Breaking News and Confirmed: Arizona Senate Passes Presidential Eligibility Bill 21-9

[007]

Absolutely incredible... the amount of sheer ignorance in this thread... people calling the questionable "CERTIFICATION" of live birth obama produced everything from a real birth certificate to a certificate of live birth, both of which are not the same, period. People saying fuck the constitution, we shouldn't care. People simply calling names and being jackasses because a good half the country questions whether or not obama legally qualifies as a "natural born citizen." Well I'll tell ya what folks, no matter how much people talk their nasty little shit here in obama's defense, and no matter how much people here say he's never proven where he was born, and he hasn't, there is none is existence, what's going to happen is going to happen. Harping about it here isn't going to change shit.

I'm on record saying he doesn't qualify as a natural born citizen purely on his father's British citizenship, which would have been passed on to obama, and that fact alone disqualifies him from being President. But I also believe that NO ONE in government is in any kind of hurry to open this can of worms. They all looked the other way while the kenyan was muscled in as the first black President so everyone could be proud and say, "look, America is no longer racist, we elected a black guy." But, the issue of whether or not he was eligible is turning out to be just a little bigger problem than they figured. There's too many people yet, and the number is still growing, that do NOT believe obama can legally hold the office of President, but they're going to put it off until he's out of office, so another sitting President can pardon him after they find out he fraudulently held the office.

The people that never believed he was legally able to be President will get the last laugh though. Mark my words. And I'm going to have some shit hot fun rubbing it in the faces of those morons that have been defending obama since this issue began...

I'm going to mark your words with check marks in the boxes "insane" and "uninformed" and possibly "willfully ignorant."

I can't believe that you're really bringing up the issue of Obama's father's citizenship. That idea has been so thoroughly debunked based on a wide array of Supreme Court cases. Any person born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. Citizenship cannot be deprived of any person born in the United States, simply because the person's parents hold citizenship in another country. The SCOTUS has been explicit on this matter for over a century.

You're confusing natural born with native born. The only office in America that requires you are a natural born citizen, which means both mother and father are legal American citizens, is the President.

I'm afraid it is you who is ignorant, on a very large scale.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Strawman? Thats becoming a worn out tatic. I asked you a question.
Why do you fear this bill?

Funny, I asked you a question also. Does the bill require Presidential candidates to submit a long form?


Care to answer?


>>>>

yes it does, and yes Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC so there's no violation of any laws.

1. No the law does not require all candidates to submit a long form birth certificate. As a matter of fact is accepts non-official documents to prove birth in over accepting an official government document.

2. Recognizing Hawaii's long form BC is not the issue. Mandating what Hawaii issues as a birth document is the issue.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since when did facts equal strawman?

Well there ya go. There's our problem, ladies and gentlemen. This guy doesn't know what a fact is. Apparently he thinks that tearing down arguments that have not bee made is "facts."

I've presented facts you have yet to refute them that is a fact.

Facts
obama's BC never was accepted by the state registrar of 1961
Fact obama BC certificate number is out of sequence with woi twins who were born one day later.

Those two facts have yet to be refuted. Now Mr. Strawman get a brain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Funny, I asked you a question also. Does the bill require Presidential candidates to submit a long form?


Care to answer?


>>>>

yes it does, and yes Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC so there's no violation of any laws.

1. No the law does not require all candidates to submit a long form birth certificate. As a matter of fact is accepts non-official documents to prove birth in over accepting an official government document.

2. Recognizing Hawaii's long form BC is not the issue. Mandating what Hawaii issues as a birth document is the issue.



>>>>

And there is no law against it. Each state can pick their on guidlines for election purposes.
Why do you fear this bill? In my opinion those who do not want obama tp show his long form BC if he has one must have some doubt he that he has one.

 

[gekaap]

You're confusing natural born with native born.

More word games.

The only office in America that requires you are a natural born citizen, which means both mother and father are legal American citizens, is the President.

The SCOTUS has disagreed with your view of a natural born citizen for over a century.

I'm afraid it is you who is ignorant, on a very large scale.

Says the person who adheres to ideas that have been long rejected by the courts.

 

[gekaap]

And there is no law against it.

Yes there is, it's the US constitution.

Each state can pick their on guidlines for election purposes.

