There are also reports that President GWB called off the dogs when banks were exceeding there investment/reserve ratios.
But I know, birth certificates, state flags, and loyalty oaths are far more important.
jconservative
March 2nd, 2011
12:09 pm
“Political leanings and personal feelings aside, Kyle, would you agree that the Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born U.S. citizen? Would you acknowledge that there is no statutory mechanism for the enforcement of that provision?”
“..no statutory mechanism for the enforcement of that provision?”
Yes there is. The US Passport office has the responsibility of determining if a birth certificate meets Federal standards. Has since the early 1920’s.
Obama has had a passport since he was four.
I have had a US passport since I was 24. And my birth certificate does not meet this bills qualifers.
Just saying.
Ramguy
March 2nd, 2011
12:21 pm
Actually the outcome of the bill doesn’t matter as far as Ga voters go…..They would vote for Charles Manson just as long as he had a R in front of his name.
ATLER
March 2nd, 2011
12:25 pm
And this what the Republicans are doing and have been doing since they’ve been the majority instead of looking out for the best interests of the state. If it wasn’t for Atlanta, Ga would be another poor southern state.
False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)
March 2nd, 2011
12:26 pm
Thanks, Kyle, for an honest and sane assessment of this pending legislature. By the way, “tribal loyalty” = willfully ignorant.
Snafu
March 2nd, 2011
12:27 pm
Fletch
Panama was not considered US soil. Panama was independent since 1903. The Army Corp of Engineers built the Panama Canal between 1904 to 1914 but that was not the US soil. John McCain was born in 1936 after the Panama Canal was transferred back to Panama. So once again this is not moot.
Fletch
March 2nd, 2011
12:29 pm
snafu – “Fletch
Bull! WHITE is the reason why this is going on. If this was a matter of policy then there would be no question. But to say a “birther bill” and there is no overt racism here is quite a disingenious to say the least. Why was this not brought forth with all the previous Presidents? Why well because their skin color was not “Brown”.
Since you brought up parents as in McCain..well, President Obama’s mother was in fact AMERICA..was she not? Can you see the hypocrisy of these Caucasians who are trying to put forth this bill. Would this also apply to Caucasians who claim their parents were Irish, German, Russian etc. Where are those long forms since these Caucasians want talk about birth certificates. The problem is America is being dumbed downed by the asylum escapees and no one is beating them back at the stupidity.”
I agree, and race should have no part in it. Your counter argument to the supporters of this retarded bill was that McCain wasn’t born on U.S. soil, and therefore the only reason he is accepted is because he’s white. I know that Obamas mother was a U.S. citizen and I know that Hawaii is a state. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that Obama was elected under false pretenses.
However, if you make a statement that Mccain gets a free pass over Obama because of skin color, then you have stopped debating and you begin to sound like your detractors.
Ramguy
March 2nd, 2011
12:29 pm
Don’t you bozos know that if “dirty tricks” Karl Rove had just inkling that the Repubs could make Obama’s citizenship an issue in the last election he would have as fast as Faux News repeats lies?
Fisherman
March 2nd, 2011
12:32 pm
Man I am glad I left Ga. So many Jethros and Rubes and so little time to laugh. When the Olympics were in Atlanta some people must have thought they made inbreeding an Olympic event.
Blue Man on a Red Island
March 2nd, 2011
12:33 pm
JT – I think I misunderstood your original post. It appears we are in agreement on the topic. My apologies dude. Keep on keeping on.