Passport - Department of State- allow electgronic verification of birth records

flyngrl

Flag

I just applied for a passport for my son who was born in California and provided the birth certificate provided by the county he was born in. DOS wrote back that I needed to get "long form birth certificate" from the state. This is a 14 week process. Why can't secure technology be used by individual states to DOS (and other agencies)? I have no problem paying the same $14.00, but in this day and age requiring a "raised seal" is silly. I just had to get my signature notarized to get this data and the notary did not have a raised seal, explaining "this stamp is all we have."

Why Is This Idea Important?

It would reduce passport processing time and reduce fraud by an agency to agency transfer of data.

Idea # 1271Between Federal, State, and Local Governments, passport, birth certificate, technology

Comments

gcal2002 9 months ago

This may be a process to consider in the future when we've better secured our Internet Cyberspace Technology. Presently there are too many security risks that could undermine valid info.

kaatcya 9 months ago

here is a petition to sign

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/bocrisis/petition.html

evreport 9 months ago

That's strange. I've had a passport for decades without ever having submitted the original long form, which I don't even have, just the short form birth certificate.

Twitchy 9 months ago

Ah, but does your short form have the raised seal? That's what makes it an official copy.

krmorgan 8 months ago

ETHICS:

If the United States Federal Government states that "some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may NOT be acceptable for passport purposes" . . . then how could the mainline press and the Democratic controlled Congress during the election vetting process have over looked the obvious that we have an elected President that has NOT even presented the qualification documents (Long Form) to get a US Passport?????

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrars office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may NOT be acceptable for passport purposes.

The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
"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…"

POINT:

While the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, it is NOT adequate for proving one's physical place of birth. A certificate of live birth was presented by Barack Hussein Obama, not a certified long form birth certificate. How can it be that "we the people", ordinary citizens as in this example of applying for a US Passport . . . have to present a long form birth certificate and the elected President of the United States that takes a sworn oath to protect the Constitution of the United States does not provide the long form to prove eligibility of being a Natural Born Citizen????? Were is the proof and evidence of transparency by Barack Hussein Obama?????

ETHICAL REFORM PROPOSAL:

The Constitution does not provide for a 21st Century enforcement mechanism and the Federal Government has not clearly defined standards of relying solely on the Long Form Birth Certificate with no exceptions as they are relying upon a 18th Century processes in which some states did not have the long form. However these arguments no longer have any standing and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (which is the Electoral College vetting process) needs a Congressional Bill of reform:

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Text of Legislation:

HR 1503 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1503

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 12, 2009

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING.

Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATE’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended--

(1) by striking ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (5);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting ‘; and’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.

THE LAW:

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Twitchy 8 months ago

krmorgan,

What is it about the words "some" and "_may_ not" that you have trouble understanding?

Hawaii has stated that their CoLB "contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate." Plus, the CoLB appears to be all you can get from them anymore.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

krmorgan 8 months ago

To Twitchy

Lies and Deception: Barack Hussein Obama II Certification of Live Birth

The FactCheck and politfact document (fronts to "Fight the Smears" Obama website) is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth." If you look close enough you can examine the image at a higher resolution and see irregularities of the Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp to the right center of DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR the appearance of the backward facing text "Jun 6, 2007" (looks like a forgery).

As should be readily apparent, the Certification (which Obama supplied) and the Certificate (which Obama has thus far refused to release) are very different documents. The Certification of Live Birth—also called a "short form"—contains limited information and is typically printed when an individual makes a requests it.

The Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth—on the other hand—contains information that can be easily and readily investigated (by those media sources that consider themselves skilled, unbiased investigative journalist).

