Arizona will require Obama to provide birth cert if he wants to be on ballot

[Yurt]

its clear you have no concept of FF&C, it wouldn't nullify this law

and why is it you have to bring his race up? its not germane to the issue here. and you're the first to bring up his race in this thread.

HI has come out and said several times now that it's all legally okay.

I'm not the first to bring his race in this thread. Race is totally related to this issue though. In the face of all facts and logics, the majority of birthers are birthers because they cannot stand the fact there is a President who has dark skin and is part African American.

bullshit, race is not an issue, YOU are making it an issue, no one else....i know you didn't bring up mccain's race when people questioned his eligibility...hypocrite race baiter

HI has not said it is legal, read the quotes again

 

[Yurt]

its a waste of taxpayer money, but obama touts votes that spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money as a good thing....but wanting to ensure constitutional eligibility is a waste of money.....

seriously, these guys act like they are truly scared of showing the original

 

[goldcatt]

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

yeah, that is where it came into the picture iirc....

my understanding is the FF&C relates to judgments, records etc...as to states, not congress. if congress makes a law, isn't the supremacy clause invoked? FF&C per my recollection is congress' attempt to create uniformity throughout the states and ensure if you had contracts or judgments from one state, then if you moved to another state you couldn't claim it was void or you had to get a marriage license in every state....see e.g, divorce, custody, contracts, marriage etc....

It deos apply to the States, but if the States all made their own standards for what they would or would not accept as far as a judgment or record then what's the point of having full faith and credit at all? Here, take a look at the language:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

On the Federal level it's about making sure there's a relatively uniform standard for the acts, records and proceedings and a relatively standard method for accepting and enforcing them. For vital records like a BC that will include things like what information has to be on it, the certification and seal, and that kind of thing. Everybody has to be on more or less the same page for it to work. That's Congress' job.

So Congress sets the requirements for what is acceptable and sends them out to the States as well as to places like the SSA and State Department so everybody can comply. It's pretty simple, a lot more simple than the process for registering and enforcing a foreign judgment for example. It's just a record. If you can get your hands on them, compare a COLB from two different states from about the same time period, or even a long form. They'll be remarkably similar. There's a reason for that.

Marriage licenses are not under FF&C though, that's a comity situation so different rules apply.

 

[Modbert]

bullshit, race is not an issue, YOU are making it an issue, no one else....i know you didn't bring up mccain's race when people questioned his eligibility...hypocrite race baiter

HI has not said it is legal, read the quotes again

Except the majority of the same people who are making a issue about Obama's never made a peep about McCain.

I'm not a race baiter. However, at this point in the game, with all the facts and evidence out there, race plays a big role in still being a birther.

I could see maybe at first going hmm, but at this point, we have more than enough evidence to say that you're a fucking whackjob to still believe he was born in Kenya.

They are on par with the Truthers. Though goodness knows I say anything about that subject, you might get offended and cry again while running off to go make another thread about me.

 

[Yurt]

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

yeah, that is where it came into the picture iirc....

my understanding is the FF&C relates to judgments, records etc...as to states, not congress. if congress makes a law, isn't the supremacy clause invoked? FF&C per my recollection is congress' attempt to create uniformity throughout the states and ensure if you had contracts or judgments from one state, then if you moved to another state you couldn't claim it was void or you had to get a marriage license in every state....see e.g, divorce, custody, contracts, marriage etc....

It deos apply to the States, but if the States all made their own standards for what they would or would not accept as far as a judgment or record then what's the point of having full faith and credit at all? Here, take a look at the language:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

On the Federal level it's about making sure there's a relatively uniform standard for the acts, records and proceedings and a relatively standard method for accepting and enforcing them. For vital records like a BC that will include things like what information has to be on it, the certification and seal, and that kind of thing. Everybody has to be on more or less the same page for it to work. That's Congress' job.

So Congress sets the requirements for what is acceptable and sends them out to the States as well as to places like the SSA and State Department so everybody can comply. It's pretty simple, a lot more simple than the process for registering and enforcing a foreign judgment for example. It's just a record. If you can get your hands on them, compare a COLB from two different states from about the same time period, or even a long form. They'll be remarkably similar. There's a reason for that.