Each state can choose how it will pick its electors. But this bill has nothing to do with how the state will choose its electors. It has to do with testing the legal qualifications of a person to hold the office of POTUS.

 

[gekaap]

I've presented facts you have yet to refute them that is a fact.

No you haven't. You've presented word games and spin, all of which has been debunked.

Facts
obama's BC never was accepted by the state registrar of 1961

This has been refuted a million times. The Hawaii state government has gone on record to explain that any record filed has also been "accepted."

Fact obama BC certificate number is out of sequence with woi twins who were born one day later.

Big deal. There is no requirement that birth records be filed in an order that matches the order of birth. There's a real easy way to explain how a person born first could have a file number after a person born second. Here, you can even do an experiment. Take two pieces of paper. On the first, write "Obama." After you've done that, put it on your table. Then, take another piece of paper and write "Twins" on it. When you're done, put it on the table in the same pile as the "Obama" paper. You've now submitted the two documents in order of birth. Now it's time to file the documents. Do what any person would do. Take the first document on top of the stack and give it it the file number "1." Proceed through the entire pile, assigning them file numbers as you come across them. When you're done all of that, find Obama's document, and the Twins' document. Notice which one has the lower file number.

Those two facts have yet to be refuted. Now Mr. Strawman get a brain.

Everything you've said has been refuted over and over. You simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence that conflicts with the conclusions you're determined to keep no matter what the cost to your intellect.

 

[007]

You're confusing natural born with native born.

More word games.

No... moron... LAW.

The only office in America that requires you are a natural born citizen, which means both mother and father are legal American citizens, is the President.

The SCOTUS has disagreed with your view of a natural born citizen for over a century.

No, they didn't... Defining Natural-Born Citizen

Natural Born Citizen Chart

I'm afraid it is you who is ignorant, on a very large scale.

Says the person who adheres to ideas that have been long rejected by the courts.

No, they didn't, and I proved it. Now you've spread enough bull shit in here with your fucking ignorance and lies... run along now idiot.

 

[gekaap]

No, they didn't, and I proved it. Now you've spread enough bull shit in here with your fucking ignorance and lies... run along now idiot.

You haven't proved anything. All you've done is cited a non-authoritative blog that is equally as unknowing as you. Have you ever read the Wong case? In it the court is explicit on the matter that the Common Law of England rule applies, and that US citizenship at birth, i.e. natural born citizenship, is determined by location of birth alone, and that lineage or citizenship of the parents is completely irrelevant to the question.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes it does, and yes Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC so there's no violation of any laws.

1. No the law does not require all candidates to submit a long form birth certificate. As a matter of fact is accepts non-official documents to prove birth in over accepting an official government document.

2. Recognizing Hawaii's long form BC is not the issue. Mandating what Hawaii issues as a birth document is the issue.



>>>>

And there is no law against it.

No law against what? Please try to make sense.

Each state can pick their on guidlines for election purposes.

True, within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot however establish bounds outside the Constitution.

Why do you fear this bill? [/QOUTE]


Stop being silly every time you are asked a direct question that you feel is backing you into a corner, you start with this silly stuff.

It doesn't make you look good.

In my opinion those who do not want obama tp show his long form BC if he has one must have some doubt he that he has one.

In my opinion I'd love for ALL candidates for elected office (including Obama) to present at the time of application for candidacy on a ballot documented proof, under penalty of perjury, that show they meet the qualifications of that office.

The issue IS NOT about Obama (at least in my opinion), the issue is that Arizona has written a law that appears to violate the Constitution because one State cannot mandate to another State how they administer their public records. If they do refuse to accept the official birth record issued by the State of Hawaii under it's official seal they will have violated Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Make Obama and every elected official show how they meet the qualifications for the office they seek. No problem with that.



>>>>

 

[Flopper]

This is much ado about nothing. Hawaii has already certified his birth. Arizona will probably accept Hawaii's certification of birth regardless of weather the certificate is long form or not. If the Republicans try to keep Obama off the ballot in Arizona, the Democrats will surely score points with voters in other states. Besides, Obama is very unlikely to carry Arizona.

obama doesn't have to run on an Arizona ballot, he could by-pass the state, but how many people in other states would vote for him if he was not on the Arizona ballot because he did not want to show his long form BC? I would say that would be the biggest mistake anyone could ever think of doing.