The Democratic controlled State Government of Hawaii on June 6, 2009 in their socialistic propaganda news letter is covering up their own policy contradictions regarding the below public process when "Applying for Hawaiian Home Lands" involving private land ownership passed down through the native Hawaiian generations. Primarily because tracing the genealogy of their ancestors can NOT be verified using the Certification of Live Birth (which is what Obama has done on FactCheck.org). This is another "quagmire legal loop hole" which the Obama Election Campaign Office has been manipulating the public trust and the Constitutional eligibility requirements. Specifically the Immigration Laws involving the place of residence and age requirements of Obama's mother and father as follows:

The requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Obama's mother was age 18 when given birth to Obama II, so for those that cannot do the math in their head she would have had to be age 21. Further, the principal author of the 14th Amendment which defines citizenship, Rep. John Bingham, stated the following: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” However, no where in the actual wording of the 14th Amendment does it define “natural born”. Those two words were purposely omitted. In other words, US citizenship status may be achieved by being born on US soil. It is not just your place of birth that grants you natural born status. This unique attribute requires consideration of the citizenship of your parents also. Given the intent of the framer of this amendment, Obama would NOT meet the requirement.

While the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, it is NOT adequate for proving one's physical place of birth.

That's not my opinion, that's what the State of Hawaii says.

Because of it's unique history, the State of Hawaii has always promoted programs to encourage native-born Hawaiians to own property.

And how does the State of Hawaii determine if a person was born in Hawaii?

Here's what the Hawaii Department of Home Lands - the department charged with administering such programs - says on its website:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer generated printout: OHSM 1.1 Rev 11/01 LASER ). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Didn't make that up. You can Google the entire quote and you will find it on the DHHL website. It's time that the Obama Administration write their own obituary in their socialistic news letters and stop spending millions of dollars in legal fees as they have sealed all verifiable sources from the public.

If the State of Hawaii DOES NOT accept a computer printout, as proof that an individual was actually born in Hawaii, WHY SHOULD WE!

Obama needs to stop dodging the eligibility requirements of the The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

I don’t see how asking a presidential candidate to provide valid documentation about who they are and where they come from should be viewed as lunacy. I see that as common sense, especially when it deals with holding the highest office in the land. Lunacy would be accepting him at his word, with no proof given his hidden past and personal associations. Even bigger lunacy is that there is not one government branch that has taken ownership of vetting presidential candidates. Popular or not, politically correct or not, this should have been dealt with long before he ever put his name on the primary ballot. Shame on the DNC for not following through. Shame on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, every Secretary of State, former VP Cheney for the same. And shame on the entire Congress for not doing their jobs and protecting the Constitution of the United States.

These are the reasons why the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 requires reforming the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

FACT sources:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

LIES and Deception sources:
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.politifact.com/media/img/graphics/birthCertObama.jpg

Twitchy 8 months ago

You're barely coherent. What irregularities? On which side of the form? If it "looks like a forgery", why didn't WND's forgery experts spot it?

If you think that the additional information on the Certificate "can be easily and readily investigated", ask yourself a couple of questions. Do hospitals retain such records forever? If not, then how long are birth records maintained once the birth is reported to the State? My local hospital only maintains birth records for 20 years.

Do doctors, and other witnesses, ever die (remember, this happened in 1961, 47 years ago. Half the adults that were living in my old neighborhood at that time are dead now)? Even if you can find live witnesses, it would take more federal lawsuits to allow them to discuss protected health information (HIPAA privacy law).

The requirements you're partially quoting were for children born outside the US, not for children born in Hawaii, or other states. And in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the majority stated, among other things, "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." This is English common law, which is the basis for much of our law, and is how the Supreme Court defined "natural-born citizen".

There is no requirement that you be a "native-born" Hawaiian to participate in the Hawaiian home lands homestead lease program. The requirement is that "You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as 'any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.' This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian."

Based on what I've seen of the propoed legislation you refer to, Obama's CoLB would be sufficient documentation of eligibility.

So your arguments are all based on ignoring or misinterpreting the true facts.

Post New Comment

Related Topics/Ideas

Title

Categories

Why Is This Idea Important?