Your morning jolt: House speaker suggests ‘birther’ bill has a limited future
House Speaker David Ralston, in a late Thursday interview, said he would not stop committee-level debate of a bill to require President Barack Obama to provide proof of his American birth in order to get on the ballot next year.
But Ralston, who has developed a strong relationship with Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, suggested that HB 401 stood little chance of making it to the floor for passage, despite carrying the signatures of 93 Republican lawmakers.
House Speaker David Ralston. Jason Getz, jgetz@ajc.com
“I’m not promoting the bill or squelching discussion. We’ll have a discussion, and then we’ll see what happens,” Ralston said. “First of all, I believe President Obama is the duly elected president of the United States. I’ve never followed the ‘birther’ school of thought.”
The measure was introduced Monday, and has its first hearing today in a House subcommittee. The bill could require all candidates for president to provide certified copies of their “first original long-form birth certificate.”
Documentation as provided by the state of Hawaii, which has insisted time and time again that Obama was born there, “would not suffice,” said state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, the bill’s author.
The bill comes as the Georgia Ports Authority continues to push the White House for hundreds of millions in federal dollars to dredge the Port of Savannah – the state’s most important infrastructure project. The bill also flies in the face of an alliance that the House speaker has built with the mayor of Atlanta on another crucial issue – transportation funding.
Moreover, passage of the HOPE scholarship bill on Tuesday was accomplished with the cooperation of House Democratic Leader Stacy Abrams of Atlanta, who has her own ties to Obama.
All that said, the signatures of 93 Republicans on the bill – in a 180-member House – requires Ralston to perform a high-wire act on this issue.
“I am elected by a large and diverse caucus. And the issues that matter to them span a considerable range,” Ralston said. “What I’ve tried to be about, is allowing the committee process to have discussions about issues that are important to members.”
Another measure being heard today, the speaker noted, was a proposed constitutional amendment to permit horse-racing in Georgia.
Asked whether HB 401 could hurt the state’s effort to obtain federal funding for its all-important port, Ralston said:
”I would hope that having the discussion would not. I would hope that there would be respect for a diversity of opinion and a free exchange of ideas. I would hope that everybody in this process is big enough to understand that in the legislative process, a big part of what this is about is having ideas vetted and debated.
“I’m kind of proud of the relationships we have. Mayor Reed and I have formed a kind of alliance that I think is healthy for the entire state. I think we share some goals that I think are good for Georgia – such as the port and its future.
“I think all of those are much larger than this discussion.”
In case you missed it, go back and read the emphasis Ralston placed on the word “discussion.”
Asked whether his relationship with Reed would survive a floor vote on a bill that questions the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, Ralston said this:
”I think our alliance is very strong. And I would not do anything to damage that alliance.”
So no House floor vote? Replied Ralston:
”I’m saying that we’ve got a lot of big issues that need to come to the floor. That’s different than saying that debating this bill in subcommittee or at the committee level – that’s two different things.
“At some point we’re going to have to sit down and prioritize how we’re going to spend our energy. The priorities are the budget, the reservoir bill, making sure the HOPE scholarship bill gets all the way through the process. We’ve got the tax reform council.”
At the request of many of you’ve I’ve uploaded a scan of the many signatures on HB 401. Stopping this bill may be harder than it sounds. Originally, we wrote here that, among the 22 Republicans who have not signed onto the bill was John Meadows, chairman of the House Rules Committee, which determines which bills move – and don’t move.
But Hatfield pointed us to Meadows’ signature. “Top of the second row, back page.”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
249 comments Add your comment
Bourne Penetration
March 2nd, 2011
3:47 pm
This needs to be repeated…..ksdb is a Goober of the first and highest order.
So sayeth the irrelevant one.
ksdb
March 2nd, 2011
3:52 pm
I hope those tears aren’t ruining your keyboard, B.
ksdb
March 2nd, 2011
3:53 pm
One more time for the literate folks in Georgia: Obama voted for a federal law in 2005 that requires your state to verify the validity of your birth certificate from the issuing agency when you use it to apply for a drivers license or ID card. The eligibility bill does nothing more than hold presidential candidates to the same standard that Obama voted for in 2005. The alarming part is that such a law doesn’t already exist and that presidential candidates have never been required to prove their eligibility for office before. Get behind your legislature and pass this bill.