Marriage licenses are not under FF&C though, that's a comity situation so different rules apply.

yeah, i realized that after i typed my response and edited it

i forgot congress can set the manner in which such records can be proved....

i still think, unless congress says 'only the colb' is enough, requiring the long form, will not violate FF&C..., i just can't see congress saying that a copy of the original violates the law, that is what originals are for, that why they are the best evidence, in and out of court, so long as the original is not lost or damaged and according to HI, they have the original on file....

mccain's is out there, just get obama's out there, but i know, you and others believe this will only move the goal posts....well......it didn't with mccain...and honestly, if you look at the vast majority of people who still have an issue (though like me they believe he is eligible) the only issue is his refusal to simply put out a copy of the original. its like, why not...he took the effort to put out the colb...

 

[Yurt]

bullshit, race is not an issue, YOU are making it an issue, no one else....i know you didn't bring up mccain's race when people questioned his eligibility...hypocrite race baiter

HI has not said it is legal, read the quotes again

Except the majority of the same people who are making a issue about Obama's never made a peep about McCain.

I'm not a race baiter. However, at this point in the game, with all the facts and evidence out there, race plays a big role in still being a birther.

I could see maybe at first going hmm, but at this point, we have more than enough evidence to say that you're a fucking whackjob to still believe he was born in Kenya.

They are on par with the Truthers. Though goodness knows I say anything about that subject, you might get offended and cry again while running off to go make another thread about me.

geeeee, that couldn't be because 1. mccain's copy of the original was out there before it became a bigger deal, adn 2. partisan politics

you're a being a hack on this one and definitely a race baiter....that you never stop to think this could be because obama is a democrat shows you're only concerned with race baiting....liberals took issue with bush for many things they give obama a pass on, yet i've never seen you say it is because liberals are racist and give preferential treatment to the half african american...

sorry, but you really neeed to take a step back and take a long look at what you're doing and saying

 

[Cal]

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

Lmao. The lunacy continues. Certified by the state of Hawaii, certified by several fact checking websites..But yet they still aren't satisfied. IMO, If they held the certificate in their own hands they still wouldn't be satisfied. Instead they would claim it's a fake or have some other qualms about it. They still cannot get over the fact that America chose politics of hope over fear. They cannot get over the fact that Obama won! I think it makes them feel better about themselves to try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his presidency. Hawaii is finally realizing you can't reason with these stupid heads! Hawaii bill would shun Obama birth certificate requests ALL Progressive Politix

 

[Modbert]

geeeee, that couldn't be because 1. mccain's copy of the original was out there before it became a bigger deal, adn 2. partisan politics

you're a being a hack on this one and definitely a race baiter....that you never stop to think this could be because obama is a democrat shows you're only concerned with race baiting....liberals took issue with bush for many things they give obama a pass on, yet i've never seen you say it is because liberals are racist and give preferential treatment to the half african american...

sorry, but you really neeed to take a step back and take a long look at what you're doing and saying

I would think, oh it must be partisan politics too. Except there are plenty of sensible people on the right on here who think the birthers are fucking whacked in the head too. Del, Crimson, Gunny, and Radio just for starters. So it's not partisan politics.

It has to do partly with race, anyone who has been paying attention can clearly see that. By the way, BUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. This isn't about Bush, this is about the birthers reasoning for hating Obama.

 

[goldcatt]

yeah, that is where it came into the picture iirc....

my understanding is the FF&C relates to judgments, records etc...as to states, not congress. if congress makes a law, isn't the supremacy clause invoked? FF&C per my recollection is congress' attempt to create uniformity throughout the states and ensure if you had contracts or judgments from one state, then if you moved to another state you couldn't claim it was void or you had to get a marriage license in every state....see e.g, divorce, custody, contracts, marriage etc....

It deos apply to the States, but if the States all made their own standards for what they would or would not accept as far as a judgment or record then what's the point of having full faith and credit at all? Here, take a look at the language:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

On the Federal level it's about making sure there's a relatively uniform standard for the acts, records and proceedings and a relatively standard method for accepting and enforcing them. For vital records like a BC that will include things like what information has to be on it, the certification and seal, and that kind of thing. Everybody has to be on more or less the same page for it to work. That's Congress' job.

