An anxious Commonwealth waits with bated breath: will Tim Cahill endorse the birther bill passed on 19 April by his fellow Tea Party sympathizers in Arizona as a follow up to their Big Giant Government triumph signed into law on 23 April that requires everyone in the state to carry around identification all the time on threat of immediate arrest. CNN:
The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.
Cahill has gone after the birthers, deathers and Tea Partiers for all he is worth in an effort, presumably, to replicate Scott Brown’s victory and take out Charlie Baker on his 9/11 truther flank. This seems like a logical next step followed, perhaps, by … what? A concealed carry rally by armed supporters at City Hall Plaza? Fill in your suggestion in the comments.
stomv says
You lawyer types, do tell…
david says
It effectively creates an additional state-imposed qualification to run for federal office. That’s what the term limits folks tried, and were told they couldn’t do it. Not sure how this is much different.
<
p>But that doesn’t matter to the loons who are pushing this measure. It’s all about a political statement. Frankly, it’s better for them if the federal courts strike the measure down, because then they can rail against evil federal judges and big gubmint infringing on states’ rights without actually having to implement a foolish law like this one.
bob-neer says
In the hands of a Tea Party Republican official in Arizona who will, no doubt, announce that since Hawaii is not part of the United States Obama was not born in America — or some equally convincing Fox News-esque rationale
christopher says
…Secretary Galvin’s website has a “How to Run for President in Massachusetts” page which for starters lists the constitutional requirements. Presumably states would be allowed to check and enforce that candidates seeking ballot access meet the basic requirements, whether it be that the candidate is natural-born or that the candidate is at least 35 years old. The difference between this and term limits is that this is enforcing requirements already in place, whereas term limits was an additional exclusion.
david says
you’re assuming the answer to your own question by saying that “[p]resumably states would be allowed to check and enforce.” That’s basically the issue, and it’s not obvious to me that they can choose the means by which federal eligibility is met.
christopher says
…is that there would be a single enforcement through the FEC or something. This is another example, IMO, of how ridiculous it is that states administer elections for federal office.
mr-lynne says
… via a commission would be very undesirable for a constitutional question. Although I agree with your point about federalism as it applies to the administration of federal elections.
christopher says
I’m not wedded to a particular method, but it seems obvious to me that requirements should have some type of enforcement mechanism to back them up, especially when such requirements come from the Constitution itself.
hoyapaul says
that this is the same as the term limits situation, since this involves (supposedly) “enforcing” the existing requirement for the presidency as specified in the Constitution, as opposed to adding a new requirement. Given that states have the power to appoint electors, I’m not sure if this bill is unconstitutional.
<
p>Regardless, it’s clear just what this bill is: embarrassing to the Republican Party. Frankly, the GOP should be embarrassed that their Arizona colleagues have done this, because Obama birtherism is one of the most idiotic conspiracy theories I’ve heard in some years, and I’ve heard many. Of course, the Republicans probably won’t be embarrassed, since there is little that shames them these days.
david says
but there have to be limits, right? How far can a state go in ensuring that a candidate is a “natural born citizen”? If a state can insist on a birth certificate, can it go further and insist on a certified copy? An original? Or can a state refuse ballot access to people in the situations of, say, John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone), George Romney (Mexico), Barry Goldwater (Arizona territory pre-statehood), and Lowell Weicker (Paris), because in the state’s view they are not “natural born”?
mr-lynne says
… however, to look at this through the light of a State’s prerogative to appoint it’s electors as it sees fit. What are the constitutional limits (if any) on how a State appoints electors. It seems to me that it might be constitutionally possible that the Stat couldn’t enforce extra-constitutional rules on the election, but could enforce it’s own rules on who the electors cast their votes for. If such ‘rules for electors’ is constitutionally problematic (not a lawyer here), then it might still be such that they states could ‘instruct’ the electors unenforcably.
<
p>Thoughts?
christopher says
Popular vote has been universal since the Civil War, though Florida threatened to appoint new electors as part of the 2000 recount debacle. MA could pass a law saying the Governor can appoint 12 of his cronies with no outside approval and it would be constitutional. The Constitution is silent on giving electors instructions, but it would seem to assume that electors will exercise their own judgement. I know some states require electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, but I don’t know if such requirement has ever been tested in the courts.
bcal92 says
for non-‘merkins.
mike_cote says
Of anyone born or “book-learned” east of New York City.
sabutai says
When I saw the words “forced sterilization” in a comment title, I thought lasthorseman was back already.
liveandletlive says
to see what the argument is and why this thing won’t go away. It seems birth certificates vary across the states. Seeing a digital copy of any birth certificate
doesn’t really prove anything. FactCheck.org seems to have done some significant investigation noting that:
<
p>
<
p>(the Associated Press link is no longer available.)
<
p>So I guess the only thing that could be done would be to produce the long copy of the birth certificate.
If I were Obama, I would just do it to shut these people up, although even that may not shut them up. It’s unlikely the media would continue to pick up on it though if the long form was available to view. The birthers would
no longer get any air-time. I think now the media is curious too. Once the media is curious it will never go away. I don’t think they are curious because they doubt Obama’s citizenship. I think they are curious about what other information is on it.
