Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5298
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#101

Post by MaineSkeptic » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:21 pm

...I don't think Taitz has read the actual text of SB 91....Do we have a link to the current text?



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#102

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:28 pm

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.a ... =sb91Click on "Versions" tab then "House Committtee Substitute"



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#103

Post by BFB » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:31 pm

The candidates shall further be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board. A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;Looks like the COLB works here.



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#104

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:35 pm

The candidates shall further be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board. A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;Looks like the COLB works here.Barring a State Election Board full of wingnuts -yes.



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5298
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#105

Post by MaineSkeptic » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:36 pm

Looks like the COLB works here.Thanks WD -- and, yes, that's my feeling too. Is there any real dispute about it?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34434
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#106

Post by realist » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:43 pm

I suppose a definition of "original birth document" would be helpful. And why the difference in #1 and #1?





"Original" could be a footie print like He, Lucas Smith, is trying to pass off. :P





1. An[highlight] original birth document[/highlight] issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;





2. An [highlight]original birth certificate[/highlight] issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;A COLB such as Obama's is satisfactory, whether these nutz think so or not.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#107

Post by poutine » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:51 pm

Looks like the COLB works here.Thanks WD -- and, yes, that's my feeling too. Is there any real dispute about it?The bill is still probably unconstitutional, because it imposes documentation requirements on presidential candidates when only the federal government may do so. The Oklahoma State Election Board does not have the constitutional power to tell American citizens that they cannot vote for Barack Obama because the Board deems him unfit to receive their votes. Only Congress can do that. Effectively, a single state agency, populated with political appointments, would have the power to derail an entire national presidential election. Nonsense. They have no such power.But even if it's constitutional, the State Election Board will be obligated by law to accept any candidate's birth certificate as sufficient, including Obama's, through the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause.



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#108

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:53 pm

Looks like the COLB works here.Thanks WD -- and, yes, that's my feeling too. Is there any real dispute about it?Only in the minds of the birfers (Trump Included) they've devloped such a mythology about the COLB not being a real birth certifcate that they'll read the bill and think "long-form, doctors, witnesses", some of them will even think "religion" and "footieprints". ](*,)



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15683
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#109

Post by Suranis » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:27 pm

B. The Secretary of the State Election Board shall promulgate rules to specify the documentation required to provide proof of eligibility to hold the office sought. The requirement to provide proof of identity may be satisfied by production of a document specified in Section 7-114 of Title 26 of the Oklahoma Statutes.C. Copies of documents provided pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 26 O.S. 2001, Section 20-102, as amended by Section 24, Chapter 485, O.S.L. 2003 (26 O.S. Supp. 2010, Section 20-102), is amended to read as follows:Section 20-102. A. Candidates for the nomination for President of the United States shall file with the Secretary of the State Election Board. Such candidates shall be members of political parties recognized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and shall have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and shall have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for said the office. The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public. The candidates shall further be required to provide proof of identity and United States citizenship to the State Election Board. A candidate shall present a current state or federal government-issued photo identification to provide proof of identity, and shall also present one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural-born citizenship:1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;3. An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad, or certified copy thereof; or4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States, or certified copy thereof.Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.Not too much wrong with it from my quick IANAL viewing, but why the focus on the president? And why the constant nattering about original documentation, they ought to know that original will never be released.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#110

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:40 pm

President Obama can meet the requirements of this new law with his COLB but Trump can't. (Can Mitt or Pawlenty?) Trump's COLB wasn't issued by the State of New York but one of its cities.Not very carefully thought out. Another attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, while striking out at a political foe. This is how bad laws are made.



Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#111

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:15 pm

President Obama can meet the requirements of this new law with his COLB but Trump can't. (Can Mitt or Pawlenty?) Trump's COLB wasn't issued by the State of New York but one of its cities....Yes, you seem to have that right. New York State will not give someone born in the City a certified birth certificate:[/break1]health.state.ny.us/vital_records/birth.htm]http://www.health.state.ny.us/vital_records/birth.htmI guess that means he will have to move to Hawaii. :twisted:



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#112

Post by poutine » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:16 pm

President Obama can meet the requirements of this new law with his COLB but Trump can't. (Can Mitt or Pawlenty?) Trump's COLB wasn't issued by the State of New York but one of its cities.Not very carefully thought out. Another attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, while striking out at a political foe. This is how bad laws are made.I think Trump would be okay, actually. New York state law explicitly authorizes New York City to issue birth certificates in lieu of the state. I perused New York's statutes on the issue and am too lazy to engage in a full analysis of them, but the gist of their effect is to allow the state to issue BC's, and also New York City, and also separate registration districts as the Commissioner deems fit. In short, a BC issued by New York City is effectively a BC issued by New York State.



rajah
Posts: 2417
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Southern Gondwana AKA The Great South Land

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#113

Post by rajah » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:30 pm

This law is about what I Imagined that you would have in the US before I became involved with the conspiracy theories and met all you fine people. I had always thought that there were laws dealing with how you prove NBC and was surprised to learn that there weren't.The problems are that only candidates from a recognised political party can stand for the office of president and the presidents qualifications are set out with the relevant documents but that does seem a bit vague.It does seem that this is a sop to the birthers and watch them go off when it has no effect on President Obama.Regards ..........Dick



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#114

Post by poutine » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:38 pm

This law is about what I Imagined that you would have in the US before I became involved with the conspiracy theories and met all you fine people. I had always thought that there were laws dealing with how you prove NBC and was surprised to learn that there weren't.


The problems are that only candidates from a recognised political party can stand for the office of president and the presidents qualifications are set out with the relevant documents but that does seem a bit vague.


It does seem that this is a sop to the birthers and watch them go off when it has no effect on President Obama.


Regards ..........DickIn the 224 years of our Constitution's existence, it's never been a controversy. The last legitimate controversy was probably McCain, and Congress passed a resolution expressing its opinion by unanimous vote that he was a natural born citizen regardless of what the facts of his birth are.





The bottom line is that in any case involving genuine controversy (i.e., not Obama), our courts would rule this to be subject to the "political question doctrine." Whether a person is a natural born citizen is not something the courts think they should decide, in other words. The question is too intertwined with politics for some judicial mandate to completely rule out a presidential candidate chosen by one of our major parties and supported by the primary elections of multiple states. So, it's very likely that this clause we are all so fixated on has a fudge factor built into it. Even someone with fuzzier facts about his birth than McCain would probably be okay. If the people want to nominate and elect him, the courts would reason, that's their prerogative.





A very clear case involving someone who wasn't even arguably a natural born citizen would be different, on the other hand.



rajah
Posts: 2417
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Southern Gondwana AKA The Great South Land

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#115

Post by rajah » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:50 pm

Poutine, Thanks for that mate, I have heard what you said on several occasions and I was only saying what my perceptions were. What is usual now, in my experience, is that when something is mentioned in an act or constitution it is later defined in the act's appendices or is defined in further legislation. I realise that the constitution was written in much earlier times and people were much more concerned with establishing a young country. They didn't always take time to dot the i or cross the t. Here as well as there!Regards ...........Dick



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#116

Post by poutine » Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:56 pm

Poutine, Thanks for that mate, I have heard what you said on several occasions and I was only saying what my perceptions were. What is usual now, in my experience, is that when something is mentioned in an act or constitution it is later defined in the act's appendices or is defined in further legislation. I realise that the constitution was written in much earlier times and people were much more concerned with establishing a young country. They didn't always take time to dot the i or cross the t. Here as well as there!Regards ...........DickI have heard some non-birther politicians remark here and there that it surprises them that no mechanism is really in place to "enforce" this clause. Post-Obama, maybe Congress should take it up, not as a slap to Obama but rather to shut birthers up for good and never again allow any President to have to deal with such a stupid issue. (The issue is not stupid by itself. I just mean that the facts of Obama's birth are what make it stupid when applied specifically to him.)



Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#117

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:43 pm

President Obama can meet the requirements of this new law with his COLB but Trump can't. (Can Mitt or Pawlenty?) Trump's COLB wasn't issued by the State of New York but one of its cities.Not very carefully thought out. Another attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist, while striking out at a political foe. This is how bad laws are made.I think Trump would be okay, actually. New York state law explicitly authorizes New York City to issue birth certificates in lieu of the state. I perused New York's statutes on the issue and am too lazy to engage in a full analysis of them, but the gist of their effect is to allow the state to issue BC's, and also New York City, and also separate registration districts as the Commissioner deems fit. In short, a BC issued by New York City is effectively a BC issued by New York State.But the New York State website says literally they do not [highlight]issue[/highlight] copies of birth certificates from New York City.By the way, there was some dicussion on New York City BCs recently at Doc's place. A birfer found out that a notary in 2007 advised people born in New York City (but not State) who wanted to marry in France to get themselves a long-form birth certificate before handing it in for an apostille. In birfers' minds that of course means that only long-form birth certificates will get you married in France and that the Hawaii "short-form" cannot even be apostilled. In reality, the 2007 short-form City BC probably did not mention the full names of the parents (if that notary was on the level, and was NOT asking for long forms because he had always been asking for long forms - and long forms take more time to translate, upping the bill)On April 1st, the State Department changed the rules for obtaining US passports. You need the full names now on the BC. If New York City did not change its "short-form" to accommodate for that, does that mean the Donald cannot get a passport with his present BC?



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#118

Post by poutine » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:50 pm

I think Trump would be okay, actually. New York state law explicitly authorizes New York City to issue birth certificates in lieu of the state. I perused New York's statutes on the issue and am too lazy to engage in a full analysis of them, but the gist of their effect is to allow the state to issue BC's, and also New York City, and also separate registration districts as the Commissioner deems fit. In short, a BC issued by New York City is effectively a BC issued by New York State.But the New York State website says literally they do not [highlight]issue[/highlight] copies of birth certificates from New York City.Yes it does, and all that means is that the entity that is the State of New York does not issue copies of birth certificates from New York City. The reason for that is that only New York City issues copies of birth certificates from New York City. Under the law of the State of New York, those NYC BC's have equal validity and evidentiary effect as any other New York BC. By the way, there was some dicussion on New York City BCs recently at Doc's place. A birfer found out that a notary in 2007 advised people born in New York City (but not State) who wanted to marry in France to get themselves a long-form birth certificate before handing it in for an apostille. In birfers' minds that of course means that only long-form birth certificates will get you married in France and that the Hawaii "short-form" cannot even be apostilled. In reality, the 2007 short-form City BC probably did not mention the full names of the parents (if that notary was on the level, and was NOT asking for long forms because he had always been asking for long forms - and long forms take more time to translate, upping the bill)On April 1st, the State Department changed the rules for obtaining US passports. You need the full names now on the BC. If New York City did not change its "short-form" to accommodate for that, does that mean the Donald cannot get a passport with his present BC?Only if he has never before applied for a passport. If he has, he can just get one using his expired passport. Presumably New York City and every other state and their subdivisions are changing their BC standards to comply with this new rule.



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#119

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:52 pm

In the 224 years of our Constitution's existence, it's never been a controversy. The last legitimate controversy was probably McCain, and Congress passed a resolution expressing its opinion by unanimous vote that he was a natural born citizen regardless of what the facts of his birth are.Technically, just the Senate did, in the non-binding S. Res. 511 of 2008. In either case, it's pure PQD. The language is so unambiguous that there is virtually no chance the people will elect, and the Electoral College will then endorse, and the Congress will then ratify, an ineligible candidate. The only challenges to elected candidates on these idiotic grounds have been total kook fantasies, that is to say, as you point out, there has never been a controversy (or a case) on this issue, and there probably never will be.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9138
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#120

