Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Birthers: Arizona hopes to slice down the presidential field [UPDATED]

Janbrewer Arizona struck a major blow Thursday for Constitution lovers everywhere by making it nearly impossible for uncircumcised atheist Hawaiians born outside a hospital to run for president. The Arizona Republic reports:

The Arizona Legislature has become the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state's ballot.

House Bill 2177 got final approval Thursday night from the House. It will be transmitted to Gov. Jan Brewer, who will then have five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law....

HB 2177, sponsored by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona secretary of state with documents proving they are natural-born citizens.

Those documents can be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.

If a candidate failed to submit required documents or the secretary of state deemed them insufficient, the candidate would not be listed on Arizona's ballot.

One can only imagine how a paper chase for circumcision records would play out, and my Lutheran baptismal credential looks about as authoritative as those citizenship certificates I earned during elementary school. But the dreaded "certificate of live birth" -- the only option for those unfortunate enough to have been born in President Obama's home state -- may no longer pass muster in Arizona (but it's still good enough for the State Department).

Anyhow, I treat this as a joke because Brewer -- who's managed to antagonize gays, non-whites and immigrants in just two years -- let her state became one long before this birther legislation landed on her desk. She owes it to her state to veto this bill, an action she probably won't take since she could justify the new law by claiming to have the presidency's best interests at heart. Plus, Hawaii won't appreciate having another state declare its natives less eligible for the presidency, making this the next bill from Arizona up for invalidation by a federal judge.

If I were an Arizona resident, I'd seriously consider voting against Obama in 2012 -- to protest his ill-advised decision to install Brewer by selecting as his Homeland Security secretary then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, clearly the state's only politically moderating force.

Update, 2:36 p.m., Tuesday: Brewer vetoed the bill. Click here for a follow-up blog post.

RELATED:

Court upholds judge's ban on Arizona immigration law

Arizona's fill-in governor does it again

Arizona gives 'birthers' a dim flicker of hope

-- Paul Thornton

Photo: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer speaks at the National Governors Assn. winter meeting in Washington last February. Credit:  Susan Walsh / Associated Press

 

Comments () | Archives (20)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mitchell Young

"If I were an Arizona resident, I'd seriously consider voting against Obama in 2012 -- to protest his ill-advised decision to install Brewer by selecting as his Homeland Security secretary then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, clearly the state's only politically moderating force."

But the Zonies had their chance to 'protest' directly, by voting Brewer out of office. They declined.

Tyler Smith

You are right and the one's that did vote her out are still shaking their head saying "really, COME ON!" It's quite funny to be the laughing stock of a country that is the laughing stock of the world. It is a double whammy....

I would like to point one thing out that this is the same woman who said that states don't need to fund higher education because she didn't go to college and she turned out just fine! Whoo Hoo!

misanthropicus

Crap, crap, liberal crap - anf if there still was need for a proof of LA Times staff lack of talent and intelligence, then this ham-fisted piece is a good illustration - who on the earth came with sooooooo funny things like Lutheran uncirmcumcised, and like? And in what miserable hole this critter resides?
Oh, I forgot - "who's managed to antagonize gays, non-whites and [illegal, i.e. criminal] immigrants"...
Oh my god, now this is sure galvanizing! Virginia, the Arizona governor is antagonizing homosexuals, I mean we reached this point!

Garbage - who cares about some purse-makers "anger"- and Soetero should scratch his pockets and come with $16 as fee for the release of of his DOB - hehehe - which the Hawaii governor, Abercrombie himself said that DOESN'T EXIST - hehehe -


Liberal arbage

SgtSchultz

I'm glad to see the Republicans have their eye on the prize by passing this job-creating legislation. Good to see the "adults" are back in charge

Stan Risdon

What would John McCain provide to prove he's a "natural born" citizen?

M. Caitlin K Blanton

This just might be the true defining of 'MORONIC'! No wonder it took Arizona so long to officially become part of the United States..and did we make a mistake!

Can a circumsized atheist born outside the hospital run for President!??

What is it with our states that begin with the letter 'A'..thanks to Alaska, we have that fool 'klan-barbie running amuck and now it's Arizona. What's the problem there,..is the desert to damn hot and people's brains are frying; of all the imbecilic backass moves; this make take the cake!

Arizona, you have just surpassed Alaska, Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, and even Alabama in stupidity..just atrocious!

Marconi

"What would John McCain provide to prove he's a "natural born" citizen?"


His foreskin

William McGraw

Would that be Janet Napolitano who said about two weeks ago that the Mexican-American border had no higher crime rates than any other area....that Janet?.....

Olden Atwoody

I am piqued that Trump claims that President Obama spent $2M to defend not releasing his original birth certificate. I would like very much to see Trump put up or shut up on that dollar figure.

However, if President Obama spent 2 cents fighting the release, I fail to understand his reasoning. In my opinion, I surmise that the vast, unsavvy voter pool tends to side with Trump, and not with the Dems on this topic.