Last Man Standing
March 2nd, 2011
3:57 pm
Chilidog:
Obama’s first act as President EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 banning release of any of his records
Fewderation of American Scientists ^
Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:19:37 PM by kaizen
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 – - – - – - –
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. (b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative. (b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009.
td
March 2nd, 2011
4:20 pm
Chilidog
March 2nd, 2011
2:49 pm
td, the state can not deny registered parties and qualified candidates from being on the ballot in the general election. they do restrict the primaries to the biggest parties, however.
That is totally false. The Constitutional Party, green party and communist party are three examples of “registared parties” that are not on the general election ballot in Georgia and many other states. If I am not mistaken Ross Perot’s party received 10% of the vote, was a “nationally registared party” and was not on the ballot in 8 states (including California). How did these states get away with this? Under you synopsis this would be illegal. Right?
What about my other point about you and I do not have the right to vote for the President and what if the state decided to let the legislature only vote for the electors?
double
March 2nd, 2011
4:20 pm
Denise last time I checked Georgia was first in Bank failures.
Chilidog
March 2nd, 2011
4:38 pm
ksdp, Georgia does have this countries most restrictive ballot access laws.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0691.html
However, that has nothing to do with HB401.
Admit it, HB401 is a political attack on Obama.
(one that will fail)
I actually hope it passes. the entertainment value as the Georgia birthers get all hot and bothered over this will be huge. Especially when they lose in court.
phil
March 2nd, 2011
4:42 pm
Why not pass a bill that all candidates prove their citizenship and not just Obama. Problem solved.
Phoenix Falcon
March 2nd, 2011
5:01 pm
typical white people doing what they do…………..just curious….
how many WHITE presidents had to show their birth certificate?????????
Phoenix Falcon
March 2nd, 2011
5:02 pm
@phil
because there is only one BLACK president.
ksdb
March 2nd, 2011
5:44 pm
@ chilldog; How is this an attack on Obama if he can provide a legal birth certificate?? You faithers whine and make excuses. If Obama is legit, this shouldn’t prevent him from being on the ballot again.
Aquagirl
March 2nd, 2011
5:58 pm
“How is this an attack on Obama if he can provide a legal birth certificate??”
He did. Right on the bottom of the certificate of live birth you can see yourself: “this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
The officials in Hawaii are quite clear: he was born there, his records are on file, and he’s a citizen.
Oh, YOU want a copy of some other piece of paper in your little birfer hands? Tough noogies. We’re past the time when black folk jump through extra hoops just because you like to see them perform. He’s not going to shuffle and yessir and tap dance, and boy, that just chaps your bum big time. Boo-hoo. Poor oppressed wingnut.
Now go make yourself useful—-Jingle jingle jingle!
Shame of GA
March 2nd, 2011
6:04 pm
Why not pass a bill where anyone wanting to run for ANY political office MUST have education beyond high school with specific training in political science and all areas that will relate to what they will be doing. No more waking up one morning, stretching, and saying to oneself, “I think I will run for political office. I think I’ll be perfect to help make major decisions on the lives of my fellow Americans.” Bingo, the shingle is out, lies begin, cheating, stealing, ruining a nation. REQUIRE EDUCATION. The dude governing Wisconsin has a mere high school diploma. SHAME!
ksdb
March 2nd, 2011
6:08 pm
@ aquagirl: Obama has never presented his jpg in any court proceeding. No recognized legal authority has ever been able to inspect it and determine its authenticity. A couple of interns at a self-proclaimed fact-checking site is not a legal authority. The officials in Hawaii have used deliberately misleading language to fool people like you, quite successfully I might add. A bona fide birth certificate would be self-authenticating evidence in a court of law. It would be the ONE and ONLY document that is need to verify place of birth, yet the director of the Hawaii Department of Health surreptitiously changed her verbiage from “original birth certificate” in October 2008 to “original vital records” (as in multiple records) in July 2009 to supposedly verify in the latter statement that Obama was born in Hawaii. Whatever additional records she is referencing have no apparent legal weight, especially when they are not presented. Under Hawaiian law, any records used to make such a public statement are supposed to be avialable for inspection, yet the health director has refused to disclose ANY records. It amounts to nothing more than hearsay, but it does prove that Obama’s original birth certificate is insufficient to verify a place of birth.
