Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

borealis
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:06 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#51

Post by borealis » Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:49 pm

Illinous senete public records should do nicely Won't be enough. Even a US passport or State driver license wouldn't be enough. They're just a bunch of loony and I might add stoopid racists. Once this election cycle is done, they'll repeal it. All the state will repeal or the federal government will tell them to mind TOFB.

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#52

Post by June bug » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:52 pm

[link]Current bill language,http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi ... B1046P.htm[/link]: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.[highlight]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.[/highlight] 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 birth.So no, the COLB won't do it...and, despite the backers' initial declaration that it wouldn't be effective till 2016, the bill's proposed effective date now is 8/28/2012, so it will be effective for the 2012 election. Here's the timing language:Not later than the twelfth Tuesday prior to each presidential election, or notwithstanding any prior laws to the contrary, in the year 1996 and thereafter, [highlight]within seven working days after choosing its nominees for president and vice president of the United States, whichever is later[/highlight], the state committee of each established political party shall certify in writing to the secretary of state the names of its nominees for president and vice president of the United States.It passed the Missouri House on 3/29 by a vote of 92-49. Presuming it passes the Senate (34 members - 26 R and 8 D), one hopes the Democratic Governor will veto. If the votes in the House stay the same the veto would be sustained at least in the House, but only barely.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#53

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:11 pm

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.[highlight]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.[/highlight]So even if the records are from a state in which they are not considered public records, they would be when used as proof in Missouri? Can they even do that?

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#54

Post by Chilidog » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:12 pm

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.[highlight]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.[/highlight]So even if the records are from a state in which they are not considered public records, they would be when used as proof in Missouri? Can they even do that?I want to know how they intend to get around the fact that Missouri itself does not issue the original forms anymore.

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#55

Post by Paul Lentz » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:22 pm

I want to know how they intend to get around the fact that Missouri itself does not issue the original forms anymore.Well, I think that's very simple. Harry Truman (the only President/VP from Missouri, as far as I know) will have to be removed retroactively from the office, since it is obvious that neither Truman nor his descendents can offer the appropriate proof of his birth in Missouri. While Truman is purported to have been born in a small farmhouse (not a hospital, I think that's quite suspicious, don't you?) in Barton County, MO, I don't think there's any proof of that...it's just an internet rumor as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I believe there are several websites speculating on Harry Truman's rumored birth in New Zealand, or Australia, or somewhere thereabouts, when his mama (his real mother, of course) took up with some exiled--but incredibly charming--murderer or thief on his stopover in Fiji on his way to his new home. Knocked-up, she followed her less than stellar paramour to his new home where she gave birth to little Harry, but two days later, she (baby in tow) hopped a tramp steamer to the good ol' US of A, and the kindly shelter of a third cousin's home in Barton County, Missouri. But this was 1884, and a child born on the wrong side of the blanket simply wasn't acceptable in rural Missouri, so the cousin and her husband raised Harry as their own after quickly relocating to Belton, MO (and then to Independence) where there was no one who either knew, or suspected, little Harry's true origin.





Of course, once Truman is impeached posthumously, then every action taken by him as President will be undone (as they must be, as we all know, because dozens of birfers tell us so). So, I guess--for example--no atomic bombs were ever really dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Korean "conflict" simply didn't occur...the buck didn't stop there, and Harry never gave 'em hell.





All for the want of a birth certificate.
The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#56

Post by verbalobe » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:10 pm

Of course, once Truman is impeached posthumously, then every action taken by him as President will be undone (as they must be, as we all know, because dozens of birfers tell us so). So, I guess--for example--no atomic bombs were ever really dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Korean "conflict" simply didn't occur...the buck didn't stop there, and Harry never gave 'em hell.All for the want of a birth certificate.The Japanese can dream.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44253
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#57

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:34 pm

Well, Paul, I thought that Thomas Dewey guy was a great President until he passed away from the rigors of office in 1950 and Earl Warren took over. Warren was a great President, appointing William O. Douglas as Chief Justice of the United States and Dwight Eisenhower as Secretary of the Interior (as a result of which our Interstate highway system was built). Too bad Warren (whose father was a Norwegian immigrant who never naturalized) lost to Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy in 1956. (At least we were spared of a Tricky Dick Presidency.)But all that's another story.