So Congress sets the requirements for what is acceptable and sends them out to the States as well as to places like the SSA and State Department so everybody can comply. It's pretty simple, a lot more simple than the process for registering and enforcing a foreign judgment for example. It's just a record. If you can get your hands on them, compare a COLB from two different states from about the same time period, or even a long form. They'll be remarkably similar. There's a reason for that.

Marriage licenses are not under FF&C though, that's a comity situation so different rules apply.

yeah, i realized that after i typed my response and edited it

i forgot congress can set the manner in which such records can be proved....

i still think, unless congress says 'only the colb' is enough, requiring the long form, will not violate FF&C..., i just can't see congress saying that a copy of the original violates the law, that is what originals are for, that why they are the best evidence, in and out of court, so long as the original is not lost or damaged and according to HI, they have the original on file....

mccain's is out there, just get obama's out there, but i know, you and others believe this will only move the goal posts....well......it didn't with mccain...and honestly, if you look at the vast majority of people who still have an issue (though like me they believe he is eligible) the only issue is his refusal to simply put out a copy of the original. its like, why not...he took the effort to put out the colb...

"Requiring" the long form and only the long form would violate it. If either the long form or the COLB will satisfy the Congressional standard and he chooses to submit the long form that's fine. But the COLB will satisfy the legal standard, so that's actually all he can be "required" to do.

You're used to looking at it from the State side. I rarely ever dealt with it from that end, only the Federal side. It's a little different view probably.

For me personally, I can't blame him if he doesn't do more than the bare legal requirement. It's the principle of the thing, running for President or being eligible to hold the office of President is, as far as citizenship goes, no different from getting a passport or a social security card really - so long as it's a BC and not naturalization papers being offered as proof. The quality of being a citizen is no different, proof of citizenship is proof of citizenship. What's the big difference?

 

[Yurt]

It deos apply to the States, but if the States all made their own standards for what they would or would not accept as far as a judgment or record then what's the point of having full faith and credit at all? Here, take a look at the language:



Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

On the Federal level it's about making sure there's a relatively uniform standard for the acts, records and proceedings and a relatively standard method for accepting and enforcing them. For vital records like a BC that will include things like what information has to be on it, the certification and seal, and that kind of thing. Everybody has to be on more or less the same page for it to work. That's Congress' job.

So Congress sets the requirements for what is acceptable and sends them out to the States as well as to places like the SSA and State Department so everybody can comply. It's pretty simple, a lot more simple than the process for registering and enforcing a foreign judgment for example. It's just a record. If you can get your hands on them, compare a COLB from two different states from about the same time period, or even a long form. They'll be remarkably similar. There's a reason for that.

Marriage licenses are not under FF&C though, that's a comity situation so different rules apply.

yeah, i realized that after i typed my response and edited it

i forgot congress can set the manner in which such records can be proved....

i still think, unless congress says 'only the colb' is enough, requiring the long form, will not violate FF&C..., i just can't see congress saying that a copy of the original violates the law, that is what originals are for, that why they are the best evidence, in and out of court, so long as the original is not lost or damaged and according to HI, they have the original on file....

mccain's is out there, just get obama's out there, but i know, you and others believe this will only move the goal posts....well......it didn't with mccain...and honestly, if you look at the vast majority of people who still have an issue (though like me they believe he is eligible) the only issue is his refusal to simply put out a copy of the original. its like, why not...he took the effort to put out the colb...

"Requiring" the long form and only the long form would violate it. If either the long form or the COLB will satisfy the Congressional standard and he chooses to submit the long form that's fine. But the COLB will satisfy the legal standard, so that's actually all he can be "required" to do.

You're used to looking at it from the State side. I rarely ever dealt with it from that end, only the Federal side. It's a little different view probably.

For me personally, I can't blame him if he doesn't do more than the bare legal requirement. It's the principle of the thing, running for President or being eligible to hold the office of President is, as far as citizenship goes, no different from getting a passport or a social security card really - so long as it's a BC and not naturalization papers being offered as proof. The quality of being a citizen is no different, proof of citizenship is proof of citizenship. What's the big difference?

i see you where you are coming from...and you're probably right, i just can't see how requiring the best evidence is a problem or would violate the law as long as it is not any more of a burden than the colb...