<
p>Maybe it’s time, in consideration of the immigration issues, identity theft, and terrorism, that we come up with a standardized form that is acceptable in all states and is unquestionably a valid birth certificate.
<
p>I could have easily forged the birth certificate I used throughout my life, if I was inclined to do such a thing. It was a simple piece of white paper that looked like a receipt with very little information on it and a stamped signature. I have never been back to town hall for a new one, but I hope they’ve made some improvements over the last 30 years or so. I hope they are a lot more official looking in a way that can’t easily be forged. I should go get one just to see how they’ve changed.
<
p>About this:
<
p>
<
p>Isn’t that the law anyway? They want extra measures or what?
kirth says
the State of Hawaii has the original document, and they will not release it because of privacy-protection laws. I don’t think even a request from Obama would get them to bring it out.
<
p>The one that Factcheck looked at is a legal document, and should be sufficient for anyone with the slightest grasp of reality. The birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper is pretty convincing, too.
<
p>Anyone who is still paying attention to this “issue” deserves to be ignored. That most certainly includes anyone in the media.
patricklong says
All his mother had to do was write up a fake press release from Kenya and send it to the suckers at the HI newspapers. They printed it w/o fact-checking (or maybe they were in on the conspiracy) and thus she made her baby “eligible” to be President. Or even better, bribe the vital records office or the hospital to make up a birth certificate then send out the press release. If you wanted your baby to be President some day, wouldn’t you do everything you could to help him along?
<
p>More significantly, his mother was a citizen. Why wouldn’t he be one automatically, regardless of birth location?
patricklong says
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. … For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
<
p>http://travel.state.gov/law/in…
<
p>And if he was actually an illegitimate child, citizenship was even easier to get:
<
p>A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
<
p>So a successful birther argument would have to prove not only foreign birth, but that essentially Ann Dunham’s whole life after the age of 14 was faked.
stomv says
The Constitution requires POTUS and VPOTUS be “natural born Citizens of the United States”.
<
p>Exactly what that means (ranging from the very broad umbrella including the rules above to a very narrow one where the POTUS must have been born in a United State) is, well, fairly untested AFAIK.
smadin says
It’s simple. Obama is black. There is a lot – a lot – of latent (as well as, too often, explicit and active) racism in this country, and the Birthers are people who just can’t accept, can’t get their minds around, the idea that a black person could legitimately be President. Everything else is rationalization.
huh says
Why does it need to be done at all?
<
p>Say I accused you (falsely) of being a cannibal. How do you prove otherwise?
christopher says
…the same way you “prove” you’re not here illegally in ARIZONA. That state is apparently competing for “most xenophobic state” award between this and the recently signed “papers please” legislation.
huh says
Article here:
<
p>
smadin says
I didn’t realize there even was a competition for “most hateful state in the nation.”
huh says
Why else would they do this many awful things at once? It’s like standing up and shouting “please spend your money elsewhere!”
<
p>MLB is even being pushed to move the All Star game.
smadin says
I’m seeing headlines (haven’t read through yet to see how accurate they are) suggesting they’re trying to ban ethnic studies programs, and prevent people with heavy accents from teaching English? It’s like Racism Sweeps Week down there.
stomv says
it’s gonna swing hard and fast. At some point AZ is going to go big blue in a hurry. Sure, right now an older white demographic (which tends to be more conservative) is holding tight… but I don’t believe they’ll hold on for much more than another decade. At some point, I expect NV, AZ, NM, and CO to be quite blue, particularly on social justice issues.
<
p>If/when that happens, this nation’s politics are going to get more liberal with a quickness.
smadin says
But I very strongly fear it will be too little, too late in many regards.
huh says
Here’s an example:
<
p>
<
p>You can’t make this shit up.
christopher says
…at least at the college level ethnic studies are NOT designed to pit groups against one another. They ARE designed insure that no voices are left out of the overall cultural and historical narrative. I’m probably as unapologetically Eurocentrist as they come, but when done correctly these curricula can encourage unity rather than division. Besides, it should never be assumed that only people of a certain racial/ethnic background are going to be interested in studying that given background.
smadin says
It’s classic racist-wingnut projection. The AZ lawmakers pushing this don’t actually believe ethnic-studies programs try to pit groups against each other. They’re just appropriating anti-racist language and using it to promote a racist agenda. They want ethnic chauvinism, of their particular sort, so they try to muddy the waters by accusing programs that work against racism of promoting it; it’s just like white men calling affirmative action “racist” and “sexist,” or “men’s rights activists” accusing feminism of being at the root of all society’s ills, or right-wing evangelical Christians screaming about religious persecution and bigotry when atheists or Jews or Muslims don’t want crosses or the Ten Commandments put up in government buildings. It is precisely Orwellian.
huh says
It’s like the book coming out accusing Obama of trying to “subvert the Constitution” and turn America into a “militant, secular welfare state dominated by an overbearing central government.” Pure doublethink.
stomv says
which is odd considering that there is prior experience, in Arizona, not that long ago. Anyone remember AZ missing out on a Super Bowl due to their refusal to honor MLK?
sabutai says
Considering that Napolitano hasn’t exactly made headlines in Cabinet, is everyone better off considering that her replacement has turned out to be George Wallace in a Canyon?