In order for the bill to become law, it has to pass the Senate and also be signed by the governor. In the Senate, supporters of the bill are trying to pull together enough votes for it to pass. A spokesman for Governor Jan Brewer (Republican) said that she will not comment on pending legislation. Though her spokesman said that she does not have doubts about Obama's citizenship. Opponents of this bill say that it's casting Arizona is a negative light. Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) said, "We're becoming a national joke." [It's true, you are. You have the immigration legislation, the recently passed law that allows people to carry concealed weapons without permits, and now this. Way to go]. Tom Chabin (D-Flagstaff) said, "When you undermine the sitting president of the United States, you undermine our nation, and it makes us look very ugly."
Opponents of the bill also say that it gives the secretary of state broad powers to kick a candidate off the ballot. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (a Republican) says that he opposes the bill because it would give his office too much power. He also said he has no doubt about Obama's citizenship. I love how these politicians keep interjecting that. They obviously realize how it's political suicide to express any association with or to give any validity to the crazy birther movement (well, it's political suicide if you have a higher-up position. Obviously state legislators can get away with it...).
Some supporters of the bill insist that it's not about Obama -- but instead is "common sense". State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise, as in "Surprise! You don't know what common sense means"), who believes Obama has proven his citizenship, said, "It's our ballot. That parties need to prove that their nominee is eligible to hold the office of president to be on our ballot." Get over yourselves, Arizona. Obviously, when someone decides to run for president there is some important government official(s) that the candidates have to give their paperwork to in order to prove their eligibility. Obviously someone signs off on the candidate. It's not like any random candidate can get on the ballot without some sort of steps to take first. So candidates have already done their part and have been approved by some important government official, so they definitely don't need to go on a whistle-stop tour to every state in the nation with their birth certificate in tow. They don't need to personally show Arizona's secretary of state their birth certificate, because they already showed it to the person that mattered.
And it's sad that Obama's birth certificate was even shown publicly. There was no need for it be released. (Certain) Americans need to quit acting like it's their right to personally see his birth certificate. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the first time there's an uproar and people are demanding to see documentation is when we have an African-American president. If being absolutely certain about the candidates' citizenship was so important, why weren't people demanding this earlier? And why wasn't there this same crazy doubt with the other presidential candidate (from Arizona)? John McCain was born in Panama. He was born in Colon, which was outside the US-controlled Panama Canal Zone. Plus, the Panama Canal Zone (and its related military facilities) was an unincorporated territory at the time of McCain's birth, and thus was not considered a U.S. territory. However, a year after McCain was born, a law retroactively granted citizenship to individuals born within the Panama Canal Zone or within Panama if they had a parent that was employed by the U.S. government. I personally don't think there's any real issue with McCain's citizenship (in fact, I think the natural-born citizenship requirement is unnecessary), but why wasn't there this same unnecessary, ridiculous scrutiny over McCain's status? (Full Story)
You said: "John McCain was born in Panama. He was born in Colon, which was outside the US-controlled Panama Canal Zone. "
ReplyDeleteYou got the information for that from a forged birth certificate that is on the Web. McCain himself has said in his book that he was born at the Family Hospital on the Coco Solo Naval Base, in the Canal Zone.
What this also means, however, is that McCain did not post his birth certificate, nor did he show it to a court or to the senate. Nor did Bush or Clinton or any other president.
Obama did. He was not only president and only presidential candidate to show his birth certficate. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii.
Turning to the proposed law. There is a substantive reason why it should not be passed. About a million adopted children cannot get their birth certificates, or they have enormous difficulty getting them. Also, I read somewhere that many of the birth certificate files in the Gulf Coast area were flooded, meaning that those files were lost. Those people could not provide a birth certificate.
I got the information about McCain being born in Colon from the birth certificate that was filed with the US District Court in New Hampshire for the case Hollander v. McCain (and the case was about whether McCain was a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be president.) I have also heard conflicting stories about where he was born. Regardless of where in Panama he was born, my point was just that there were also some "issues"/questions regarding McCain's status, but most of the skepticism and the birther movement has been focused on Obama (even after proof was given). And it seems like if their real concern is natural citizenship, all these people should have been giving McCain just as hard of a time and demanding a copy of his birth certificate. I don't actually think people should have given McCain a hard time -- I just mean that the way Obama's and McCain's citizenship status was handled was inconsistent. I just think the whole thing is ridiculous. I think that it is an unnecessary law and should be changed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you raise a good point about people that do not have access to their birth certificates. I did not think about that. Yet another reason why this bill should not become law.
Thanks for your input!