to me, the principle is silly, mccain's original (copy) was produced, obama promised to be the most transparent....so just be transparent and produce it...its nothing, if they still balk after that, there is really nothing more to be done....if you present the best evidence and people call it a forgery, pfffffft, if its certified, they will look ridiculous....right now, just on this thread, look at the people who honestly believe he is eligible, but don't see why he can't just produce a copy of the original...they make up a far greater number than those who believe a copy of the original will do no good....imho

 

[Yurt]

geeeee, that couldn't be because 1. mccain's copy of the original was out there before it became a bigger deal, adn 2. partisan politics

you're a being a hack on this one and definitely a race baiter....that you never stop to think this could be because obama is a democrat shows you're only concerned with race baiting....liberals took issue with bush for many things they give obama a pass on, yet i've never seen you say it is because liberals are racist and give preferential treatment to the half african american...

sorry, but you really neeed to take a step back and take a long look at what you're doing and saying

I would think, oh it must be partisan politics too. Except there are plenty of sensible people on the right on here who think the birthers are fucking whacked in the head too. Del, Crimson, Gunny, and Radio just for starters. So it's not partisan politics.

It has to do partly with race, anyone who has been paying attention can clearly see that. By the way, BUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. This isn't about Bush, this is about the birthers reasoning for hating Obama.

?

i presented bush to show you what a hack and hypocrite you're being. it wasn't about bush, it was about YOU, it wasn't saying "bush did it too", it was showing you your blatent hypocrisy in calling this racism, but when libs give obama a pass for things they didn't give bush a pass for, you don't call that racism or claim it has anything to do with race....

IOW, its only about race when you don't like what the people are saying about obama, when its good, its not about race

get a clue

 

[goldcatt]

yeah, i realized that after i typed my response and edited it

i forgot congress can set the manner in which such records can be proved....

i still think, unless congress says 'only the colb' is enough, requiring the long form, will not violate FF&C..., i just can't see congress saying that a copy of the original violates the law, that is what originals are for, that why they are the best evidence, in and out of court, so long as the original is not lost or damaged and according to HI, they have the original on file....

mccain's is out there, just get obama's out there, but i know, you and others believe this will only move the goal posts....well......it didn't with mccain...and honestly, if you look at the vast majority of people who still have an issue (though like me they believe he is eligible) the only issue is his refusal to simply put out a copy of the original. its like, why not...he took the effort to put out the colb...

"Requiring" the long form and only the long form would violate it. If either the long form or the COLB will satisfy the Congressional standard and he chooses to submit the long form that's fine. But the COLB will satisfy the legal standard, so that's actually all he can be "required" to do.

You're used to looking at it from the State side. I rarely ever dealt with it from that end, only the Federal side. It's a little different view probably.

For me personally, I can't blame him if he doesn't do more than the bare legal requirement. It's the principle of the thing, running for President or being eligible to hold the office of President is, as far as citizenship goes, no different from getting a passport or a social security card really - so long as it's a BC and not naturalization papers being offered as proof. The quality of being a citizen is no different, proof of citizenship is proof of citizenship. What's the big difference?

i see you where you are coming from...and you're probably right, i just can't see how requiring the best evidence is a problem or would violate the law as long as it is not any more of a burden than the colb...

to me, the principle is silly, mccain's original (copy) was produced, obama promised to be the most transparent....so just be transparent and produce it...its nothing, if they still balk after that, there is really nothing more to be done....if you present the best evidence and people call it a forgery, pfffffft, if its certified, they will look ridiculous....right now, just on this thread, look at the people who honestly believe he is eligible, but don't see why he can't just produce a copy of the original...they make up a far greater number than those who believe a copy of the original will do no good....imho

I honestly haven't followed it enough to know if he can or can't. I just fail to see how it's meaningful or useful to ask any more of him than the law requires of any other person proving the same thing. So he's President, so what? The constitution doesn't require the name of the attending physician, the law doesn't require it, so if the concern is over whether he meets the legal requirements why should anyone else? I just don't get it.

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, so, upon further reflection, I will have to admit that my interpretation of the dismissal of the subject by the courts was in fact incorrect, and that Yurt is in fact correct on that point.

However, by claiming lack of jurisdiction in this matter, they kicked the issue to the state in question, who has indeed verified that Mr Obama is a natural born citizen of that state, and therefore, as that state is part of the US, a natural born citizen of the US.

