# Let's say Congress wants to see Obama's Birth Certificate **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 21, 2008, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770 "2008-11-21T02:53:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/21 "2008-11-21T04:16:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is an oft cited load of crap. Without checking what the law was in 1961 (which is all we care about-that’s when Obama was born), it’s only important for people not born on U.S. soil. As Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, it’s totally irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/22 "2008-11-21T04:29:45Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > This this oh my god THIS. > > Seriously, his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth, and had not renounced her citizenship. Obama is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. > > For the LOVE of GOD, why is this still an issue? It shouldn’t be and that is why I put it in GQ and not GD. I’ll try to make my questions a little clearer just to avoid implying that I’m an “Obama is not a citizen” member of the TFHB. My questions are purely from a Constitutional standpoint. Irregardless of whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen, my questions are: 1. Does Congress (as verifiers of the Electoral Votes) have the power to compel anyone, Obama, McCain, me, you, or the Pillsbury Dough Boy to prove that they are an NBC, 35 years or older, resident of the US for 14 years? 2. Would an objection to the Electoral Votes be sustained if the winning candidate _refused_ to show that they were eligible to be president? 3. Who has standing in court to question the credentials of a candidate? 4. Assume that everyone assumed everyone else did their due diligence and so no one really bothered to check on a candidate who is (for the sake of argument) 33 years old and everyone passes the buck - Sec’ies of State leave them on the ballot (or the election was over), courts rule that common citizens have no standing, Congress counts the votes since their job is merely procedural, SCOTUS rules it is a political question, etc. What happens? Would a person who is not Contitutionally eligible actually become President? If not, what would stop it if everyone had “fuck it. not my job attitude”? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/23 "2008-11-21T04:41:33Z")
I’ve already answered these questions in earlier posts in this thread, but to repeat and clarify: > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 1. Does Congress (as verifiers of the Electoral Votes) have the power to compel anyone, Obama, McCain, me, you, or the Pillsbury Dough Boy to prove that they are an NBC, 35 years or older, resident of the US for 14 years? As far as I can tell from the text of the Twelfth Amendment, posted above, Congress’ job (in the situation where there’s an overwhelming majority of EVs for one candidate), is COUNTING THE VOTES and CERTIFYING THE RESULT. In the instant case, that would involve counting all the electoral votes (of which a majority are for Obama), and certifying that a majority of the electors voted for obama. I don’t see how either of those turns on whether Obama is eligible to be president. If they have a job of verifying votes, it’s to verify that the votes they’re counting are actually those of the electors of the various states chosen in the general election. I don’t see the text of the constitution giving any role to congress to “verify” the eligibility of the person the electoral votes are for-and generally, the constitution doesn’t look to that person much at that point-hence, why sherman said “if elected, I will not serve”-because you can be elected president if you don’t want to-as long as the electors vote for you. Of course, congress has a subpoena power. Within broad limits, they can subpoena anyone they want. They’d need a majority vote of (probably some committee) for that. But again, I don’t see where in the text of the constitution it makes any difference to the count of the votes whether the person the electors vote for is eligible to be president or not. It means he can’t serve on Jan. 20, but I don’t see any reason he can’t be elected on Dec. 6 (or whenever). > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 1. Would an objection to the Electoral Votes be sustained if the winning candidate _refused_ to show that they were eligible to be president? I don’t think there is any objection to the VOTES. there is an objection to whether the PERSON THE ELECTORS VOTED FOR is eligible to serve, but that doesn’t change their votes. Any “rejection” of the vote would probably require a majority of both houses of congress (given that that’s what congress needs to do anything). Even if constitutionally permissible, (which I doubt), it’s never going to happen. And let’s remember that any “rejection” by the congress to give the presidency to the person who lost the election is a coup d’etat. It’s not a constitutional procedure-it’s rejecting the entire election process. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 1. Assume that everyone assumed everyone else did their due diligence and so no one really bothered to check on a candidate who is (for the sake of argument) 33 years old and everyone passes the buck - Sec’ies of State leave them on the ballot (or the election was over), courts rule that common citizens have no standing, Congress counts the votes since their job is merely procedural, SCOTUS rules it is a political question, etc. What happens? Would a person who is not Contitutionally eligible actually become President? If not, what would stop it if everyone had “fuck it. not my job attitude”? Probably a supreme court issue. I don’t know who would have standing to sue. Looking to the text of the Twelfth amendment (See above quote), my own interpretation (IANAL) is that if the person who got the most electoral votes was ineligible to serve as president (for whatever reason, of which there are really two: death or being ineligible (i.e. 33), the vice-presidential candidate with the most electoral votes for vice-president (which are tallied separately under the 12th amendment) would become president when the President-elect was unable to serve on Jan 20. If nobody challenged the president-elect, you’d have a constitutional crisis. Sure, his taking office is inconsistent with the constitution-but if everybody acts like he’s president, it’s not clear what could be done. I’m not sure if there is a difference between De Facto and actual President if everyone (including the supreme court) refuses to act. That’s how this country got started, after all-a revolutionary act inconsistent with previous law. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/24 "2008-11-21T05:33:35Z")
