Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#101

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:01 pm

Introduced by a first term TeaBirther RWNJ.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#102

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:08 pm

I guess this needs a new topic. Is it 2012?HOUSE BILL NO. 1046more...[/break1]firedupmissouri.com/content/birtherism-alive-and-well-missouri-legislature]http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/ ... egislatureSounds like Obama's COLB is all that's required.Yes. But it has to be a valid one. Not a fake one that a State conspired to fabricate.I don't see any requirement for a social security card, a selective service number, or a specific number of years of matriculation at Columbia. Typhoid Orly better contact the sponsor.



fava
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#103

Post by fava » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:13 am

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth.Would a short form be acceptable or would it require a long form. As I understand even the long form may not be the "most complete record available" since there may be additional medical data attached that is not provided. ie The long form is the top of a longer form.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#104

Post by mimi » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:27 am

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth.Would a short form be acceptable or would it require a long form. As I understand even the long form may not be the "most complete record available" since there may be additional medical data attached that is not provided. ie The long form is the top of a longer form.The short form is the most complete available. Hawaii made an exception due to the President's request. Normally, the COLB is what is available.Is Missouri gonna sue Hawaii Department of Health and every other state that only gives short forms now?that could be fun.



fava
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#105

Post by fava » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:51 am

The short form is the most complete available. Hawaii made an exception due to the President's request. Normally, the COLB is what is available.The distinction I am tried to make (badly) is that "available by" is not necessarily the same as "available from". If "available by" is interpreted as "available to", then the short form might not be acceptable since there is more information available to the state than they are willing to make public. The legislation should read "available from" since it removes the ambiguity.



BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#106

Post by BFB » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:27 am

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority [highlight]at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight].Anybody have any thoughts as to the significance of the law specifying the time frame of the record it seeks? I don't see how that stands up under full faith & credit, if it's ever passed.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27131
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#107

Post by Foggy » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:51 am

Does raise an interesting question, yesno?What if Stanley Ann had gone to the Dept. of Health in Dec. 1961 and asked for a birth certificate?She wouldn't get a COLB. She wouldn't get a tasty fried microfish. What was the technology "at the time of the nominee's birth"? Mimeo?


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief. And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#108

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:51 pm

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority [highlight]at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight].Anybody have any thoughts as to the significance of the law specifying the time frame of the record it seeks? I don't see how that stands up under full faith & credit, if it's ever passed.I think a court could dodge a constitutional challenge by interpreting the statute as meaning the most complete record of birth that is currently available from what was the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth, or its successor if that legal authority has since ceased to exist.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#109

Post by SueDB » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:55 pm

Does raise an interesting question, yesno?What if Stanley Ann had gone to the Dept. of Health in Dec. 1961 and asked for a birth certificate?She wouldn't get a COLB. She wouldn't get a tasty fried microfish. What was the technology "at the time of the nominee's birth"? Mimeo?Photocopy. The Washington State BC I ordered quite a while ago (Sep1967) is a picture in reverse (black and white - negative style - positive photograph of a negative - looks weird, but that's the way it was in the late 60's) - I do remember a copy of my original but haven't seen it since before 1967.Not every state had the money to put it all on microfish or microfilm spools. Funny, mine looks like the certificate was in a book and the edge is on the left side.
Edit: fix


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#110

Post by esseff44 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:24 pm

Does raise an interesting question, yesno?What if Stanley Ann had gone to the Dept. of Health in Dec. 1961 and asked for a birth certificate?She wouldn't get a COLB. She wouldn't get a tasty fried microfish. What was the technology "at the time of the nominee's birth"? Mimeo?Photocopy. The Washington State BC I ordered quite a while ago (Sep1967) is a picture in reverse (black and white - negative style - positive photograph of a negative - looks weird, but that's the way it was in the late 60's) - I do remember a copy of my original but haven't seen it since before 1967.Not every state had the money to put it all on microfish or microfilm spools. Funny, mine looks like the certificate was in a book and the edge is on the left side.
Edit: fix
She might have gotten a photostatic copy. The copy my parents had from 1944 was a photo negative type that looks like the copies shown for the Nordyke twins. The states changed over as newer technologies became available. Since it would have taken a lot of time to transfer from one system to another, people asking for copies may have received different forms depending on where the agency was in the process.[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat_machine]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat_machineWe still don't know if Hawaii ever used microfilm or microfiche to store these records. I tend to doubt it.[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfilm]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicrofilmThe first I heard of there being a microfimed version of Obama's birth record was after Corsi and Sheriff Joe got together and started talking about it. Then, O'rly picked it up and started putting in her kitchen sink pleadings hither and yon. So far, I have not heard anyone ask the DoH if they ever used such technology to store birth records. Of course, it doesn't matter since they have already produced what is important and in officially certified the information.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#111

