Louisiana HB 561

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

Louisiana HB 561

#1

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:55 am

Jeeesh, I thought I left this shit behind. There is no escape from crazy town.





Two Louisisana Republican legislators jumped into the birthosphere yesterday, [link]introducing HB 561,http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... to_re.html[/link]. In a nutshell, take the Arizona bill (before amendments) with its dictated requirements for another state's "long form" birth certificate, make it apply to every candidate for the Presidency, Vice Presidency, House or Senate "in congressional elections, presidential preference primary elections, and elections for presidential electors" and there you have it. No alternative form of proof is provided for. Text of HB 561 can be found [link]here,http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/s ... did=742268[/link].


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

Louisiana HB 561

#2

Post by esseff44 » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:05 pm

I see that LA issues both a short form and a long form. LSA-RS 40:39 states that the short form serves to verify the birth facts for all purposes. But does it have all the birth facts that are required in the proposed bill.





I see that the proposed bill wants an accounting of residence for the previous 14 years for the candidates for President and Vice-President which differs from the US Constitution which does not specify which 14 years of residency.





What are the chances of passage? I see where the Republicans have a bare majority in both houses. Why does LA have so many house members? 105 seems large for the population of the state.



twinx
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:45 am

Louisiana HB 561

#3

Post by twinx » Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:16 pm

Welcome to the Fogbow, Essef :-bd --> I can't do these nutz and bolts questions :oops: Someone will come along and help!(Essef is a birther battler, Fogbowzers!)



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

Louisiana HB 561

#4

Post by Sequoia32 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:28 pm

Welcome esseff44! We have an "introduce yourself" thread around here somewhere... tell us a little bit about yourself if you have a hankerin' to.





I see that LA issues both a short form and a long form. LSA-RS 40:39 states that the short form serves to verify the birth facts for all purposes. But does it have all the birth facts that are required in the proposed bill.


Dunno what is on the "short form" but probably not as the bill requires "names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance".





Doesn't matter, though, because requiring anything more than what's on whatever certified BC a candidate presents is unconstitutional.





I see that the proposed bill wants an accounting of residence for the previous 14 years for the candidates for President and Vice-President which differs from the US Constitution which does not specify which 14 years of residency.Most of the birther bills use the same unconstitutional boilerplate provided by the same stupid source and the legislators don't even bother to vet it before proposing it and even voting it into law.





What are the chances of passage? I see where the Republicans have a bare majority in both houses. Why does LA have so many house members? 105 seems large for the population of the state.Dunno, but it doesn't matter as it will be struck down.


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
Whatever4
Posts: 11520
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Louisiana HB 561

#5

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:47 pm

Louisiana birth Certificate, courtesy of Jez. [/break1]static.flickr.com/5262/5590703953_8e9f3b932d.jpg]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/559 ... 3b932d.jpg


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

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

Louisiana HB 561

#6

Post by esseff44 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:37 pm

I have found one answer here:[/break1]dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/faq.asp?ID=252#Faq-1278]http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/fa ... 2#Faq-1278The short form birth certification card (acceptable for all purposes) does not have the name of the hospital and all the information about the parents.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#7

Post by realist » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:03 pm

I have found one answer here:[/break1]dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/faq.asp?ID=252#Faq-1278]http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/fa ... 2#Faq-1278The short form birth certification card (acceptable for all purposes) does not have the name of the hospital and all the information about the parents.Neither has witnesses... nor the doc's signature, it would seem. :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

Louisiana HB 561

#8

Post by esseff44 » Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:33 pm

I just checked the requirements to get a passport on the State Department website. They have a new rule as of April 1, 2011 that the birth certificate must be one that has the full name of the parents.[/break1]state.gov/passport/passport_5401.html]http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_5401.htmlSo, the wallet-sized short form with only the initials of parents would not do. I guess it is not for ALL purposes after all.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15875
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Louisiana HB 561

#9

Post by Suranis » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:33 am

It is an interesting question though, whether they could introduce a birther style bill for local and state office, and whether that would be unconstitutional as it would not affect federal offices.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

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

Louisiana HB 561

#10

Post by esseff44 » Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:13 am

It is an interesting question though, whether they could introduce a birther style bill for local and state office, and whether that would be unconstitutional as it would not affect federal offices.Most places I think have residency requirements for elected local officials. We had to make the vetting stronger here because of a notorious case a couple of years ago. [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Jew]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Jew Not every politician is honest and trustworthy.Yes, someone has to check a make sure they are actually living in the place that they are running to represent.



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

Louisiana HB 561

#11

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:21 am

Very early days on this - Louisiana legislature doesn't start it's regular session until next week. This billhas been "prefiled"Just for info the Bill has been assigned to the House and Governmental Affairs Cttee which ha 19 members - 11 Repubs 7 Dems & 1 Ind. The chair is a Democrat and the committee members include 6 JDs (2 Dem & 4 Repubs) but then again the sponsor is also a JD.



User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2469
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Louisiana HB 561

#12

Post by Jez » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:07 pm

I'll be able to tell you what the short form looks like in a few weeks, if Louisiana decides to send me my copy. :) The 2000 vintage form is just a copy of the upper half the my mother filled out when I was born. Or more likely, the hospital filled out and mom signed. So yes, there is a doctor's signature there. And believe it or not, he's still alive. :-bd So.. as soon as I have my "short form" you will be able to see what it looks like. And you'll be able to see if the "long form" is any different. Cuz I ordered one of those two.Hopefully Mr. S will reimburse my $25.


