US Army Retired
Rookie
- Banned
- #221
So true.If it wasn't a problem their heads wouldn't explode...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So true.If it wasn't a problem their heads wouldn't explode...
I think this is finally getting the legs it needs to get this story going that the media has been silent on. The White House seems to be upset and I think is starting to feel the heat as this is getting publicity everywhere and has people talking and asking questions focusing on the Presidents citizenship. From Lt Col Lakin in the news to now this CNN front page news. This story will not go away. There is nothing wrong with a Presidential Candidate having to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen to be on the ballot. The White House should know this but the question is,............ Why is the Obama Administration upset with the Arizona Legislature for taking a precautionary measure that a candidate, to be on a ballot, meet the constitutional qualifications that you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President just to be on the safe side?
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - White House slams latest birther move - Blogs from CNN.com
(CNN) - White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
"This is a question that has been answered exhaustively," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories."
The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.
More in link above and read the liberals comments as their heads are exploding over this.
Hey, I love to bag on the teabaggers as much as the next man, but even they don't deserve to be lumped in with the birthers.
That's a whole other category of crazy right there.
again.........what is the case........and you have changed the story, you claimed the court asked for the information and deemed it appropriate, now you're saying the court said the information already provided is enough
for the 4th time.......what is the case, i'm calling bullshit until you present it, i am near certain the case was only thrown out on the issue of standing, not evidence
Wait, wait, I see the confusion here...
This was the original statement:
He told the people who doubted the validity of the one he already provided that he would not provide additional proof.
Birthers are not "the country".
When asked to provide said documentation by the correct authority (the Supreme Court), he provided them with what was apparently satisfactory evidence.
Plus you do realize that if one is to say that the Supreme Court's decision on this matter is not a valid judgement, thus questioning the validity of the court itself, then the entire Bush Presidency was in fact an illegal usurpation of power.
I was using the word "decision" in the sense that the Supreme Court had decided to do something, in this case throw out the suit due to the countervailing evidence...
Not in the sense that the case had gone to trial and had ended in a "Decision".
Purely semantic misunderstanding. My bad probably for using a word with multiple applications in this situation.
It's not just capitulating to the demands of the whack jobs, although once he starts they'll just move the goalposts and we all know it.
It's the entire principle of citizenship and what it stands for, and the danger of setting a precedent that creates a tiered system even in appearance only. Not to mention protecting the principle of full faith and credit, exactly as enumerated and not deviating at the whim of one or another State or a group of sore losers. I'd stick to my guns too.
ah....the slippery slope argument
problem is, beyond the original, there really is no goal post to move
Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.
And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?
did i say 'legal standard'? no, i said it is still and issue and its stupid to not simply produce a copy of the original. which, whether in court or not, is the best evidence. period.
But should he be required to? That is after all the point we've been arguing over.
was mccain's original (copy) produced?
The White House seems very testy over a state actually setting up a mechanism that will ask for proof of one of the Constitutional requirements for a president. Although Obama might be the first incumbent president that will be affected it affects all presidential candidate equally and is a fair law...despite their howls of protest.I think this is finally getting the legs it needs to get this story going that the media has been silent on. The White House seems to be upset and I think is starting to feel the heat as this is getting publicity everywhere and has people talking and asking questions focusing on the Presidents citizenship. From Lt Col Lakin in the news to now this CNN front page news. This story will not go away. There is nothing wrong with a Presidential Candidate having to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen to be on the ballot. The White House should know this but the question is,............ Why is the Obama Administration upset with the Arizona Legislature for taking a precautionary measure that a candidate, to be on a ballot, meet the constitutional qualifications that you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President just to be on the safe side?
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - White House slams latest birther move - Blogs from CNN.com
(CNN) - White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
"This is a question that has been answered exhaustively," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories."
The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.
More in link above and read the liberals comments as their heads are exploding over this.
The only reason why they are making a big deal out of this is because it plays into the "bash the right winger" policy while they are slipping through their fucked up financial Bill.
It's all a distraction and slight of hand....David Copperfield would be proud.
Lol. Go Arizona!
2012 is only 2 years away. Thank goodness.
"The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection."
Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix
again.........what is the case........and you have changed the story, you claimed the court asked for the information and deemed it appropriate, now you're saying the court said the information already provided is enough
for the 4th time.......what is the case, i'm calling bullshit until you present it, i am near certain the case was only thrown out on the issue of standing, not evidence
Wait, wait, I see the confusion here...
This was the original statement:
He told the people who doubted the validity of the one he already provided that he would not provide additional proof.
Birthers are not "the country".
When asked to provide said documentation by the correct authority (the Supreme Court), he provided them with what was apparently satisfactory evidence.
Plus you do realize that if one is to say that the Supreme Court's decision on this matter is not a valid judgement, thus questioning the validity of the court itself, then the entire Bush Presidency was in fact an illegal usurpation of power.
I was using the word "decision" in the sense that the Supreme Court had decided to do something, in this case throw out the suit due to the countervailing evidence...
Not in the sense that the case had gone to trial and had ended in a "Decision".
Purely semantic misunderstanding. My bad probably for using a word with multiple applications in this situation.
ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?
what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.
ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?
what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.
Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????
why would bush allow obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????
Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????
Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????
have someone read the constitution to you, fuckwit.
ah....the slippery slope argument
problem is, beyond the original, there really is no goal post to move
Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.
And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?
i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....
hrs 338-19
§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original
nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented
I think this is the proof why they are upset. Here is part of the bill:Why would requesting a BC in order to prove eligibility to run for POTUS put anyone in a snit? What would the reason be for being upset? Inquiring minds want to know . . . .
Besides, they already do that. Are they just requesting a different form (original BC vs a COLB) for verification? If so, so what? Why would that put anyone into a tail spin?