Quoth **Diogenes the Cynic** : > [@](#): > > This is an oft cited load of crap. On looking a bit more into this, you might be right, but you posted the wrong cite for it. The Snopes article says only that that bit isn’t relevant to Obama since he was born in the US, but doesn’t dispute it for someone born outside the country. A few Google hits down, though, gives a [better cite](http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/25 "2008-11-21T05:51:15Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 1. Does Congress (as verifiers of the Electoral Votes) have the power to compel anyone, Obama, McCain, me, you, or the Pillsbury Dough Boy to prove that they are an NBC, 35 years or older, resident of the US for 14 years? Congressional committees and subcommittees have subpoena power. > [@](#): > > [Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sine.htm) > > … The Constitution vests all legislative authority in Congress. U.S. Const., art. I, § 1. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to issue subpoenas, the Supreme Court has stated that the authority to subpoena is an “indispensable ingredient” of Congress’ legislative power. Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 505 (1975). In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927), the Court declared that “the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” According to the Court: > > A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. It may be argued that since no legislation is as stake, Congress could not issue subpoenas in such a case. This ruling doesn’t address impeachment procedures, however, and Congress can certainly use the subpoena for that. No individual Congressperson can, remember. Only a majority vote of a committee can request one. > [@](#): > > 1. Would an objection to the Electoral Votes be sustained if the winning candidate _refused_ to show that they were eligible to be president? I know of no law that compels a candidate to produce evidence of citizenship, which makes this moot. > [@](#): > > 1. Who has standing in court to question the credentials of a candidate? Unclear. I’d guess the [Federal Election Commission](http://www.fec.gov/) could issue a challenge. Surely, date and place of birth has to be on some form filed with them and a false entry in most federal forms is a crime. > [@](#): > > 1. Assume that everyone assumed everyone else did their due diligence and so no one really bothered to check on a candidate who is (for the sake of argument) 33 years old and everyone passes the buck - Sec’ies of State leave them on the ballot (or the election was over), courts rule that common citizens have no standing, Congress counts the votes since their job is merely procedural, SCOTUS rules it is a political question, etc. What happens? Would a person who is not Contitutionally eligible actually become President? If not, what would stop it if everyone had “fuck it. not my job attitude”? If a Person becomes President and proof is put forward of his or her failing to meet constitutional standards, the House would impeach and the Senate would convict. End of issue. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/26 "2008-11-21T05:58:19Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > If a Person becomes President and proof is put forward of his or her failing to meet constitutional standards, the House would impeach and the Senate would convict. End of issue. I’m not sure it would be impeachable. Absent perjury, it’s not illegal to be 33-so probably not a high crime or misdemeanor (but I know that impeachment is basically whatever congress says it is). Plus, you can only impeach someone who’s actually the president. If congress was genuinely arguing whoever the president was isn’t constitutionally qualified (let’s say 33), the argument would be that he couldn’t be president-not that he was president, and should be removed-but that any service as president is constitutionally invalid. It’s not clear to me that the procedure to do this is impeachment. I’d argue it would end up in the supreme court, and then the court would rule that individual X was not constitutionally qualified to be prez, couldn’t serve, and hence the 25th would make the Veep automatically president. If the Supreme Court refused to take the case when the issue was fairly raised by someone with standing, that would be a pretty good defense against impeachment (and relevant, as the chief justice would preside) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/27 "2008-11-21T06:40:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not sure it would be impeachable. Absent perjury, it’s not illegal to be 33-so probably not a high crime or misdemeanor (but I know that impeachment is basically whatever congress says it is). Actually, that raises a very interesting hypothetical: If the President were ineligible by virtue of being too young, that’s only a temporary condition. If he managed to delay the issue until he did reach the required age, would the case become moot? And if he didn’t manage to delay, would he take back the reigns from the VP once he qualified? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/28 "2008-11-21T06:42:05Z")