Post by SueDB » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:36 pm

Some states had the money to do this. It makes sense in a state with 44 million people.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18064
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#112

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:32 pm

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth.Would a short form be acceptable or would it require a long form. As I understand even the long form may not be the "most complete record available" since there may be additional medical data attached that is not provided. ie The long form is the top of a longer form.Question from across the Great Pond:Wouldn't the wording of a "controlling authority" also include the notion that it is up to said authority to determine what it deems sufficient to release as the "most complete" record in its jurisdiction ?



User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#113

Post by dunstvangeet » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:47 pm

It still attempts to define something that inherently in the pervue of the Federal Government. The State of Missouri cannot define what constitutes a "valid birth certificate" from another State. Only the Federal Government can do that.



User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5650
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#114

Post by jtmunkus » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:18 pm

:D



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#115

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:24 pm

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth.Does "at the time of the nominee's birth" modify "controlling authority" or "most complete birth record"? While it's not well written, I think it's the former. If so, the COLB is just fine and there are no "full faith and credit" issues. Indeed, in order to avoid a constitutional problem, under the canons of construction that would be the only way to interpret the phrase. (There is, however, the problem with the preposition "by." It should be "from.")



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#116

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:48 pm

As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth.So who's going to be doing all this declaring?





Not one candidate running for the Presidency in 2012 can qualify, as none has sought and obtained a declaratory judgment.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#117

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:04 pm

If the statute were to use the word "deemed" it might be better. But it shows how poorly written it is. That happens when you have ulterior motives and are trying to hide them.



Adrianinflorida
Posts: 2971
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#118

Post by Adrianinflorida » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:27 am

As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth.So who's going to be doing all this declaring?





Not one candidate running for the Presidency in 2012 can qualify, as none has sought and obtained a declaratory judgment.The Tea Party Naturality Committee



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#119

Post by Kriselda Gray » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:05 pm

Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth.Does "at the time of the nominee's birth" modify "controlling authority" or "most complete birth record"? While it's not well written, I think it's the former. If so, the COLB is just fine and there are no "full faith and credit" issues. Indeed, in order to avoid a constitutional problem, under the canons of construction that would be the only way to interpret the phrase. (There is, however, the problem with the preposition "by." It should be "from.")I took it to mean that they want the most complete record of birth as available from the controlling authority at the time of the birth. I think the goal here is to prevent states that now use short-form birth certificates from being able to say "this is all you get." By demanding the most complete record available at the time the baby was born, they think the states will have to dig out the original long-form certificates with hospital and doctor names on it, everyone's signatures (and probably the cute little footprint, too!)


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#120

Post by dunstvangeet » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:49 pm

I took it to mean that they want the most complete record of birth as available from the controlling authority at the time of the birth. I think the goal here is to prevent states that now use short-form birth certificates from being able to say "this is all you get." By demanding the most complete record available at the time the baby was born, they think the states will have to dig out the original long-form certificates with hospital and doctor names on it, everyone's signatures (and probably the cute little footprint, too!)I took it to mean that too. However, if it does mean that, then it's blatently unconstitutional since the State of Missouri, according to the United States Constitution does not have the authority to say what records are "valid proof" from another state. It blatently violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which puts that pervue under the Federal Government. So, either it's a clause that is meaningless, or it is a clause that is blatently unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, but that would be how I read it.)



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#121

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:51 pm

Or, under the canons of statutory construction, the phrase "at the time of the nominee's birth" modifies "controlling authority."



User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#122

Post by dunstvangeet » Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:56 pm

Or, under the canons of statutory construction, the phrase "at the time of the nominee's birth" modifies "controlling authority."So, my question is what happens on the following:Some states had Counties collect birth records for a while, but after a few centralized the birth certificates to a State function. So, if a state does that, do you have to get a meaningless certificate from the County (who was responsible for it at the time of the candidate's birth), or the State (who is responsible for it now).Furthermore, how is this construction not blatently unconstitutional as it attempts to differentiate what records are accepted from presumably records that are not acceptable? Isn't that the perview of the Federal Government, and not the State of Missouri?



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18064
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#123

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:36 pm

Or, under the canons of statutory construction, the phrase "at the time of the nominee's birth" modifies "controlling authority."Can we expect SCOTUS to resolve this riddle by 2017 ?



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”