New Hampshire narrowly rejects seeking birth records from candidates

CONCORD, N.H.—Lawmakers have decided against asking presidential candidates who want to be on New Hampshire’s primary ballot next year to produce a birth certificate.

The House Election Law Committee voted 10-8 Wednesday to reject the proposal. Supporters had also wanted to require candidates to sign an affidavit swearing they are at least 35 years old and have lived in the United States for 14 years, as called for in the U.S. Constitution to qualify for the presidency.

State Rep. Shawn Jasper, a Hudson Republican, said he voted against the proposal because it was unnecessary and a distraction to the state’s presidential primary — the earliest in the nation. He predicted the proposal may be back next year.

  • y_p_w

    I read an article about this bill published in New Hampshire. The real irony is that New Hampshire no longer issues “long form” birth certificates. Neither does New Jersey, Missouri, Louisiana, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Ohio, New York, and West Virginia. I’m sure the list is longer, but those were the states where I found images on the web and could corroborate that they didn’t have options for an abstract or long form, such as Idaho or some counties in Texas. Maybe a candidate has an older copy of a “long form”, but who would trust it with some political hack who might lose an irreplaceable document.

    By the way, here’s LeBron James’s birth certificate. Apparently Ohio considers them public records and will issue a full certified copy. Some agencies will issue “informational” copies (to anyone) that are identical except for a disclaimer that they can’t be used identification/employment/passports/etc.


    He might have problems running for President when he turns 35 because no father is listed on his BC.

    Some of these bills (Georgia for example) have specific requirements for a “long form”. California’s current form (which is pretty short) doesn’t list the residence of either parent, which wouldn’t make it compliant with Georgia’s bill.

  • eingriff

    Requiring proof of being a natural born U.S. citizen time of your birth has no effect on one who was a natural born U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, but later lost his U.S. citizenship altogether by becoming a citizen of Indonesia.

    State legislatures need to investigate before they blindly legislate in ignorance of the facts.

    In Obama’s case, thorough investigation will show election fraud and ineligibility because of Indonesian citizenship. Can’t be both a U.S. citizen and an Indonesian citizen. Can’t be a natural born U.S. citizen if not a U.S. citizen at all. Other election fraud is misrepresenting personal and racial identity my claiming his adoptive parents were his birth parents.

    Hence New Hampshire, upon finding fraud including ineligibility by official inquiry, could rescind its appointment of four 2008 electoral votes for Obama, and bar him from the 2012 ballot, without adopting any worthless new law.

    • Tex Expatriate

      Obama’s birthplace might be Indonesia or Kenya, but it sure aint Hawaii. If it was, he’d release the certificate. You can’t get a driver license without one, but clearly you can get yourself elected President.

  • truthhasnoagenda

    I don’t know the party makeup of this Committee, but Republicans routed Dems in N.H. last fall, and I’m suprised this proposal failed. I’d like to hear the reasons why. Jasper’s reason isn’t good enough. A distraction? Please….and it won’t be even MORE of a distraction in ’12 in a Presidentail election year?

    I don’t understand why demanding evidence required by the U.S. Constitution is so controversial. Evidence like Presidential candidate eligibility, and verifying legal voters. I Believe there once was a day when honor and integrity and respect for the Constitution was enough. It is painfully obvious that is no longer enough, and we have to now pass laws to enforce pre existing laws. It’s a shame and a tragedy, but it is reality.

    • eingriff

      State legislatures and Congress, as well as attorneys general, need to investigate. It’s counterproductive to legislate blindly without knowing the facts. What good does it do to require presentation of a birth certificate when, like Obama, the state custodian of vital records has an original birth certificate showing birth in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizens, thus making him a natural born U.S. citizen at the time of his birth?

      Moreover, a birth certificate just proves a birth, not that the presenter is the child whose birth is certified. DNA confirmation is required.

      But there is more. Like Obama, the presenter could lose U.S. citizenship by becoming a citizen of Indonesia. He can’t be both a U.S. citizen and an Indonesian citizen. If Indonesian law made him an Indonesian citizen, the Hague Convention precludes interference by U.S. law. See Philip J. Berg, Esq., http://obamacrimes.com/?p=423.

      And the term “natural born U.S. citizen” subsumes “citizen”. He can’t be a natural born U.S. citizen if he is not a U.S. citizen at all, even if he was a natural born U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.

      State legislatures and Congress should investigate before they legislate. They might find legislation to be unnecessary. All they need to know to apply current law are the relevant facts.

      The facts can be uncovered only by official investigations, with the power to compel sworn testimony and obtain documents and things by search warrant and subpoena. Obama will never voluntarily disclose the necessary evidence. Full disclosure by official investigation will make it painfully apparent why voluntary disclosure has not been forthcoming.

      Exhaustive official investigation of Obama’s can be expected to reveal Obama’s theft of racial identity to make a racial appeal for votes, his constitutional ineligibility by acquisition of Indonesian citizenship and his seditious deals to cover up his Indonesian citizenship. If the fight is not carried to him by full exposure, Obama will weave such a corrupt skein of control and corruption, including physical intimidation and violence, that nobody can beat him. After full exposure of the facts, he can be impeached and even the Democrats will reject him.

      Dr. Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Notre Dame Law School, is among the latest to call for congressional hearings on the Obama mess, saying inter alia – “. . . it is fair to say that the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.

      “I suggest no conclusion as to whether Obama is eligible or not. But the citizens whom the media and political pundits dismiss as “birthers” have raised legitimate questions. That legitimacy is fueled by Obama’s curious, even bizarre, refusal to consent to the release of the relevant records. Perhaps there is nothing to the issues raised. Or perhaps there is. This is potentially serious business. If it turns out that Obama knew he was ineligible when he campaigned and when he took the oath as President, it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world. As long as Obama refuses to disclose the records, speculation will grow and grow without any necessary relation to the truth. The first step toward resolving the issue is full discovery and disclosure of the facts.

      “The courts are not the only entities empowered to deal with such a question. A committee of the House of Representatives could be authorized to conduct an investigation into the eligibility issue.”

      See http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-he-or-isnt-he-american-citizen.html.

      Others call for impeachment. For that, exhaustive investigation and hearings would be prerequisite. States elect the President; they appoint the presidential electors (U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. 1). They should also investigate Obama’s election fraud by misrepresentation of his personal and racial identity, as well as his constitutional ineligibility by acquiring Indonesian citizenship.

  • Pingback: New Hampshire narrowly rejects seeking birth records from candidates | DailyRoot

  • Idahosauce

    So, for the highest office in the land, these friggin NH legislators are coward enough not to require proof of qualification? GTFO of office!

    • eingriff

      See my main comment and my response to truthhasnoagenda.

      Demand that all state and federal officials with jurisdiction investigate the Obama matter. He could well be an enemy agent. The fate of the Republic could depend on whether exhaustive investigations are conducted as soon as possible. They should start with subpoena of Hawai’i’s custodian of vital records to obtain Barry’s birth certificates (the original one showing birth parents and the amended one showing Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama the alien Luo tribesman as adoptive parents; that book claiming them as birth parents was a colossal hoax).

  • PATRIOT888

    Birth certificates, we don’t need no birth certificates. NH is pathetic.

    • eingriff

      As evidence of natural born U.S. citizen status at birth, they are very useful, and election officials probably don’t need new law to demand them. But even when corroborated by DNA analysis, the birth certificate doesn’t mean the child remains a natural born U.S. citizen forever. Loss of U.S. citizenship means you are no longer a natural born U.S. citizen, even if you were a natural born U.S. citizen at the time of your birth.