But what does Obama have to do with his birth certificate? It’s my understanding the state of Hawaii will release birth certificates to anyone who has a legitimate reason. I would assume any state agency would comply with a court order to do so, even if Obama didn’t want it. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/29 "2008-11-21T12:16:54Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > This this oh my god THIS. > > Seriously, his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth, and had not renounced her citizenship. Obama is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. > > For the LOVE of GOD, why is this still an issue? :dubious: But do we know that is really his mother? I demand a DNA test. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/30 "2008-11-21T15:56:09Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > I’m not sure it would be impeachable. Absent perjury, it’s not illegal to be 33-so probably not a high crime or misdemeanor (but I know that impeachment is basically whatever congress says it is). You answer the question yourself. Impeachment is the route to remove a president. The question I was answering also posited that the Supreme Court didn’t take up the case, so impeachment had to be the answer. That the Court wouldn’t handle the case says nothing at all as a defense. This would be a matter between the other two branches. As for the crime involved, it is impossible to claim for 33 years that you are actually older, even innocently and inadvertently, without committing a technical instance of fraud at some point. Please note that I hate hypotheticals of this sort that are so unrealistic that they require movie logic to resolve. The correct answer to all such fictions is that the real world would handle it ad hoc because there would be no precedent. The same minds that come up with the unrealistic hypotheticals find this unsatisfying, and this is the internet where we believe seven impossible things before breakfast, so we discuss them all the way through. But the right answer is always: we’ll find out when and if it ever happens. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/31 "2008-11-21T16:08:51Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You answer the question yourself. Impeachment is the route to remove a president. > > The question I was answering also posited that the Supreme Court didn’t take up the case, so impeachment had to be the answer. That the Court wouldn’t handle the case says nothing at all as a defense. This would be a matter between the other two branches. > > As for the crime involved, it is impossible to claim for 33 years that you are actually older, even innocently and inadvertently, without committing a technical instance of fraud at some point. Your real-world analysis is spot on (although I think of these more as law-professor hypotheticals—totally unrealistic, but designed to get to a interesting question you would rarely if ever see in the real world). However, I think your claim about fraud misses the gist of the hypothetical—IF there were fraud, it would be easy (and we wouldn’t be impeaching the prez because he was 33, but because of his fraud). It’s also easy to construct a hypothetical in which there wasn’t any fraud-voters were just dumb. (math skills going down the drain and the like) More importatly, lying in your youth isn’t a crime in office. WE couldn’t impeach Cheney for his DUI, we couldn’t impeach Bush or Obama for historical drug use, and we can’t impeach the young president for lying about his age when he was younger. And my point with the supreme court goes back to the argument that there’s no high crime or misdemanor in being 33. If you really wanted to get down to it, the means of removal would more likely be a majority of the cabinet voting that the prez was incapable of serving under the 25th. With respect to the supreme court, if we have a dispute between the two branches-where the prez says he can serve, and congress says ‘dude, you’re 33’, the court is traditionally the body that resolves such disputes. If it refuses to get involved, we have a constitutional crisis, but likely a preservation of the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/32 "2008-11-21T18:14:39Z")
You bring up an interesting point by introducing the 25th Amendment. The question is one of timing. Would there actually be a cabinet in place to declare the President unfit to serve? Would all the previous administration’s cabinet have tendered their resignations or been let go by the new president? Would they have standing to move against him? If the age issue surfaces at the time of the inauguration, then Congress wouldn’t have approved any of the new cabinet. I’d say that an impeachment is a more likely process under those circumstances. I also continue to insist that the age issue is not a matter of youthful indiscretion. There is no way to run for president without filing paperwork with the FEC and elsewhere that has the penalty of perjury associated with it. That makes any false claim of age a prosecutable violation and that’s all that’s needed. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/33 "2008-11-21T18:24:51Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You bring up an interesting point by introducing the 25th Amendment. The question is one of timing. Would there actually be a cabinet in place to declare the President unfit to serve? Would all the previous administration’s cabinet have tendered their resignations or been let go by the new president? Would they have standing to move against him? If the age issue surfaces at the time of the inauguration, then Congress wouldn’t have approved any of the new cabinet. I’d say that an impeachment is a more likely process under those circumstances. This is actually an interesting issue for other reasons-in general, the senate doesn’t actually confirm the new cabinet till after the inauguration. So rice is still sec. state on jan 20. If something tragic happens at the inauguration, and the succession goes to state she becomes president, not whoever obama’s sec-state is. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I also continue to insist that the age issue is not a matter of youthful indiscretion. There is no way to run for president without filing paperwork with the FEC and elsewhere that has the penalty of perjury associated with it. That makes any false claim of age a prosecutable violation and that’s all that’s needed. Sure in reality. But let’s imagine the hypothetical where the Candidate is scrupulously honest, and the FEC hires people who can’t do math/read the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/34 "2008-11-21T19:02:12Z")