One more time: Obama voted for a federal law in 2005 that requires your state to verify the validity of your birth certificate from the issuing agency when you use it to apply for a drivers license or ID card. The eligibility bill does nothing more than hold presidential candidates to the same standard that Obama voted for in 2005. It’s time to quit making excuses for this charlatan. He pledged transparency but has failed to deliver.
Aquagirl
March 2nd, 2011
6:42 pm
“No recognized legal authority has ever been able to inspect it and determine its authenticity.”
What, the Director of the State Dept. of Health isn’t a recognized legal authority? Oh, I forgot, she’s not only yellow, she’s a woman. Sorry, chum, courts recognize her, even if you don’t.
Which they have. Your interwebs lawyering is an epic fail, especially since you think it’s sooooo sinister the Governor of Hawaii said “archives” instead of :
“all the freakin’ records we have here in Hawaii, which is an unwieldy phrase, but I better use it since archives are technically not where you find current records, and some nutcase on the AJC boards will seize up over my casual verbiage and post a link to our archives, then think it’s somehow proof of his banana brain accusations”
That doesn’t give you, or anyone else grounds to demand more documents or proof because you don’t like that one. You have to put forward substantial evidence for your claim. The courts agree. Every one of you dummies has been tossed out of court, sometimes with a substantial fine.
But please, continue your conspiracy-babble. I’d actually LOVE to see this pass, and watch Georgia get a reaming in court. It would serve the dual purpose of alienating independent voters from the Republicans.
Yep, a win-win situation for Obama and the rest of the sane world. So I’ll stop distracting you so you can go fire up the other wingnuts and dig your own grave.
Dave
March 2nd, 2011
6:50 pm
An idiotic bill as many have said. Two things. One, it seems my representative, Mike Jacobs, hasn’t signed on, unless he is hiding down at the bottom of the scan where it cuts off, which is good. Two, I think they ought to bring this thing to the floor and vote on it. Why? Many are complaining, including me, about the failure to bring the Sunday sales bill to the Senate floor – fill in your own argument about why it is wrong to be bottled up by Senate Republicans. Speaker Ralston should demand that his party bring this and Sunday sales to the respective floors for up or down votes so we know who’s for what. Some will be pleased with one vote and displeased with the other; but, at least “we the people” will know what the people we elected think. Damn, did I just type “we the people?”
Unreal
March 2nd, 2011
6:54 pm
I haven’t seen the birth certificates for any of the commentators on this piece. Therefore, you’re all illegitimate. You all could be Swedish for all I know. Probably hanging out at Ikea right now, you no good Swedish birthers.
On that note, I also haven’t seen birth certificates for the following politicians. Since I haven’t seen them personally, clearly, they all have to be Swedish. Why are they hiding them from my eyes?
Nathan Deal
Ronald Regan
George W Bush
George HW Bush
Sonny Perdue
Casey Cagle
Sam Olens
Brian Kemp
Mark Butler
Tom Price
Jack Kinsington
Phil Gingrey
Newt Gengrich
and the list goes on and on. All these republicans from Georgia! All no good Swedes trying to take over our government! Since I haven’t seen the birth certificate, and they could easily drive to my house and present me with a copy, they’re clearly hiding something.
Can Georgia lawmakers take a grown up pill and try to solve real problems instead of the problems the voices in their heads are talking to them about?