If the original certificate were released to the public, the entire issue would disappear. Rather than embarassing Republicans, I'm of the opinion that this issue is, and will continue to, cost the Democrats votes in 2012.

truther

What continues to cost the Democrats votes is the fact that many voters are dumb as bricks. Obama's a natural-born U.S. citizen. He's released the birth certificate to prove it. His birth state of Hawaii has done everyone short of put on an interpretive dance at the Oscars to verify his birth there. Yet people continue to question this issue as though there is something about it worth debating, because they simply can't get it through ther heads that a dark-skinned guy with a funny name is nevertheless just as American as they are.

Aristotle

I never cared about this issue, until I read this absurd op-ed: a shameful piece of writing and reasoning.

I now have swung around and, indeed, I join those who want Obama and any other candidate to have to prove that he/she meets the minimum legal requirements to run for office. It would seem that Obama (or some crack investigative reporter from the LA Times) easily could diffuse this issue, and embarrass many of his critics by producing the birth certificate. At a time when even the most sensitive classified documents get blasted all over the internet, it seems amazing that this birth certificate manages to remain secret.

Produce the damn thing and put an end to this story.

CalifKirk

When I applied for my job, I had to show my birth certificate. I knew that in advance and didn't think twice about doing it. Why has Obama spent millions fighting over showing his? No one can answer that simple question.

He talks about everyone staying focused, but 25% of the country do not believe he was born here, and he refuses to show his birth certificate (not that worthless 'document' he did show). Why doesn't he just end this and produce it?

michael hardin

let's be nice to these birthers--remember in their vast knowledge, they also believe in immaculate conception and the earth is only 6000 years old. if that is the basic for their thinking, it makes PERFECT SENSE that a birth certificate is not a birth certificate.
you know, i used to think texas passed the most moronic laws, but it seems arizona wants to be #1 one in the nation at something.
GO ARIZONA, YOU'RE #1.


Skhott

I'd like to see her "circumcision certificate", lol!

J_inAZ

Birthers are intentionally ignoring the facts. I recently had to request a copy of my own birth certificate from the state of Washington. I had a paper one from the hospital, but it was lost years ago. Yes, it even had little footprints on the back of it. Anyway, the only birth certificate that I could get was a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the county. That's a legal document, and as was mentioned, it is good enough for passports and anything else required. I also have a four year old who was born in the great state of Texas. We were not provided a birth certificate by the hospital, though we asked for one. We had to wait and send a check to the county and get a "Certificate of Live Birth" with rubber stamped signature on it just like the one I got from Washington. This issue is ridiculous. I suspect that the birther controversy is yet another example of pure intentional ignorance masking hatred of a particular individual with whom these folks disagree. The whole thing is a joke. I'm very sorry to be living in Arizona.

michael hardin

oh yeah. by the way, those "birth certificates" with the cute little foot prints are not official anyway. the official one goes straight to the state where it is kept. even when you request yours, they never send the ORIGINAL anyway. they send "official copies."
i hate stupid people.

Jim Weldon

So what is wrong with requiring a politician to prove he or she is a legal American Citizen?
As far as Janet Napolitano, she was a clown governor for our state.

Carol

truther and michael hardin :...I just love when ignorant people have the audacity to call anyone ignorant. That is a compliment btw because I give you the benefit of doubt that you may see and hear facts but choose to ignore sound reasoning.
It is up to the individual states to vet candidates that go on the ballots in their states. Most are the Secretaries of State that just sign off or endorse any candidate "at their word" only vetting nothing.
A COLB and the newspaper announcements are possibly good proof for many things whereas a Hospital Document of Birth is not accepted as legal documentation for most things. But in meeting the requirement of Article II, Section I the Hospital's Document usually given as a keepsake but signed by a Hospital staff person is far more apropo in proving eligibility for the POTUS.
The COLB can only prove "citizenship" but does not prove a person was born on American soil. Both the COLB and the announcements are only proof of a "registered birth" and show only the "reported" residence of the mother...not where the child was actually born.
The UNAMENDED ...never REDEFINED Article II, Section I of the Constitution says that only the office of the POTUS must be a natural born citizen...not just a citizen. The definition of this term must mean what it meant in 1787 and no other laws or meanings of citizenship laws can affect or redefine without citing Article and Section number. It is defined as "a soil born child of citizen parents". ...that is BOTH parents...not just one parent...and more importantly without redefinition the law in 1787 was based on Vattel's Law of Nations which stated more profoundly prominence upon the father of a child in that Vattel says: "the land of the fathers is the land of the child"...By that definition alone Obama never has been eligible because the land of his father was Kenya.
More importantly, was the INTENT OF THE LAW that has been violated. The founding fathers whole intent was to protect the Constitution by having as POTUS someone whose whole life is tied up in allegiance to the land and its laws....someone without conflicting allegiance or one of foreign influence....both of these reasons are why we currently have problems with this present President in that he has even stated in his book that he "finds the Constitution fundamentally flawed"...and has continually thumbed his nose at our Constitution...ESPECIALLY IN ARIZONA.

jimbo

What a ridiculous article...doesnt it bother you that Obama's own sister was born in INDONESIA yet she has a cert of birth from Hawaii too ? Or that he usses a Connecticut social security number...I dont want a plant or a fraud in the White House..our forefathers worked too long and hard to build a strong America....we dont need this imposter bringing us down..

Fingal

@jimbo -- Re: Obama's sister, can you show documents to back up your claim?


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...