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

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#58

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:57 pm

Bravo Paul.
Off Topic
Harry Truman (the only President/VP from Missouri, as far as I know)...FTR there are some Missourians (not me) who actually believe someone else was the first President from Missouri.
David Rice Atchison Headstone.jpg
Atchison was a prominent pro-slavery activist and Border Ruffian leader, deeply involved with violence against abolitionists and other free-staters during the "Bleeding Kansas" events.[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_AtchisonIt's ironic that a town in Kansas is named after this asshole when you learn of his involvement during "Bleeding Kansas".

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12009
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#59

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:13 pm

Off Topic
Atchison was a prominent pro-slavery activist and Border Ruffian leader, deeply involved with violence against abolitionists and other free-staters during the "Bleeding Kansas" events.[/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_AtchisonIt's ironic that a town in Kansas is named after this asshole when you learn of his involvement during "Bleeding Kansas". I read up about him and the Border Ruffians. Talk about stealing an election!! :shock: :shock: They really did! Those bastids.
"[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 (I-ME)

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. 1046 (2012)

#60

Post by Kriselda Gray » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:32 pm

[link]Current bill language,http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi ... B1046P.htm[/link]: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.[highlight]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.[/highlight] 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 birth.We know that in Hawaii, except for the special dispensation that they gave to Obama so he could obtain a copy of his long-form birth certificate, citizens simply aren't allowed access to that particular record, even for themselves. I would assume that there are similar restrictions in other states that have gone to certified computer-generated abstracts of the birth records. If candidates who were born in states that do not allow someone to get a copy of their long-form certificate, this bill would require them to be left off of Missouri's ballot, correct? Does anyone know how common rules like Hawaii's are? It seems to me that if most states have gone to the COLB certified abstracts as the official birth-record document and no longer allow anyone to obtain a copy of their long-form birth record, Missouri could end up in a situation where none of the major Presidential candidates would be eligible to be listed on the ballot, essentially disenfranchising all Missourians in the Presidential election. Maybe it's not as common a thing as I'm thinking, but if the above scenario is at all plausible, then it sounds like someone forgot to do their homework before writing and pushing this bill. If it passes and becomes law, it could make for some fun *real* violation-of-civil-rights lawsuits.
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...

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

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#61

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:33 am

I suspect Missouri Republican legislators are not too worried about a USDC prohibiting the law from being enforced should it even pass after Gov Nixon's veto. My guesses are:1) They are anticipating there will be a case filed in either the Eastern or Western District of Missouri2) They believe that case will be filed by the Obama campaign or the Missouri Democratic Party3) They believe the Missouri Republican Party will be able to use the court case to their advantage in the coming electionI've seen Missouri Republicans perform this scene before.YMMV

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#62

Post by Curious Blue » Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:49 pm

I suspect Missouri Republican legislators are not too worried about a USDC prohibiting the law from being enforced should it even pass after Gov Nixon's veto. My guesses are:1) They are anticipating there will be a case filed in either the Eastern or Western District of Missouri2) [highlight]They believe that case will be filed by the Obama campaign or the Missouri Democratic Party[/highlight]3) They believe the Missouri Republican Party will be able to use the court case to their advantage in the coming electionI've seen Missouri Republicans perform this scene before.Why would Obama or the Democratic party bother to sue? We know that Obama has 2 certified copies of his Hawaii long form birth certificate -- can't he spare one to send off to Missouri? Sure, no one else from Hawaii can get one these days.... but Obama has his, and I am quite sure that last year when he dispatched his lawyer off the Honolulu to fetch the thing, he was already thinking about the possibility of some state passing a birther bill in time for the 2012 election. The people who should be worried are the GOP. What kind of birth certificate does Michigan issue these days? How does that compare to what was available in 1947?

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21054
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#63

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:34 pm

[link]Current bill language,http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi ... B1046P.htm[/link]:


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.[highlight]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, and shall be kept and maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter 610.[highlight]The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee.[/highlight] 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.Let's me wonder how they will run that research subject over 49 partner states and a timeline of up to seventy years back, to discover/determine what said other state had produced as the most complete record at the moment in time.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#64

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:46 pm

Maybe nobody will be on the ballot in Missouri. At least that would prevent the dipshits who came up with this bill from voting.