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
12:42 am
@ Unreal: George W. Bush’s birth certificate is at the Texas state library archives. Here’s Reagan’s birth certificate:
http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dscn0552.jpg
Notice how it was provided by the state of Illinois. Let’s see the state of Hawaii do the same thing, or will Obama’s presidential library have blank walls and empty rooms??
steve danz
March 3rd, 2011
9:01 am
Lets take a look at this from another angle.Does anyone know how Obamas mother left a ISLAND in the middle of the Pacific,snuck in to KENYA,had a baby and then snuck back into the state of HAWAII with the baby without leaving a trace?
Chilidog
March 3rd, 2011
9:39 am
Here’s Reagan’s birth certificate:
http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dscn0552.jpg
======================================
That’s not a birth certificate, that’s a jpg.
how come it’s dated August 14, 1942? Reagan was born in 1911.
Wher’s the hospital listed on that?
Where’s the time of birth. it’s not complete without the date AND TIME of birth.
How do we know that is really the signature of the doctor in attendance? How old was he when he signed that? If it was 31 years later, how can he be sure he remembers which baby was which?
That image of a document is not acceptable according to the standards of HB 401.
Kevin Michel
March 3rd, 2011
9:45 am
I am not from Georgia, but I have a number fo friends who live there. Some are more conservative, some are more liberal, but none of them strike me as foolish, or stupid, or ignorant…. Perhaps the people of Georgia could persuade one of them to run for the state legislature to replace the foolish, stupid and ignorant representatives who are there, wasting your time and taxpayer dollars on this political stupidity. It is obvious that the legislators we elected really did not get the message of the last election, that they were to do the PEOPLE’S business and not the PARTY’S. Let’s not forget this in two years when we can boot all these current folks out and replace them again. Perhaps if we do that three or four times, the craziness will stop and we might be able to put legislators in positions to protect the american people, instead of the american parties or the american corporations.
Kevin Michel
March 3rd, 2011
9:47 am
To Steve Danz.
Of course. Didn’t you know? She was an alien. She used a transporter. And the President is getting ready to pave the way for the great alien invasion from Alpha Centauri…..
Geez, I’m just a dumb ol’ Northeast Liberal and I knew that!
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
10:35 am
@ chillydog: So predictable … look, if you have doubts about Reagan’s birth certificate, you can go to his presidential library and look at it. The only option for Obama is to pull up a website with a redacted jpg.
You said: “how come it’s dated August 14, 1942? Reagan was born in 1911.” Well how come Obama’s jpg is dated June 6, 2007 when he was born in 1961?? Why is Reagan’s certificate signed but Obama’s is not??
Back to your question, Reagan was born at a time when birth certificates were not recorded routinely. Evidently he never had an original, but he needed one in 1942 when he was ordered into military service on April 19. His certificate is dated April 14. Unlike Obama, this copy of the certificate at the library was provided by the state that issued it, and Reagan originally obtained that certificate for a very specific identification purpose, which would be no different than using it for the eligibility bill.
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
10:44 am
@ steve: You wrote: “Does anyone know how Obamas mother left a ISLAND in the middle of the Pacific,snuck in to KENYA,had a baby and then snuck back into the state of HAWAII with the baby without leaving a trace?”
I hope you understand that a Freedom of Information request was filed with the state department to get Obama’s mama’s passport records. While taking more than a year to fill this request, all her records prior to 1965 were curiously absent. The state department claims those records were routinely destroyed (even though there’s no evidence of a legal order to destroy records from that time period). The records that were released indicate Stanley Ann Dunham had renewed her passport that she already had prior to 1965. This means it’s entirely possible she had a passport so she could go to Kenya, Indonesia, Canada or just about anywhere and gave birth.
Second, you talk about her “sneaking” in and out of the country, but it’s an empty complaint. SAD “snuck” into the state of Washington the same month Obama was born (and perhaps earlier). SAD claimed to get married to Barak Sr. in Maui in February 1961 but there’s no marriage license or travel records to substantiate this claim. Wouldn’t that be “sneaking” in and out of Honolulu??
The absence of evidence doesn’t preclude SAD from going to another country or another state to give birth. Sorry, but this is just another failed excuse.