My birth certificate looks the same as Obama's, so I guess can't get on the ballot in Arizona.

Obama Challenged Arizona's immigration law. Then the state for first time in a hundred years decides it needs a long form birth certificate from candidates, knowing Hawaii does not release long form certificates. Also, no other states requires long form birth certificates. I think anyone with half a brain will see this bill is intended strictly to keep Obama off the ballot.

 

[Sallow]

Now it heads to the Arizona republican dominated house and then to Governor Jan Brewers desk to be signed. This is going to make the White House implode over this as this is now mainstream thanks to Trump making this constitutional crisis come to light. Now since Arizona Senate has taken the first step in becoming the first state to pass a presidential eligibility bill to make sure a candidate produces more documentation to ensure that they are actually a natural born citizen, I think it will make other states like Texas go ahead and pass theirs with other states following. Obama is in trouble.

Arizona Senate Passes Proof of Eligibility Legislation; One Step Closer To... Got Papers!? | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records


As reported, Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut, Missouri and Iowa are pursuing legislation that will require presidential and vice-presidential candidates prove they're Constitutionally Eligible. The Arizona legislation just passed HB 2177 in the Senate and it now moves on to the Arizona House and then to Gov. Brewer for her signature.

I have to say I admire jan brewer.

She was personally responsible for the deaths of 2 young people needing transplants. She created the "Death Panel" conservatives were accusing the Health Care Reform act would do.

In the words of Alan Grayson..Jan Brewer did what Republicans want to do:

Help Americans who are sick to "Die and Die Quickly."

Hence the admiration.

 

[Sallow]

No, they didn't, and I proved it. Now you've spread enough bull shit in here with your fucking ignorance and lies... run along now idiot.

You haven't proved anything. All you've done is cited a non-authoritative blog that is equally as unknowing as you. Have you ever read the Wong case? In it the court is explicit on the matter that the Common Law of England rule applies, and that US citizenship at birth, i.e. natural born citizenship, is determined by location of birth alone, and that lineage or citizenship of the parents is completely irrelevant to the question.

Time and time again..Conservatives show how ignorant (well actually hostile to, as in the Civil War) they are of the United States Constitution.

What's really scary is this traitorious radical treason is becoming more and more mainstream among conservatives.

It is patently anti-american.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And there is no law against it.

Yes there is, it's the US constitution.

Each state can pick their on guidlines for election purposes.

Each state can choose how it will pick its electors. But this bill has nothing to do with how the state will choose its electors. It has to do with testing the legal qualifications of a person to hold the office of POTUS.

Yes there is, it's the US constitution.

Show the law that says Arizona cannot require anyone on THEIR state voting ballot to produce their long formBC?

Each state can choose how it will pick its electors. But this bill has nothing to do with how the state will choose its electors. It has to do with testing the legal qualifications of a person to hold the office of POTUS

What are you scared of? obama produces the proper paper work and the country moves on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I've presented facts you have yet to refute them that is a fact.

No you haven't. You've presented word games and spin, all of which has been debunked.

Facts
obama's BC never was accepted by the state registrar of 1961

This has been refuted a million times. The Hawaii state government has gone on record to explain that any record filed has also been "accepted."

Fact obama BC certificate number is out of sequence with woi twins who were born one day later.

Big deal. There is no requirement that birth records be filed in an order that matches the order of birth. There's a real easy way to explain how a person born first could have a file number after a person born second. Here, you can even do an experiment. Take two pieces of paper. On the first, write "Obama." After you've done that, put it on your table. Then, take another piece of paper and write "Twins" on it. When you're done, put it on the table in the same pile as the "Obama" paper. You've now submitted the two documents in order of birth. Now it's time to file the documents. Do what any person would do. Take the first document on top of the stack and give it it the file number "1." Proceed through the entire pile, assigning them file numbers as you come across them. When you're done all of that, find Obama's document, and the Twins' document. Notice which one has the lower file number.

Those two facts have yet to be refuted. Now Mr. Strawman get a brain.

Everything you've said has been refuted over and over. You simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence that conflicts with the conclusions you're determined to keep no matter what the cost to your intellect.

