Missouri House Bill HB 283Requires proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship.

State of Missouri ^ | January 28, 2011 | Self

[allmendream]

Why?

Well one State legislator was looking into drafting a bill to demand from would be Presidential candidates prove their eligibility (something I support completely and cannot believe wasn't done previously) by providing the “long form”.

While he was looking into this, he discovered, much to his chagrin - that his OWN State only issues a computer generated “short form” as official proof of birth within the State.

Under the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution - if a State says their official document is proof of birth within that State - AND it meets the requirements set forth by Congress (and the short forms do) then all other States are obligated - under the full faith and credit clause - to recognize it as proof of birth within that State.

As such, California (for example) MUST accept a Texas “short form” as proof of birth within Texas IF that “short form” fulfills the requirements set forth by Congress AND Texas law says that it is official documentation of birth within Texas.

[Jeff Winston]

I hate to ask the question, but is there therefore any way (that you can think of, at least) to draft a law requiring a candidate who appears to have a short-form COLB from Hawaii to produce the full certificate?

[allmendream]

(AFAIK) Only if Congress spells out the criteria for proof of birth within a state such that only the original “long form” would apply.

This is troublesome in that many municipalities have no permanent paper copy on archive and only have a “database” able to print out these “short forms”.

Thus many Americans would not, if the law were changed, be able to prove their birth within the State - despite both they and the State following all laws and regulations set forth by Congress to document and certify such.

But back to my original question. Is it better to “swing for the fences” and strike out on it being Unconstitutional? Or is it better to have a reasonable and Constitutional law that establishes what we want to establish?

What would be wrong with having the Hawaii DOH directly send the official form the State of Hawaii says is proof of birth within their State - directly to the SOS of the State certifying that they are qualified to be on the ballot?

[Jeff Winston]

Okay, how about this:

"where available."

As in, (very preliminary and off the top of my head on the wording here)

"(a) the (whoever is responsible) shall provide (to whomever), where available from a [State government, consular record of birth abroad or other certifying authority] a birth certificate or other official registration of birth containing the following items: [list]..."

"(b) In the event that a birth certificate or other official registration of birth meeting the description in subparagraph (a) above is not available from [etc.] (due to the fact that that agency does not provide records in that form or with that degree of completeness), then the (whoever is responsible) shall provide (to whomever) a (Certificate of Live Birth) or [whatever appropriate alternative(s)]..."

"In the event that (a candidate) fails to provide proof of eligibility for office as specified by subparagraph (a) or alternately by subparagraph (b), then the candidate's name shall not be listed on the ballot for the specified election."

[allmendream]

What would be wrong with having the Hawaii DOH (or whatever State DOH, this law being designed to not be a bill of attainder applicable to just one individual) send the form they deem to be proof of birth within that State, and that fulfills the requirements specified by Congress, directly to the SOS of the State certifying the qualification to be on the ballot?

Why would that not be sufficient to establish what it is said the law was designed to establish?

[Jeff Winston]

As we’ve seen in the case of Obama, even if the COLB is legitimate, it doesn’t necessarily establish that he was indeed born in Hawaii.

There’s probably a separate issue here, too. We need to establish not only that the candidate was born in the United States (or as a US citizen, and some proposed laws may fall short by not recognizing that a person can be born overseas to US parents and never have any citizenship but US citizenship, and thus also be native-born), but also that there is no good reason to believe that citizenship meets Constitutional muster and has not been invalidated since then.

From what I’ve read, Obama even if born in the US may still not be eligible to the office of President by virtue of (a) having been born to a father who wasn’t by anybody’s definition a US citizen, or (b) having been legally adopted by Soetoro (and given Indonesian citizenship?)

Or both.

So here we have a candidate who may be ineligible to the office for not just one, but up to three separate reasons.

[allmendream]

Well no State law can or will be able to establish what you seem to want it to establish.

I find it unlikely that any U.S. Court will ever rule that a person born a citizen of the USA is not a “natural born citizen”.

There are only two ways of becoming a citizen, and the way you become a citizen determines if you are natural born or naturalized. IMHO.

A “poof of identity and proof of United States citizenship” bill to get on the ballot in Missouri is fine, and they may indeed specify that to be on the ballot for the President one may not be a naturalized citizen - but they cannot take it upon themselves to define what a natural born citizen is.