 |
| Rep. Mike Hatfield (R) GA -117 |
"At least a dozen lawmakers have removed their names from a proposal in the Georgia House that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove they were born in the country.
Among representatives that removed their names were Jon Burns of Newington, Penny Houston of Nashville, Tom McCall of Elberton, Ann Purcell of Rincon and Ron Stephens of Savannah. All are Republicans.
“It’s just much more in depth than I originally anticipated,” Stephens said of dropping his support for a measure inspired by the “birther” movement, which believes President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Sponsor Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, originally had 93 co-sponsors of House Bill 401. The measure first appeared in an elections subcommittee on Wednesday and is up for debate at the group’s next meeting."
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/lawmakers-backing-away-from-859534.html
[Update:]
It appears that Rep. Hatfield did have his hands full. The Republicans are deserting his bill at an alarming rate. The number is now up to 23 supporters that have withdrawn.
"Some Georgia lawmakers couldn’t backpedal fast enough Thursday on a “birther” bill supported earlier this week by a majority of House members.
First to block out his name with a heavy black marker on House Bill 401 was John Meadows, chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.
A steady stream of legislators followed all day. By 5 p.m., at least 23 of the original 93 backers were gone from a proposal requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates prove they were born in the United States. Among them was the bill's lone Democratic supporter, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro.
Seventy sponsors is still a sizable chunk of the 180-member chamber, but is an abrupt about-face from just 48 hours before. Why?"‘Birther' bill losing supporters
Why indeed?
[Updated to add the cartoon from the March 4 edition of the AJC by Mike Luckovich]
Maybe because they finally read the damn thing?
ReplyDeleteGood point TTS. The same thing happened in Arizona. The bill had a lot of momentum until folks checked under the hood and looked at the ugly details.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Orly visit Georgia to push the bill? That would be enough to turn anyone off.
ReplyDeleteMany Republicans are complacent that they have allow Obama to serve even though he ineligible. Such a bill would prove Obama's ineligiblity and Repulicans don't want to be caught up in their complacenty.
ReplyDeleteThey also know that if such bill passes, Obama won't be able to satisfy it because he has no long-form BC. Republicans don't want to painted as racists since the Democrats will claim that they depriving an African American the right to be POTUS not withstanding his ineligiblity. If Obama is truly eligible to serve, then no Republican or Democrat should have a problem with the bill since Obama would be able to satisfy it.
ReplyDeleteBTW in case you missed this gem by JY1977 in my chat last night:
ReplyDeleteI had mentioned on the show that I had found a post by Vince Treacy on NBC's blog about a section of the federal code where the term "birth certificate" is defined.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/from-vince-treacy-lakin/
Here is part of what he said:
"This is what I posted at the Turley blog. The folks at American Thinker refused to post it as a comment to Lakins article:
So here is the posting the American Thinker did not want you to read:
The good doctor is oblivious to the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code that he never mentions.
He seems unaware that the definition has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.” "
JY had a ready answer of course:
"The president is not a federal office."
They probably need to change the bill about duel citizenship. Instead of that, they should specify the candidate needs to submit a sworn statement that both parents were US citizens at the time of their birth. This would allow Mitt Romey on the ballot but would knock off Obama because his father was a Kenyan citizen.
ReplyDeleteThey probably need to change the bill about duel DUAL citizenship. Instead of that, they should specify the candidate needs to submit a sworn statement that both parents were US citizens at the time of their birth. This would allow Mitt Romey ROMNEY on the ballot but would knock off Obama because his father was a Kenyan citizen.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all - Why? There is NO requirement that either parent be a citizen. Wishing is not so does not change reality.
Dueling Citizenships??? I am starting to hear banjo music...
And James, which ass_hole did you pull this out of???
"This would allow Mitt Romey on the ballot but would knock off Obama"
ReplyDeleteLOL!
So you admit it is not about eligibility. You don't care if an illegible guy is on the ballot.
It is about keeping ONE person - President Obama - off the ballot.
Now WHY would that be?
Oh, and by the way, James, any bill that kept President Obama off the ballot would keep a lot of other candidates off and be unconstitutional.
Even if Federal Law recognizes Obama's COLB as a birth certificate, that's federal law and not state law to get on a ballot. Further, the law deals with federal agency and employees who work for federal agency. Obama is the POTUS and as we know there are only 3 qualifications including having to a NBC. Obama's COLB in my opinion as this bill dictates does not provide the satisfactory information that the candidate is a NBC. Even if we are to consider the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I believe that deals with PUBLIC records and birth certificates are not public record. Even if they were, the COLB is connected to underlying birth certificate. I think any state should be able to demand for the long-form BC and I don't think you can piecemeal the Full Faith and Credit Clause where state can ask for one record but not the other. Finally, I think one can make the argument that the clause would be tainted if the person refused constent release of the birth certificate without providing any reason why the original birth certificate should or cannot be shown. In this case, Obama has never provided any reason why his long-form BC should not be released.
ReplyDeleteInstead of asking for the original birth certificate, they should ask for a birth certificate that contains any of the following markers:
ReplyDeleteHospital Name and attending Doc OR Home Address and attending doc or midwife OR an Unspecified location but with at least one witness signature.
As we know Obama's COLB has none of these identifying markers.
We know Governor Abercrombie tried to find the long-form BC but all he found was unspecified notation listed in a state archive.
This is possibly the notation submitted by the grandparents registering Obama's birth in Hawaii which is what automatically generated the birth announcements and why the birth announcements list the grandparent's address.
I am reminded of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto: They found themselves surrounded by hundreds of unfriendly Indians and the Lone Ranger said "We are in real trouble now, Tonto." to which Tonto replied, "What this we shit? Pale Face."
ReplyDeleteJames wrote: "[snip] ... as we know ... [snip] ... in my opinion ... [snip] ... I believe ... [snip] ... I think ... [snip] ... and I don't think ... [snip] ... I think ... [snip] ... we know ... [snip] ... We know ... [snip]..."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're wrong.
"No, you're wrong."
ReplyDeleteHow can you top such forthright poster such as verbalobe?