No you haven't. You've presented word games and spin, all of which has been debunked.

Nope I won that debate.

This has been refuted a million times. The Hawaii state government has gone on record to explain that any record filed has also been "accepted."

accepted does not mean file and why does the othewr two BC's have accepted by state registrar . And why are there two places for a singnature on the long form BC? One for the filing and one for the state registrar showing they accepted it?

Big deal. There is no requirement that birth records be filed in an order that matches the order of birth. There's a real easy way to explain how a person born first could have a file number after a person born second. Here, you can even do an experiment. Take two pieces of paper. On the first, write "Obama." After you've done that, put it on your table. Then, take another piece of paper and write "Twins" on it. When you're done, put it on the table in the same pile as the "Obama" paper. You've now submitted the two documents in order of birth. Now it's time to file the documents. Do what any person would do. Take the first document on top of the stack and give it it the file number "1." Proceed through the entire pile, assigning them file numbers as you come across them. When you're done all of that, find Obama's document, and the Twins' document. Notice which one has the lower file number.

Wrong thats why filed and accepted are different. obama's was supposed to have been filed three days before the twins.

Proceed through the entire pile, assigning them file numbers as you come across them. When you're done all of that, find Obama's document, and the Twins' document. Notice which one has the lower file number

simple thing you never mention on the documents they have dates and times of birth. Not going to happen the way you discribe.
WHY DO YOU FEAR THIS BILL?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. No the law does not require all candidates to submit a long form birth certificate. As a matter of fact is accepts non-official documents to prove birth in over accepting an official government document.

2. Recognizing Hawaii's long form BC is not the issue. Mandating what Hawaii issues as a birth document is the issue.



>>>>

And there is no law against it.

No law against what? Please try to make sense.




True, within the bounds of the Constitution. They cannot however establish bounds outside the Constitution.

Why do you fear this bill? [/QOUTE]


Stop being silly every time you are asked a direct question that you feel is backing you into a corner, you start with this silly stuff.

It doesn't make you look good.

In my opinion those who do not want obama tp show his long form BC if he has one must have some doubt he that he has one.

In my opinion I'd love for ALL candidates for elected office (including Obama) to present at the time of application for candidacy on a ballot documented proof, under penalty of perjury, that show they meet the qualifications of that office.

The issue IS NOT about Obama (at least in my opinion), the issue is that Arizona has written a law that appears to violate the Constitution because one State cannot mandate to another State how they administer their public records. If they do refuse to accept the official birth record issued by the State of Hawaii under it's official seal they will have violated Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Make Obama and every elected official show how they meet the qualifications for the office they seek. No problem with that.



>>>>

No law against what? Please try to make sense.

I thought you were smarter than this I didn't think I had to break down every reply

You said:

No the law does not require all candidates to submit a long form birth certificate

My responce is

And there is no law against showing any required documents for election purposes..

Stop being silly every time you are asked a direct question that you feel is backing you into a corner, you start with this silly stuff.

It doesn't make you look good.

the only corner that we are moving to is the corner obama defenders are being pushed into.

In my opinion I'd love for ALL candidates for elected office (including Obama) to present at the time of application for candidacy on a ballot documented proof, under penalty of perjury, that show they meet the qualifications of that office.

You should be supportive of this bill.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the only corner that we are moving to is the corner obama defenders are being pushed into.

Personally I'm not defending Obama, my issue with the law has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the Constitution.

You should be supportive of this bill.

I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing.


**************************************


On a personal note, could I request that you check your posts before you hit "Submit Reply", you really need to figure out the how the whole "quote box" thing works because you routinely screw it up. That causes your posts to attribute statements to people that never said any such thing.

Somehow it looks like you keep cutting off a "[/QUOTE]" tag in it which leaves an empty open quote tag at the top but switches who said what in the quotes.

Thank you.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the only corner that we are moving to is the corner obama defenders are being pushed into.

Personally I'm not defending Obama, my issue with the law has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the Constitution.

You should be supportive of this bill.

I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing.


**************************************


On a personal note, could I request that you check your posts before you hit "Submit Reply", you really need to figure out the how the whole "quote box" thing works because you routinely screw it up. That causes your posts to attribute statements to people that never said any such thing.