With another reminder that ( Barack Obama was born in Hawaii; Hawaii was part of the US at the time), the “5 years past the age of 16” is a complete misreading of the law. Snopes didn’t pick up on this, and the cite from Chronos doesn’t mention it, but here’s what the relevant portion says: [Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I](http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+4951+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%288%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281401%29%29%3ACITE%20%20AND%20%28CHAPTER%20ADJ%20%2812%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20AND%20%28SUBCHAPTER%20ADJ%20%28III%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20AND%20%28PART%20ADJ%20%28I%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20%20%20%20%20) > [@](#): > > The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United > States at birth: > … > (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United > States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an > alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to > the birth of such person, was physically present in the United > States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods > totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were > after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any > periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces … The five-year period can _end_ at 16 - not start there. So that is the minimum age for one of the parents to be if the child is born outside the US and one parent is a non-US citizen. If we imagine a hypothetical parent named “Stanley” who is 18 years of age and lived in the US to that point, if they had a child with someone from another country, and if for some reason the baby boy was born outside of the US, he would still be a US citizen. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/35 "2008-11-21T19:18:05Z")
> [@panamajack](#): > > With another reminder that ( Barack Obama was born in Hawaii; Hawaii was part of the US at the time), the “5 years past the age of 16” is a complete misreading of the law. Snopes didn’t pick up on this, and the cite from Chronos doesn’t mention it, but here’s what the relevant portion says: > > [Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I](http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+4951+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%288%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281401%29%29%3ACITE%20%20AND%20%28CHAPTER%20ADJ%20%2812%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20AND%20%28SUBCHAPTER%20ADJ%20%28III%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20AND%20%28PART%20ADJ%20%28I%29%29%3AEXPCITE%20%20%20%20%20) > The five-year period can _end_ at 16 - not start there. So that is the minimum age for one of the parents to be if the child is born outside the US and one parent is a non-US citizen. > > If we imagine a hypothetical parent named “Stanley” who is 18 years of age and lived in the US to that point, if they had a child with someone from another country, and if for some reason the baby boy was born outside of the US, he would still be a US citizen. Just to show you why this is a complex thing (without really opining on the law in 1961-I don’t have the energy to chase it down)–the provision you quote was amended to read as it does in 1986. Hence, the five-year limit doesn’t apply to Obama’s 1961 birth. > [@](#): > > ``` > AMENDMENTS > 1994 - Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-416 added subsec. (h). > > ``` > > \*\* 1986 - Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted “five years, > least two” for “ten years, at least five”.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/36 "2008-11-21T19:21:21Z")
There is a process by which the count of electoral votes can be challenged, but it is basically a question on the authenticity of the votes of the electors, not a question of the constitutionality of the decision of the electors. I apologize for the following long quote from 3 USC 15. In fairness, I did trim a little bit off the beginning. > [@](#): > > Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. > > ``` > When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. > > But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. > > ``` Not being familiar with state laws, my guess is that the states would have the burden of examining whether a candidate for office would be eligible for that office before putting his name on the ballot. I can’t see why that would be different for electors pledged to a particular candidate. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/37 "2008-11-21T19:29:04Z")
Ravenman-good find with the statute. It seems to go a little further than you suggest-it forbids rejecting any elector’s vote if their status has been certified, and if state only makes one return (i.e. there’s not two sets of votes). This would apply to Obama-nobody’s contending the electors weren’t properly certified, and nobody is contending there are two, competing sets of votes from those electors. So under the statute, there’s no discretion to reject Obama electors. [QUOTE=U.S.Code] \*\* and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected\*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/38 "2008-11-21T19:43:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > As the TFHB (Tin-foil Hat Brigade) has pointed out, under Hawaiian state law the document shown as proof COULD have been filed if Obama were born out of the country and his birth registered in Honolulu when they got back. If this were in fact the case, the Certification of Live Birth would look the same. The Birth Certificate is filed by the hospital and is the definitive proof that a person was born at that location. So who files the Birth Certificate for someone born at home? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/39 "2008-11-21T21:15:32Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Sure in reality. But let’s imagine the hypothetical where the Candidate is scrupulously honest, and the FEC hires people who can’t do math/read the constitution. No, let’s not. This is not even a hypothetical; it’s pure idiocy. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770/40 "2008-11-21T21:30:00Z")
A simpler case might be that of a foundling with an assumed approximate birthdate, such that (so far as the candidate, FEC, and everyone else can determine) the candidate appears to be of age, but that new evidence then comes to light concerning the true birthdate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-congress-wants-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/473770.md?page=3)