Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#51

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:17 pm

Just a quick note for all you non-Missourians.Missouri legislators will refuse to do almost anything the same way another state (especially Kansas) has done. Had any other state invented the wheel, Missouri would have created their own version so as not to be accused of copying someone else's ideas (especially them damned Jayhawkers). That would be followed by the standard "ours is better" comment.I expect the Missouri birther bill to be unlike any other. :roll:



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#52

Post by June bug » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:17 pm

115.399. 1. Not later than the twelfth Tuesday prior to each presidential election, or2 notwithstanding any prior laws to the contrary, [highlight]in the year 1996 and thereafte[/highlight]r, within seven3 working days after choosing its nominees for president and vice president of the United States,4 whichever is later, the state committee of each established political party shall certify in writing5 to the secretary of state the names of its nominees for president and vice president of the United6 States.Is the reference to 1996 because this bill makes changes to already existing law?



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#53

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:19 pm

Yes, June Bug.



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#54

Post by June bug » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:22 pm

Thanks, WD. I agree the "available by the controlling authority at the time of the nominee's birth" is their way of saying "original long form" without using the words...and it violates Full Faith and Credit.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#55

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:17 pm

House Rules committee reported "do pass" - don't know any more than that at the moment.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24530
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#56

Post by bob » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:00 pm

Although republicans control both chambers of the legislature, I see nothing in the background of [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon]the governor to indicate that he'd sign a birther bill.Republicans do hold a sizable majority in both chambers: around 75% in the senate, and around 65% in the house.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#57

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:05 pm

True Bob, but this bill is now hotchpotch of different election related provisions so it's not so simple. The one that catches the eye is moving the Presidential Primary to comply with the rules of both the Republican and Democratic parties.



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

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#58

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:28 pm

Such evidence shall be in the form of [highlight]the most complete record of birth available[/highlight]by the controlling legal authority [highlight]at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight]Here's how they get Obama's long form withouth saying "long form" and without saying "Obama". I think it violates Full Faith and Credit because it requires the record available at the time of the nominee's birth, not what is currently issued. I think they're trying to get around the fact that different states have different departments who have responsibility for vital records by calling them "controlling authority."I think that language is where it falls afoul of full faith and credit, because the state record which any other state is obligated to accept under the federal constitution is what they issue now. Nor is there any rational basis for refusing any legitimate evidence of NBC status, simply because the candidate may not have a piece of paper from what will probably be over 50 years ago, if the currently available record has less information on it.



Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#59

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:46 pm

I sent an e-mail to Steve Kraske, the Political Correspondent for the Kansas City Star. The Star has a good reputation for reporting on the antics of the Missouri and Kansas legislatures.I also provided a plug (and a link) for this site.I do enjoy the comments I find here. Thank you all. -xx



User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#60

Post by Sequoia32 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:10 pm

So how are they going to ascertain whether the certificates proffered by the candidates are the most complete record of birth available at the time of the nominee's birth?We don't even know what an August 1961 issued one looks like do we? The Nordykes' were issued in 1966.I tells ya, birthers are stupid!
Edit: Oh, and "the most complete record" would be the form in the vault with all of the Federally protected confidential info on it. And they plan to make it public record?


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#61

Post by realist » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:16 pm

So how are they going to ascertain whether the certificates proffered by the candidates are the most complete record of birth available at the time of the nominee's birth?We don't even know what an August 1961 issued one looks like do we? The Nordykes' were issued in 1966.I tells ya, birthers are stupid!
Edit: Oh, and "the most complete record" would be the form in the vault with all of the Federally protected confidential info on it. And they plan to make it public record?
They're not. It's a stupid attempt to prevent Obama from being on the ticket... cuz, you know, he doesn't have a birth certificate and/or if he does, they're trying to sneak in the "original" as a requirement because they think that will somehow disqualify him. morons


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#62

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:39 pm

House Rules committee reported "do pass" - don't know any more than that at the moment.I'm surprised they have time to modify the birther bill. They have been busy with their gerrymandering attempts regarding congressional redistricting.[/break1]kansascity.com/2011/04/18/2809616/missouri-redistricting-debate.html]http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/18/28 ... ebate.html



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#63

Post by SueDB » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:04 am

House Rules committee reported "do pass" - don't know any more than that at the moment.I'm surprised they have time to modify the birther bill. They have been busy with their gerrymandering attempts regarding congressional redistricting.[/break1]kansascity.com/2011/04/18/2809616/missouri-redistricting-debate.html]http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/18/28 ... ebate.htmlBut, but, But...this is a Kookstitutional Krises!


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

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#64

Post by DaveMuckey » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:03 pm

I think this part violates Article VI, Sec 2, the Supremacy clause. States don't get to define terms in the US Constitution, although they have it correct as far as current law.I have the same opinion. Not just with Birther Bills, but state immigration bills as well. Any state that passes a bill that they claim is simply mirroring Federal statute, isn't.



