Oh, For Goodness Sake

A couple of weeks ago, World Net Daily reported:

At the request of a local tea-party group, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates to show an original birth certificate establishing constitutional eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.

SB 0366 reads:

(2) Prior to the name of any candidate for president of the United States being placed on the ballot for either the presidential preference primary or the general November election, the following procedure shall be followed:

(A) The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of the candidates for president and vice-president seeking that party’s nomination. Within ten (10) days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age, and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States.

Which reads, very simply:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

SB 0366 goes on:

(B) The affidavit prescribed in subdivision (a)(2)(A) shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

(i) An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, and signatures of the witnesses in attendance;

As I wrote recently about Arizona’s Birther Bills:

A state government can’t all of a sudden decide the United States Constitution is asking for something it’s not. All any state contemplating presidential ballot eligibility can reasonably expect of a birth certificate, is that it give date and place of birth to meet the age requirement and the natural born citizen requirement, whether the state’s laws reflect that limitation or not.

The legal authority for certification of anyone’s birthplace is the state in which the birth occurred. The legal documentation of that birth is the certification the state provides as prima facie proof. A state government is compelled to release its vital records only by court order, not by order of another state government who doesn’t like the official format of a state’s legal documents.

Aside from the obvious fact that there is one and only one “original long form birth certificate” and it belongs the the State of Hawaii, who holds Full Faith and Credit status with every other state, including Tennessee; aside from another obvious fact that Federal elections are governed by Federal law, not State law– there is another problem here. The State of Tennessee’s own “original long form birth certificate” may not show “signatures of the witnesses in attendance” or “name of hospital,” which would present, certainly, difficulty for future presidential candidates from Tennessee, disallowing a place on the ballot to its own citizens.

The State of Tennessee provides photocopies of original birth certificates for the years 1914-1948; for births beginning in 1949, computer printouts. This example doesn’t even show a place for the hospital name on the form. What if the baby was born at home or the “physician or midwife” was a taxi driver or police officer?

Look at your own birth certificate, original and long or not: Where does it state you are a “natural born citizen”? It doesn’t. The conclusion is drawn from the geographic place of your birth, not from the name of the hospital or doctor, not from signatures of witnesses, if there even are any. Does your birth certificate say you are have dual or multiple citizenship? No. Would you even know it?

(ii) A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America; and

Since other countries through their own legal systems confer citizenship on Americans, most often without the person even knowing about it, this provision is illogical and can never be enforced. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, to name only two American Presidents of Irish heritage, would have been barred from the Tennessee ballot proposed here. No Jewish-American, French-American or Polish-American, and so forth, running for president or vice-president, could appear on this ballot.

And just how is “allegiance … solely to the United States of America” to be determined? Would you want any government entity deciding such a thing for your elected representatives or for you or your family? Talk about over-stepping, this requirement is more than illogical and impractical, it is downright un-American.

(iii) A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen (14) years.

There is nothing in the Constitution or in Statute requiring the 14-year residency be consecutive; and there is precedent in President Herbert Hoover, who lived abroad at several points in his life, including just 12 years before he was elected president. No returning armed forces member who, like President Eisenhower, ran for president could appear on Tennessee’s ballot. No bank executive who had been posted to Singapore a decade before could be on the ballot. No doctor who had spent time donating medical services in another country. No business person or retiree who had lived one foot the other side of the Mexican or Canadian borders.

If, like me, you are beginning to think the nation’s state houses have turned into holding cells for ignorant nut cases, you would be right.

Here is an interview with Sen. Mae Beavers at Reality Check Radio (transcript), where she is asked how a candidate who had been adopted, when records of the adoption are sealed by court order, would be handled, and she had no idea. In fact, she hadn’t read the current bill. Yes, she says so herself. Sen. Beavers, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, did not read the Birther Bill she is sponsoring.

Here are some clips:

The “long form” birth certificate; and here.

Obama’s eligibility.

Vice presidential eligibility.

Conspiracy theories.

Last week, Sen. Beavers withdrew her first Birther Bill and is now sponsoring ANOTHER Birther Bill, SB 1091, which added other Federal offices, but basically does every stupid thing the first one did, regarding presidential candidates–except it forgets the vice-president, while SB 0366 at least asked for his or her name. This person, that one heartbeat away from being a Usurpin’ Mofo in the White House, gets a pass on everything else.