Chilidog
March 3rd, 2011
11:49 am
ksdb: “You said: “how come it’s dated August 14, 1942? Reagan was born in 1911.” Well how come Obama’s jpg is dated June 6, 2007 when he was born in 1961?? Why is Reagan’s certificate signed but Obama’s is not?? ”
=========================
HA!!!
You just shot yourself in the foot there. You asked where is the Obama certificate dated June 6, 2007? Right above the signature of the registrar that issued it in 2007, that’s where.
Obama’s birth certificate was filed with the state on August 8, 1961, four days (two working days) after he was born.
Look at your Reagan jpg again. That document was issued by the state in 1991. It was filed with the state in 1942, 31 years after Reagan was born.
I suspect fraud. I suspect that Reagan was actually born in Canada where his grandmother was from.
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
11:57 am
@ chili: I didn’t ask “where” it was dated. Obama’s certificate is dated 46 years AFTER he was born (that beats the 31 years after Reagan was born), yet he wrote in one of his books that he had a birth certificate from many years ago. Why would he need a new COLB if he already had a birth certificate, unless he was trying to hide information that is one that earlier certificate?
You’re really contorting yourself over Reagan who is officially documented by the State of Illinois while Obama is not. Reagan’s certificate is not redacted. Reagan’s certificate was issued so he could identify himself for military purposes. Obama’s is not. Reagan’s certificate is posted in a public place for all to view. Obama’s is not. At what point does it sink in that you’re doing nothing more than making excuses??
Bob Hubbard, Sr.
March 3rd, 2011
12:28 pm
If this bill passes, the next one should be a bill to require completence of all elected officials, particularly full knowledge of the Constitution. That should clear a lot of offices in Washington and Atlanta.
Chilidog
March 3rd, 2011
12:34 pm
@Bob Hubbard, no, the next bill that the legislature will pass will be a law defining the term “Natural Born” as someone whose parents are blood relatives.
Chilidog
March 3rd, 2011
12:40 pm
FYI, it looks like several legislators are backing away from this bill.
Chilidog
March 3rd, 2011
12:45 pm
NO, ksdb
Reagan’s BC that is hanging on the wall was ISSUED in 1991, that’s 80 years after he was born.
Obama’s BC that can be seen on the internet was ISSUED in 2007, that’s 46 years after he was born.
Reagans’s BC that is hanging on the wall was REGISTERED WITH THE STATE in 1942, 31 YEARS after he was born.
Obama’s BC that can be seen on the internet was REGISTERED WITH THE STATE in 1961, 4 DAYS after he was born.
You lose that argument.
Bob Jones
March 3rd, 2011
2:35 pm
In order to be a natural born citizen ( required by the US Constitution for the office of president) One has to have 2 US citizens as parents. There has never been a claim that Barack Sr was a US citizen. Therefore Mr Obama may be a citizen of these united states but he can never be a natural born citizen and is not qualified for the office of president. He can be a senator dog catcher or supreme court justice, but not president. Good day
steve danz
March 3rd, 2011
3:07 pm
Ksdb,So the answer is no.My passport is stamped.Would the State dep. keep paper records of every Americans leaving the country 50 years ago?Of what use to anyone would this be?I am not making any excuses about anything,just asking is there anything here or in Kenya to suggest that BA was born there and then was brought here by hi mother.
steve danz
March 3rd, 2011
3:10 pm
duh
BCL
March 3rd, 2011
3:15 pm
How far does the law go in stating what content is needed?
I’ve seen the current California birth certificate form, which is actually pretty short, but contains the doctor’s signature, the hospital name/address, both parents’ names as well as their places of birth. Every state has a different form, and some include race of the parents (as with Hawaii). At least the jurisdiction in California I’ve seen issues an image (digitized in a database) of the original form printed on a standard form made by the Midwest Bank Note Company (they seem to be very popular). Hawaii doesn’t issue a certified copy of the original form as a matter of policy now, although any older ones are still valid. Anyone born in Hawaii now probably wouldn’t pass muster for proof of birth with just the COLB that the state will issue. Many jurisdictions have gone to shorter forms that do have all the information that the State Department needs to issue a passport.
