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.

Welcome to the Fogbow, Essef

I can't do these nutz and bolts questions Someone will come along and help!

(Essef is a birther battler, Fogbowzers!)

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


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.



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.



Dunno, but it doesn't matter as it will be struck down.

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

I have found one answer here:

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/fa ... 2#Faq-1278

The 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.

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.

http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_5401.html

So, the wallet-sized short form with only the initials of parents would not do. I guess it is not for ALL purposes after all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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



more here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=288785

Gov. Jindal will sign 'birther' bill if it reaches his desk

Will Seabaugh be the next Hatfield?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Birtherism will have faded by 2016 because its target won't be a candidate. Rove and other mainstream Republicans might be lamenting the slate of candidates they've got for 2012, but I'm starting to think it's all just so much " please don't throw me in the briar patch". The grown-ups know that they are going to be hard-pressed to beat Obama in 2012, so I think the cynics among them, including Rove, figure why not just let all the crazies run - Bachmann, Trump, Palin, Santorum - and keep the more serious, more viable candidates in reserve for 2016 and beyond. The exceptions to crazy are Romney and Pawlenty. This will probably be Mitt's last chance, so he'll run. Pawlenty might decide to just save his money. Jindal wants to be a grown-up - I don't think he'd sign a birther bill. He knows he can't run this time because there are all those pictures of him with his head together with Obama down on the Gulf and Obama's arm around his shoulder like a concerned dad guiding his son.

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?

Advice for birfer legislators to birf better? Not here!

Although if you read back through the Montana birfer bill thread, that was the one, IIRC, had the best chance of being konstitushinal, but it didn't exclude Obama.