I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11943
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#13

Post by Plutodog » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:34 pm

Hopefully Mr. S will reimburse my $25.Good Gawd, Jez -- your regular check is sufficiently ginormous to cover such small incidentals as this! Don't be trying to wheedle more out of the boss without you do some more ginormous service to The Cause. [-X


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

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

Louisiana HB 561

#14

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:04 pm

(I get 10 times more than Jez, but don't say anything. I don't want hurt feelings. [-X )



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

Louisiana HB 561

#15

Post by mimi » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:38 am

1 guv vetoes eligibility bill, another promises to sign it


Verification measures heating up as legislatures start to take action


Posted: April 18, 2011


7:52 pm Eastern





By Bob Unruh


© 2011 WorldNetDaily





But there's a new proposal already in the works in Louisiana, House Bill 561 by Rep. Alan Seabaugh and Sen. A.G. Crowe, and there would be no veto there.





"It's not part of our package, but if the legislature passes it, we'll sign it," Kyle Plotkin, press secretary to Gov. Bobby Jindal, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune.more here:


[/break1]wnd.com/index.php?pageId=288785]http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=288785



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24537
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#16

Post by bob » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:34 am

[/break1]nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/gov_jindal_will_sign_birther_b.html]Gov. Jindal will sign 'birther' bill if it reaches his deskThe bill by state Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, and Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require federal candidates who want to appear on Louisiana ballots to file an affidavit attesting to their citizenship, which would have to be accompanied by an "original or certified copy" of their birth certificate.[...]Seabaugh, an attorney, said his bill was motivated by the numerous lawsuits that have been filed over Obama's citizenship. "[highlight]Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits," Seabaugh said. "As an attorney, that's offensive to me."[/highlight]He said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship. "[highlight]I don't purport to be a 'birther[/highlight],'" Seabaugh said. "This is from the standpoint of cleaning up an area of the law where there appears to be a gap."Will Seabaugh be the next Hatfield?


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Louisiana HB 561

#17

Post by poutine » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:46 am

I know people who know the Jindals very well. As in, people in the Indian community of Louisiana. He may be intellectually brilliant but that guy is truly batshit. I expect him to sign anything if it will improve his political standing.



brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#18

Post by brygenon » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:57 am

I know people who know the Jindals very well. As in, people in the Indian community of Louisiana. He may be intellectually brilliant but that guy is truly batshit. I expect him to sign anything if it will improve his political standing.'Less of course they put that two-citizen-parents crap in it. Can't see Bobby Jindal signing that.



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

Louisiana HB 561

#19

Post by poutine » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:10 am

It is an interesting question though, whether they could introduce a birther style bill for local and state office, and whether that would be unconstitutional as it would not affect federal offices.No state can pass a law requiring any elected position to be held strictly by a natural born citizen. Such a requirement would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Whether they could pass a birther law strictly for identity purposes, so that even foreign-born persons could present their certificates, is a closer question but still probably problematic under the Constitution.



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

Louisiana HB 561

#20

Post by poutine » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:13 am

I know people who know the Jindals very well. As in, people in the Indian community of Louisiana. He may be intellectually brilliant but that guy is truly batshit. I expect him to sign anything if it will improve his political standing.'Less of course they put that two-citizen-parents crap in it. Can't see Bobby Jindal signing that.Now that I look at it, this bill is equally unconstitutional as the Arizona bill. It just doesn't have the hilarious talking point of a circumcision certificate. So I dunno, if he would sign this crap, why not some Vattelite crap?



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

Louisiana HB 561

#21

Post by poutine » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:35 am

I know people who know the Jindals very well. As in, people in the Indian community of Louisiana. He may be intellectually brilliant but that guy is truly batshit. I expect him to sign anything if it will improve his political standing.'Less of course they put that two-citizen-parents crap in it. Can't see Bobby Jindal signing that.Now that I look at it, this bill is equally unconstitutional as the Arizona bill. It just doesn't have the hilarious talking point of a circumcision certificate. So I dunno, if he would sign this crap, why not some Vattelite crap?Because of his parents...By signing the bill, he could satisfy birthers. Since it would be patently unconstitutional and would get struck down, he could gain an even stronger moral basis on which to later run for office with a court ruling in hand that he had nothing to do with.





And let's face it: birthers will stay mum the moment they meet a candidate who's as rightwing-nutty as they are.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24537
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#22

Post by bob » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:26 am

Whether they could pass a birther law strictly for identity purposes, so that even foreign-born persons could present their certificates, is a closer question but still probably problematic under the Constitution.
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Louisiana HB 561

#23

Post by esseff44 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:47 pm

[/break1]nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/gov_jindal_will_sign_birther_b.html]Gov. Jindal will sign 'birther' bill if it reaches his deskThe bill by state Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, and Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require federal candidates who want to appear on Louisiana ballots to file an affidavit attesting to their citizenship, which would have to be accompanied by an "original or certified copy" of their birth certificate.[...]Seabaugh, an attorney, said his bill was motivated by the numerous lawsuits that have been filed over Obama's citizenship. "[highlight]Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits," Seabaugh said. "As an attorney, that's offensive to me."[/highlight]He said he has no reason to doubt Obama's citizenship. "[highlight]I don't purport to be a 'birther[/highlight],'" Seabaugh said. "This is from the standpoint of cleaning up an area of the law where there appears to be a gap."Will Seabaugh be the next Hatfield?As has been mentioned, it is early in the process and we have no idea what the bill will look like if it passes. It may die in committee or get voted down. Republicans in LA do not have a supermajority like they do in Arizona.How far could a state legislature go in formulating a bill to require a showing of eligibility? What advice would you give them to stay within constitutional limits?



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”