OK – I looked over HB 401, and now see the requirements. Seems pretty short, but it has a requirement that a “long-form” must include the birthplace of the parents (California has this but Hawaii does not) and residence of each parent. You know what – there are a lot of states/counties/cities that issue birth certificates that don’t have all this information. I’ve seen a photo of a current Alaska birth certificate, and it’s computer generated without the whole laundry list. If Sarah Palin (born in Idaho) runs for President and can’t find a certified copy of the original form, she’s going to be stuck using the current form, which has even less information than Hawaii’s COLB.
http://www.themasterofdeception.com/documents/judys_bc.jpg
Also – it creates an interesting dilemma if a candidate might only have one or two original “long-form” birth certificates from a state that has moved to abstract certified copies. There might be a dozen states with similar laws. Are they going to trust that such irreplaceable documents are going to be safe, and how do they get them out to multiple state? It’s easy enough for Obama’s campaign to request 100 copies of Hawaii’s COLB to stockpile, but if he does happen to have an original form somewhere, is he going to trust that Georgia authorities aren’t going to lose the one copy he might have?
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
3:18 pm
LOL @ chilldog … all you’re doing is making excuses.
BCL
March 3rd, 2011
3:27 pm
The bill also (in a way) seeks to define “natural born” and I’m pretty sure that’s the role of the federal government. I’ve never heard of getting naturalized in another country and re-naturalized in the US as losing one’s “natural born” status. It’s an interesting argument they’re making, but not something that is within the authority of a state to decide.
Again – it also requires “original” documents, which would indicate a certified photostatic copy of the original signed BC. Hawaii doesn’t file new ones any more; they keep all their info in a text database. Add to that a lot of jurisdictions simply don’t issue certified copies of original long-form birth certificates as a matter of policy. I read somewhere that Hawaii might be able to issue a copy of the original form if they have it, but won’t certify it with the registrar’s signature and the official seal of the health department.
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
3:27 pm
@ Steve: What “answer” is no?? You characterized SAD as sneaking around because you claim there was no trace that she was in Kenya or “snuck” back into Hawaii. We do have evidence that his stepgrandmother said the baby was born in Kenya and there’s a Kenyan birth certificate showing he was born in Kenya. Other than that there’s no trace of SAD’s whereabouts at all between Fall 1960 and Fall 1961. That’s why skeptics want to see actual documents get released and why it’s so curious that Obama, other politicians and Obama’s apologists go out of their way to prevent the release of ORIGINAL records and make excuses not to allow them to be released. Why are faithers so skeered about such a simple request?? Shouldn’t these documents vindicate him??
BCL
March 3rd, 2011
4:18 pm
You know what? Apparently the current “original” form in California isn’t compliant with this legislation. It doesn’t included place of residence of parents at time of birth. I guess it would be submitted as “birth records” but with a file folder of other information. Also – my research is that Alaska, Idaho, and other places don’t issue “long-forms” any more.
That doesn’t even get to the issue that some counties would issue a computer-generated abstract form with just the information needed for a driver license or passport. I’ve seen at least one form from a Texas county that is truly minimal.
Here’s what a current California birth certificate looks like for anyone interested. Not all jurisdictions in the state would produce a photostatic copy. I’ve heard of some issuing abstract forms.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QF4ceKgWIuw/TGPYViz6dOI/AAAAAAAAAD4/AlQQxE-sqao/s1600/CA+county+santa+barbara_birth+certificate.jpeg
ksdb
March 3rd, 2011
4:27 pm
@ BCL, there’s no question that many states primarily issue abstract forms. This is part of a national standardization process that has been going on for many years. However, many states, if they are like Hawaii, are still required by law to keep original certificates in storage and may be required, like Hawaii, to provide any part of any certificate that is requested. IOW, if you have a long-form on file and you want a copy of it, these states must provide a copy of it or the information contained on that record. Such records are helpful for genealogy research, etc.