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:11 pm

By the way, there was some dicussion on New York City BCs recently at Doc's place. A birfer found out that a notary in 2007 advised people born in New York City (but not State) who wanted to marry in France to get themselves a long-form birth certificate before handing it in for an apostille. In birfers' minds that of course means that only long-form birth certificates will get you married in France and that the Hawaii "short-form" cannot even be apostilled. In reality, the 2007 short-form City BC probably did not mention the full names of the parents (if that notary was on the level, and was NOT asking for long forms because he had always been asking for long forms - and long forms take more time to translate, upping the bill)On April 1st, the State Department changed the rules for obtaining US passports. You need the full names now on the BC. If New York City did not change its "short-form" to accommodate for that, does that mean the Donald cannot get a passport with his present BC?I got a NYC short form sometime in 2001. At least then, the short form included the full names of both parents.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24212
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#121

Post by bob » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:16 pm

Did you actually read the bill? It requires an original document or a certified copy. Obama HAS a certified copy of a Hawaii birth document as the bill calls it. The President will not have any problems meeting the Oklahoma documentary requirements if the bill is passed and signed.no. It requires [highlight]a certified copy of the actual Birth certificate[/highlight], not short form Certification of live birth, which is nothingxxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=21046#comments =; [-( #-o =)) ](*,)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8475
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#122

Post by verbalobe » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:55 pm

Did you actually read the bill? It requires an original document or a certified copy. Obama HAS a certified copy of a Hawaii birth document as the bill calls it. The President will not have any problems meeting the Oklahoma documentary requirements if the bill is passed and signed.no. It requires [highlight]a certified copy of the actual Birth certificate[/highlight], not short form Certification of live birth, which is nothingxxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=21046#comments =; [-( #-o =)) ](*,)Again with the complete ignorance about the meaning of the word "certified."



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#123

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:42 pm

B. The Secretary of the State Election Board shall promulgate rules to specify the documentation required to provide proof of eligibility to hold the office sought. The requirement to provide proof of identity may be satisfied by production of a document specified in Section 7-114 of Title 26 of the Oklahoma Statutes.




To meet this requirement Obama can present his passport.





§26-7-114. Procedure for determining eligibility.





A. ...“proof of identity” shall mean a document that satisfies all of the following:


1. The document shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued, and the name substantially conforms to the name in the precinct registry;


2. The document shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued;


3. The document includes an expiration date, which is after the date of the election in which the person is appearing to vote. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to an identification card issued to a person sixty-five (65) years of age or older which is valid indefinitely, as provided in Section 6-105.3 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and


4. The document was issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma or the government of a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation.


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

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#124

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:52 am

By the way, there was some dicussion on New York City BCs recently at Doc's place. A birfer found out that a notary in 2007 advised people born in New York City (but not State) who wanted to marry in France to get themselves a long-form birth certificate before handing it in for an apostille. In birfers' minds that of course means that only long-form birth certificates will get you married in France and that the Hawaii "short-form" cannot even be apostilled. In reality, the 2007 short-form City BC probably did not mention the full names of the parents (if that notary was on the level, and was NOT asking for long forms because he had always been asking for long forms - and long forms take more time to translate, upping the bill)On April 1st, the State Department changed the rules for obtaining US passports. You need the full names now on the BC. If New York City did not change its "short-form" to accommodate for that, does that mean the Donald cannot get a passport with his present BC?I got a NYC short form sometime in 2001. At least then, the short form included the full names of both parents.Which would mean the notary in 2007 was "mistaken". Unless there was something else missing that the State Department now wants to know. Which is exactly what France wants to know, according to a French jurist at Doc's place.



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

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

#125

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:15 am

Just a few minor pieces of information on the OK situation:1) SB91 is currently one of 58 Senate bills on the "floor agenda" awaiting 3rd Reading in the OK house;2) There are 36 other Senate bills waiting to be put on the "floor agenda".3) There are 46 House bills with Senate amendments awaiting acceptance or rejection.4)There are 6 Bills in conference 5) OK often reconsiders it's votes on bills - sometimes on the same day.6)The deadline for 3rd reading is Thursday.My money is on SB91 passing but with this workload facing the House it's certainly not a slam dunk!



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”