Arizona’s state senate has passed a bill which would require candidates for the presidency to submit their LONG FORM birth certificate to state authorities before their names can appear on the ballot.
But don’t worry: if someone doesn’t happen to have their long form birth certificate available for some reason, one can present two other supporting documents from this list:
I suppose the circumcision certificate could be a subtle effort to prevent the candidacy of ANOTHER secret Muslim president, or god forbid, a girl president.
I also am quite surprised that there is such a thing as a “circumcision certificate.” I thought doctors just put one of those Jiffy-Lube stickers on boys’ hips, reminding them to return for service every six months, and that fluid top-offs are free. Does anyone here have their circumcision certificate? Perhaps framed in their den, or locked away in a safety deposit box?
I’m even more hopeful that the anti-male genital mutilation squad will weigh in against the Arizona legislature making it more difficult for non-circumcised presidential candidates to get on the ballot.
I was circumcised as a young 'un in the UK (for medical reasons, rather than a matter of course; at that time, I think only 1 in 10 British men was circumcised) and I’m pretty sure I don’t have a certificate. I mean, it’s really not that difficult to prove that I’m circumcised without using paperwork.
How the hell does a baptismal certificate show that you were born in the USA (and spending half your life just a coverin’ up?). It’s not like the priest/minister will only baptize citizens.
Sorry for the double post - doesn’t the AZ law also run into problems with the requirement to respect other state’s laws? For instance, I don’t believe that Hawaii will actually issue the mythical long-form certificate - per their rules, the standard form that they issue is the official indication of birth in Hawaii.
Not really. They have to respect other states’ acts, but If Hawaii won’t let you comply with Arizona’s law, that’s (Constitutionally speaking) your problem and Hawaii’s, not Arizona’s. You could equally argue that Hawaii isn’t respecting Arizona’s law by not releasing the certificate (although for what it’s worth I don’t see any way that the copy Obama has produced wouldn’t satisfy the bill, assuming it passes the AZ House).
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is about substantive law, though, not procedure. In other words, while Arizona has to honor a Hawaiian record, it can require that the record be submitted or authenticated in a certain manner.
They can’t require Hawaii to authenticate it in a way that violates Hawaii state law. Ergo, the requirement that they accept Hawaii’s document pretty much requires that they accept Hawaii’s authentication as valid.
It’s my understanding that they generally circumcise their baby boys. I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe that I am. If anyone wishes to assert that I am, I’d appreciate a cite.
I’m very dubious about that. In the event that this is signed into law in Arizona, and an attempt is made to use it to keep the President off the ballot in 2012, I do not expect to see it survive a court challenge.