I get your point on skepticism and I agree with it. My point was that McCain did not post his birth certificate, nor did any other candidate except for Obama, and no previous president or presidential candidate ever did.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure that the Colon birth certificate was filed in the Hollander case? I mean did you actually see something that was a court file from New Hampshire? I find it hard to believe that the McCain lawyers would file a birth certificate if their legal strategy was to have the case thrown out for lack of standing (which it was) and to file a birth certificate that said 'Colon' when McCain said that he was born at the family hospital on the Naval Base. I do not believe that the Colon document is really McCain's birth certif. But, please, I'd like to see evidence that it really was filed by the McCain lawyers in Hollander.
"My point was that McCain did not post his birth certificate, nor did any other candidate except for Obama, and no previous president or presidential candidate ever did." -- it sounds like we are on the same page. That's what I was referring to when I said, "If being absolutely certain about the candidates' citizenship was so important, why weren't people demanding this earlier?" No other president or presidential candidate has had to publicly release his birth certificate for the sake of appeasing the people.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Hollander case, the Colon birth certificate was filed with the court -- but it wasn't done by McCain or his people. It was the plaintiff's side that submitted the Colon birth certificate.
From court documents (filed by the plaintiff):
"Defendants have chosen to bypass the authority of this Court to rule on the credibility of evidence, instead asking this Court to admit the opinion of a web log to which they have submitted a copy of McCain's birth certificate. However, plaintiff does recognize this Court's authority and hereby submits a copy of McCain's birth certificate (see attached), issued by the Panama Canal Health Department to this Court for review. This document was provided by Don Lamb, the legal representative of the Panama Railroad Company, which recorded McCain's birth. Don Lamb attests by affidavit (see attached) that the Panama Railroad Company recorded the live birth of John Sidney McCain III in the city of Colon, Panama."
(Access to documents are here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php)
But, like you said, the judge dismissed the case because he ruled that Hollander lacks standing (i.e., he couldn't demonstrate to the court sufficient harm). The judge said there was no personal injury to Hollander traceable to the defendant's alleged ineligibility. Hollander tried to argue that it impacts his right to vote. But the judge said he is free to cast his vote for any other candidate he considers eligible (including writing in a name). And his vote is still counted. The judge said the presence of an allegedly ineligible candidate on the ballot would not impair his right to vote. The judge concluded, "The plaintiff is not able to show an injury to the voter interest, however much the plaintiff may feel offended by the challenged practice."
While an individual voter lacks standing to raise this challenge in the courts, the judge said that candidates or political parties have standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible candidate on the ballot on the grounds that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances in the election.
So the judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, but he didn't rule on the question of McCain's eligibility to be president (as it was a moot point). To make a long story short, the plaintiff submitted the Colon birth certificate, the defendants (McCain and the RNC) disputed it, and the judge said it was irrelevant to the present motion.
I hope that's the information you were looking for. Thanks for following up.
I stand corrected on the birth certificate. It looks like the Colon certificate is legal.
ReplyDeleteBut this raises an interesting question. McCain said in his book that he was born at the family hospital on the base. Is this a lie? Or, perhaps, both are right. He was born on the base at the hospital, and then they took him to the Colon Hospital for a checkup and issued the certificate there.
McCain, however, did not show it. Someone else did, and he certainly did not post it.
I'm not sure what the actual story is either. He could have been born at the base, but taken to the hospital in Colon to have the birth certified and to be checked up. Or he could have in fact been born at the Colon Hospital, but then his family got the military base to issue him a birth certificate (soon after his birth) saying he was born at the base. His grandfather did command Coco Solo when McCain was born. Maybe his family wanted him to have his place of birth listed as at the base to make it even more explicit/convincing that he was born on U.S. territory. I have no idea.
ReplyDeleteBut regardless of whether he was born on the naval base or outside the naval base -- some argue that the Canal Zone and the Coco Solo base weren't part of U.S. territory at the time of McCain's birth (it was an unincorporated territory). And thus he wasn't a natural born citizen. Hollander's initial claim (maybe before they got a hold of the Colon birth certificate?) was that McCain was born at the air base but that that wasn't part of U.S. territory.
I think regardless of his actual place of birth, he was born in or near the Panama Canal Zone/Coco Solo. And he was born there because his father was stationed there -- he was stationed at a U.S. Naval base and there on behalf of the United States. McCain should be considered a natural born citizen. He shouldn't be penalized (and unable to run for president) because his father was in the military and that possibly the area wasn't technically under U.S. jurisdiction at the time. Yet another reason why the natural born citizen eligibility rule should be changed.
Getting back to the McCain "birth certificate." It was provided by Hollander. But there are still reasons to believe that it is forged.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-certificate/
This is the commentary of Dr. Conspiracy, a prominent anti-birther.