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

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#65

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:15 pm

I think this part violates Article VI, Sec 2, the Supremacy clause. States don't get to define terms in the US Constitution, although they have it correct as far as current law.I have the same opinion. Not just with Birther Bills, but state immigration bills as well. Any state that passes a bill that they claim is simply mirroring Federal statute, isn't.If it simply mirrors federal statute, what is the point in passing it? If they bother passing it at all, it clearly does something different from federal law, otherwise, it is a silly and empty gesture.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#66

Post by DaveMuckey » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:04 pm

Precisely. They're trying to grasp some ethereal states' rights they never had.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#67

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:53 am

SB 282 is scheduled for it's third reading in the House today. I expect it to pass easily. There's no telling what time they'll get to it but floor sessions will be from 10-12 & 14-18 CDT live audio will be available from:[/break1]house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/link2/debates.txt]http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?in ... bates.txtI doubt if I'll catch it - I'll be out and about a lot today.



Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#68

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:52 am

SB 282 is scheduled for it's third reading in the House today. I expect it to pass easily. There's no telling what time they'll get to it but floor sessions will be from 10-12 & 14-18 CDT live audio will be available from:[/break1]house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/link2/debates.txt]http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?in ... bates.txtI doubt if I'll catch it - I'll be out and about a lot today.The Missouri House of Representatives now returns to our regularly scheduled programming. We now join gerrymandering by the rules committee already in progress.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#69

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed May 04, 2011 10:40 am

Jeesh - it's getting difficult to keep track of what's going on with these Birther Bills!





The House committee substitute for SB282 is still awaiting 3rd reading in the house. It could be called at anytime and we're unlikely to get any advance warning.To remind everyone this is an oelections omnibus bill which incorporates a number of measures apart from the eligibility parts.





I've just realised that there was another attempt at an omnibus election bill ([/break1]house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills111/billpdf/commit/HB0121C.PDF]HB121) which incorporated Rep Rowlands' HB283. That explains why he's told Orly and others that his bill had got out of committee and was awaiting debate on the House floor. Technically HB121 is still alive but there's not really time to pass it through house and senate so seems to be superceded by SB 282



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#70

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed May 04, 2011 1:34 pm

The Missouri House has started to debate SB282 for 3rd reading. The house as just recessed until 14:30 CDT and I assume they will resume the deabte then. I didn't catch all the debate so far but there seem to be quite a few floor amendments to be dealt with - at the time they recessed they were discussing amendment 1 to amendment 5 - and I don't know if any deal with the presidential and vice presidental eligibility bit which to remind people is:...Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of statusas a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such evidence. Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth availableby the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth, and shall be kept andmaintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter 610. The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee. 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 itexisted at the time of the nominee's birthIMO "Mostly Harmless"



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34513
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#71

Post by realist » Wed May 04, 2011 1:44 pm

The Missouri House has started to debate SB282 for 3rd reading. The house as just recessed until 14:30 CDT and I assume they will resume the deabte then. I didn't catch all the debate so far but there seem to be quite a few floor amendments to be dealt with - at the time they recessed they were discussing amendment 1 to amendment 5 - and I don't know if any deal with the presidential and vice presidental eligibility bit which to remind people is:





...Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of status


as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such


evidence. 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, and shall be kept and


maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter





610. The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee. 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 birthIMO "Mostly Harmless""Mostly" perhaps. This phraseology, however, leaves the door open for interpretation of what the "evidence" is and leads to a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause IMO.





Such evidence shall be in the form of [highlight]the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight],


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#72

Post by BFB » Wed May 04, 2011 1:47 pm

The Missouri House has started to debate SB282 for 3rd reading. The house as just recessed until 14:30 CDT and I assume they will resume the deabte then. I didn't catch all the debate so far but there seem to be quite a few floor amendments to be dealt with - at the time they recessed they were discussing amendment 1 to amendment 5 - and I don't know if any deal with the presidential and vice presidental eligibility bit which to remind people is:





...Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of status


as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such


evidence. 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, and shall be kept and


maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter





610. The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee. 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 birthIMO "Mostly Harmless""Mostly" perhaps. This phraseology, however, leaves the door open for interpretation of what the "evidence" is and leads to a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause IMO.





Such evidence shall be in the form of [highlight]the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight],Those are weasel words for "long form birth certificate." And I agree with realist, this could lead to the FF&C violation.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#73

Post by Welsh Dragon » Wed May 04, 2011 5:08 pm

SB 282 passed the MO House (101-48) a few minutes ago . There was some discussion about the birther bit but the speaker cut it off because the main opponent run out of time. But without any amendment to take it out there was never any question of it not passing. Goes back to the Senate now - no saying how they'll react - they sent over a simple Bill and get a complicated one back so it may go to conference.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#74

Post by SueDB » Thu May 05, 2011 11:26 am

SB 282 passed the MO House (101-48) a few minutes ago . There was some discussion about the birther bit but the speaker cut it off because the main opponent run out of time. But without any amendment to take it out there was never any question of it not passing. Goes back to the Senate now - no saying how they'll react - they sent over a simple Bill and get a complicated one back so it may go to conference.Especially since the President coughed up his Long Form - now there's no need for the law that tries to block his run for a 2nd term as the President has meet the requirements....back to the drawing board...


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

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Missouri H.B. 283 (2011)

#75

Post by Welsh Dragon » Thu May 05, 2011 9:34 pm

Well I don't know how much to read into it but the Senate refused to concur with the House amendments to SB282 and asked the House to recede. The House refused and now it goes to conference. We'll have to see what next week brings.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”