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#65

Post by Curious Blue » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:59 pm

I actually think the bill is worded very clumsily and is ambiguous -- this phrase:.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,Can be interpreted to mean that the birth certificate must be presented in the "form" used as of the time of birth.But it can also be interpreted to mean that current forms can be used, drawn from "the most complete" record available at time of birth. Think of Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower, who obtained their birth certificates as adults, drawn or reconstructed from whatever records were available at time of birth. Or, it could be interpreted to mean, the "most complete" form currently issued by whatever legal authority happened to be controlling at the time of the nominee's birth. Because that is something that could change over time or be in dispute.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#66

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:55 am

Is Michigan a short form state?

User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#67

Post by majorbabs » Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:51 am

Is Michigan a short form state?I had to get another copy of my BC from Michigan not too long ago (original got lost in one of my many moves). It was a short form and looked just like Obama's. It worked just fine when I used it to replace my driver's license after my wallet was stolen.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#68

Post by verbalobe » Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:04 am

Let's me wonder how they will run that research subject over 49 partner states and a timeline of up to seventy years back, to discover/determine what said other state had produced as the most complete record at the moment in time.They could hire the crack investigative team of Daniels, Sankey, Barnett & Dorsey-Fair.





I'm sure they would conclude that:


[*:2vx2kzcp]The most complete record in Hawaii in 1961 was the ENTIRE birth data record, including the medical/CDC/census notes on the bottom half, that are not even on the LFBC; and that it must include current affidavits from all signatories, even if they are now deceased


[*:2vx2kzcp]The most complete record in Detroit, Michigan in 1947 was ... hey, look! It's on wikipedia!

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#69

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:18 pm

Is Michigan a short form state?I had to get another copy of my BC from Michigan not too long ago (original got lost in one of my many moves). It was a short form and looked just like Obama's. It worked just fine when I used it to replace my driver's license after my wallet was stolen.Was Mitt born in Michigan?

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31128
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#70

Post by mimi » Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:31 pm

Is Michigan a short form state?I had to get another copy of my BC from Michigan not too long ago (original got lost in one of my many moves). It was a short form and looked just like Obama's. It worked just fine when I used it to replace my driver's license after my wallet was stolen.Was Mitt born in Michigan? :-? Idunno. It says so, but I ain't seen da birf certificate.

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#71

Post by Curious Blue » Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:40 pm

Was Mitt born in Michigan?Wikipedia says Detroit... but that's awfully close to Windsor, Ontario on my map. We'll never know unless he can produce a birth certificate with the name of the hospital and little footie prints.....

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9701
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#72

Post by Chilidog » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:06 am

So, the MO bill would affect little baby Willard as well. On the other hand, he's a Mormon so I bet he can pull out all sorts of postdated baptismal certs for himself.

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

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#73

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:06 pm

The Senate committee voted "Do Pass" on this today. I've no details on the vote.http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... code=RThis has quite a good chance of getting through the legislature but whether the Governor will sign it is another matter.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Missouri H.B. 1046 (2012)

#74

Post by realist » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:25 pm

The Senate committee voted "Do Pass" on this today. I've no details on the vote.http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... code=RThis has quite a good chance of getting through the legislature but whether the Governor will sign it is another matter.Such evidence shall be in the form of [highlight]the most complete record of birth available 9 by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth[/highlight], and shall be kept and 10 maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapterI see all of that phrase as problematic, but especially the highlighted portion. Some states are not going to supply anything but what they supply to everyone (at the time of request) as a BC. MO can not make them do otherwise, any more than IN could make MO do otherwise (who, BTW, only supplies the short form).The other part is problematic due to privacy and identity theft problems, with anyone and everyone able to view the information.Why can't these assholes just say provide a certified copy of your birth certificate, and the SoS can attest to the fact it's been supplied? What's so friggin' difficult about that? I doubt anyone would object nor would there be any problems with what is supplied. ](*,)
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”