Hawaii, ironically, claims to be one of the pioneers of the Electronic Verification of Vital Event (EVVE) system. In June 2008 (the same month Obama posted his jpg), the state of Hawaii issued a news release saying:
“Hawai‘i was also the first state to enact legislation that allowed
verification of birth certificate information in lieu of ordering certified copies of vital records and piloted the Electronic Verification of Vital Event (EVVE) system nationally.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-55.pdf
Funny how they’ve said absolutely NOTHING about using this system to verify Obama’s jpg.
Michael
March 3rd, 2011
5:02 pm
Delta is so ready when I am.
Edward
March 3rd, 2011
6:58 pm
I really really REALLY want this bill to pass, I am so wanting to see this “Deliverance” state get smacked down like a rabid dog by the Feds. You can’t buy entertainment like this, I mean this is almost as good a train wreck as Charlie Sheen!
The 'birther' bill and an image of second thoughts | Political Insider
March 3rd, 2011
7:12 pm
[...] Word of House Speaker David Ralston’s coolness toward the legislation spread through the Capitol on Wednesday. Those concerned with the Port of Savannah made their opinions known. [...]
The ‘birther’ bill and an image of second thoughts | Conservative GA
March 3rd, 2011
9:37 pm
[...] Word of House Speaker David Ralston’s coolness toward the legislation spread through the Capitol on Wednesday. Those concerned with the Port of Savannah made their opinions known. [...]
3/3 – AJC – The ‘birther’ bill and an image of second thoughts | Political Insider « GIRRC – Georgia Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition
March 3rd, 2011
10:51 pm
[...] Word of House Speaker David Ralston’s coolness toward the legislation spread through the Capitol on Wednesday. Those concerned with the Port of Savannah made their opinions known. [...]
steve danz
March 4th, 2011
8:34 am
KSDB maybe the passport being renewed was her first.Was the date this was requested in 1968?Was this referencing the one issued in 1965?Were any documents released in the FOIA dated before 1968?Then she could not have left the country…mmmmWell she could have I suppose.anyway check this out.Was she renewing the passport that was issued in 1965?Does anything say it was a passport she already had?As for the grandmother come on dude neither of us speak Kenyan I saw a transcript of this which IF accurate showed a jumble of babbling and mistranslatating going on.
rw
March 4th, 2011
8:37 am
The irony is that this bill is just as likely to cause problems for future Republican candidates as it is for Democratic candidates.
Be careful what you wish for – information on birth certificates vary by state. HB 401 is very specific about what must be included on the certificate and some of this information may not be on all birth certificates.
John McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base to U.S. citizens. To me that makes him a natural born citizen, but I don’t think there has ever been a definitive Supreme Court ruling on that issue. Do we really want the Georgia Secretary of State making that type of determination as this bill allows? If you said yes, are you assuming the Secretary of State will be a Republican? What if the Secretary of State happens to be a Democrat? Still sure?
What about in primaries? Do you really want to create a technical loophole that gives the Secretary of State the ability to keep a candidate off the ballot? Don’t know if this is accurate, but an earlier poster indicated that Idaho birth certificates don’t include the birthplace of the parents. If true, that means that a Secretary of State that happens to support Romney or Huckabee for the 2012 Republican nomination might be able to keep Sarah Palin off the primary ballot. Still sure?
ksdb
March 4th, 2011
12:34 pm
@ Steve: SAD’s pasport record from July 19, 1965 was a renewal of an earlier record. Her form said she was residing in Jakarta at that time and she gave no U.S. address.
As for the stepgrandmother, a 2008 story reported “In the western village of Kogelo, where the Democratic candidate’s late father was born, police had tightened security to prevent hordes of media and others from entering the rural homestead of Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah. But the elderly woman and several other relatives came outside Wednesday to cheer for Obama in a country where the Democrat is seen as a “son of the soil.”"
Evidently those in the Kenyan parliament take this to heart. “Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and colour.”
And the Minister of Lands said: “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”
steve danz
March 4th, 2011
10:02 pm
You all will have his entire 2nd term to sort this out,good luck.
Georgia Native
March 5th, 2011
8:41 am
Where can I get a list of the ignorant racists in the Ga congress that support this bill?