Arizona can not legally declare the laws of Hawaii to be invalid, they have no jurisdiction to do so, therefore they cannot claim that Obama is not a citizen of the US unless he was born in their state.

 

[Yurt]

OK, so, upon further reflection, I will have to admit that my interpretation of the dismissal of the subject by the courts was in fact incorrect, and that Yurt is in fact correct on that point.

However, by claiming lack of jurisdiction in this matter, they kicked the issue to the state in question, who has indeed verified that Mr Obama is a natural born citizen of that state, and therefore, as that state is part of the US, a natural born citizen of the US.

Arizona can not legally declare the laws of Hawaii to be invalid, they have no jurisdiction to do so, therefore they cannot claim that Obama is not a citizen of the US unless he was born in their state.

what official declared obama is a natural born citizen?

further, just because i have a drivers license from CA, doesn't mean AZ can't require me to show in order to buy alcohol....even if someone from the state said so...

they are not declaring the laws invalid, all they want is to see the evidence themselves, i can't believe you have an issue with this....alas, this is likely to go into a circle though

 

[sammyb]

What happen if he decide to not present his birth certificate.. The arizona people wont be able to vote for the next Potus election?

 

[US Army Retired]

What happen if he decide to not present his birth certificate.. The arizona people wont be able to vote for the next Potus election?

They just wont be able to vote for him because he will be omitted from the ballot.

 

[Rinata]

geeeee, that couldn't be because 1. mccain's copy of the original was out there before it became a bigger deal, adn 2. partisan politics

you're a being a hack on this one and definitely a race baiter....that you never stop to think this could be because obama is a democrat shows you're only concerned with race baiting....liberals took issue with bush for many things they give obama a pass on, yet i've never seen you say it is because liberals are racist and give preferential treatment to the half african american...

sorry, but you really neeed to take a step back and take a long look at what you're doing and saying

I would think, oh it must be partisan politics too. Except there are plenty of sensible people on the right on here who think the birthers are fucking whacked in the head too. Del, Crimson, Gunny, and Radio just for starters. So it's not partisan politics.

It has to do partly with race, anyone who has been paying attention can clearly see that. By the way, BUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. This isn't about Bush, this is about the birthers reasoning for hating Obama.

That was a really good post. I just wanted to say that I have seen presidents elected for a long time now. I started paying attention from Nixon through Obama. Never in all those elections did I ever hear anything about any presidential candidate's place of birth being in question. Not ever. Or their religion either. I think there are some people that will never accept a black president and they are the ones responsible for all of this craziness.

I don't believe there is concern about Obama's place of birth or religion. Those things are just a cover for what is really bothering some people.

 

[dvinman]

I agree and all you morons that voted for him better hope he is a US citizen or god help this government!

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.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

FYI - Rep. Kyrsten Sinema an open bisexual, serves on numerous community and national boards, including as Board President of Community Outreach and Advocacy for Refugees, the YWCA of Maricopa County, Center for Progressive Leadership, and theYoung Elected Officials’ Network. Kyrsten is the recipient of awards for her political leadership, including the NAACP Civil Rights Award, Az Hispanic Community Forum Friend of the Year, Planned Parenthood Legislative CHOICE Award, Sierra Club’s Most Valuable Player, and the Az Public Health Association Legislator of the Year.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL


A freak'n Birther State...........good luck with that one Arizona

 

[bodecea]

OK, so, upon further reflection, I will have to admit that my interpretation of the dismissal of the subject by the courts was in fact incorrect, and that Yurt is in fact correct on that point.

However, by claiming lack of jurisdiction in this matter, they kicked the issue to the state in question, who has indeed verified that Mr Obama is a natural born citizen of that state, and therefore, as that state is part of the US, a natural born citizen of the US.

Arizona can not legally declare the laws of Hawaii to be invalid, they have no jurisdiction to do so, therefore they cannot claim that Obama is not a citizen of the US unless he was born in their state.

what official declared obama is a natural born citizen?

further, just because i have a drivers license from CA, doesn't mean AZ can't require me to show in order to buy alcohol....even if someone from the state said so...

they are not declaring the laws invalid, all they want is to see the evidence themselves, i can't believe you have an issue with this....alas, this is likely to go into a circle though

But...AZ can't look at your CA drivers license and declare it invalid or not good enough either.