Thank you.



>>>>

Personally I'm not defending Obama, my issue with the law has nothing to do with Obama.

Yes you are.

It has to do with the Constitution.

What law is there that says a state cannot decide what documents a person must produce to be vetted for their state ballot?

On a personal note, could I request that you check your posts before you hit "Submit Reply", you really need to figure out the how the whole "quote box" thing works because you routinely screw it up. That causes your posts to attribute statements to people that never said any such thing.

Thank you.

Dude it's the way you post that get's the thread screwed up. You better check your own self. There is no need for the extra >>>>> at the end of your reply.

I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing.

Then you should not have a problem with this bill.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the only corner that we are moving to is the corner obama defenders are being pushed into.

Personally I'm not defending Obama, my issue with the law has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the Constitution.





I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing.


**************************************


On a personal note, could I request that you check your posts before you hit "Submit Reply", you really need to figure out the how the whole "quote box" thing works because you routinely screw it up. That causes your posts to attribute statements to people that never said any such thing.

Thank you.



>>>>

Yes you are.

No I'm not, I do not support Obama. I'd love to see him out of office. You continue to make this claim about me and it is a lie.

What law is there that says a state cannot decide what documents a person must produce to be vetted for their state ballot?

Not the issue, of course a State can require a candidate submit records that document their birth. The issue is that they cannot mandate under the Constitution irrelevant information be required on another states document.

Citizenship at birth in the territory of the United States is determined by Date and Place of Birth under the 14th Amendment. Beyond that it would be a violation of Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution for a State to reject the official birth document of another state to establish that.

Dude it's the way you post that get's the thread screwed up. You better check your own self. There is no need for the extra >>>>> at the end of your reply.

Dude - my insertion of those characters are at the end of my posts which have nothing to do with the Quote function. This is a deflection because you don't check your posts before hitting "Submit Replay" to see if you have messed up the quotes.

BTW - The ">>>>" comes from the old days of writing Naval Messages where "End of Transmission" characters were inserted at the end of each messages. Kind of like saying "Out" on a radio. What they do is allow me to use my browsers Find function to quickly locate my posts on a page since I keep the number of posts per page at the highest setting in the UserCP.

Then you should not have a problem with this bill.

Let me repeat my previous reply to this inane statement:

"I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing."​

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Personally I'm not defending Obama, my issue with the law has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with the Constitution.





I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing.


**************************************


On a personal note, could I request that you check your posts before you hit "Submit Reply", you really need to figure out the how the whole "quote box" thing works because you routinely screw it up. That causes your posts to attribute statements to people that never said any such thing.

Thank you.



>>>>

Yes you are.

No I'm not, I do not support Obama. I'd love to see him out of office. You continue to make this claim about me and it is a lie.





Not the issue, of course a State can require a candidate submit records that document their birth. The issue is that they cannot mandate under the Constitution irrelevant information be required on another states document.

Citizenship at birth in the territory of the United States is determined by Date and Place of Birth under the 14th Amendment. Beyond that it would be a violation of Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution for a State to reject the official birth document of another state to establish that.

Dude it's the way you post that get's the thread screwed up. You better check your own self. There is no need for the extra >>>>> at the end of your reply.

Dude - my insertion of those characters are at the end of my posts which have nothing to do with the Quote function. This is a deflection because you don't check your posts before hitting "Submit Replay" to see if you have messed up the quotes.

BTW - The ">>>>" comes from the old days of writing Naval Messages where "End of Transmission" characters were inserted at the end of each messages. Kind of like saying "Out" on a radio. What they do is allow me to use my browsers Find function to quickly locate my posts on a page since I keep the number of posts per page at the highest setting in the UserCP.

Then you should not have a problem with this bill.

Let me repeat my previous reply to this inane statement:

"I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing."​

>>>>

No I'm not, I do not support Obama. I'd love to see him out of office. You continue to make this claim about me and it is a lie.

Horse shit, I cannot see why you would object to this bill unless you think obama is hiding something.

"I support the fundamental concept that ALL candidates for elective office must provide documented evidence that they meet the requirements to hold that office as defined by the Federal Constitution, State Constitution, or applicable statutory law.

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing."​

Blow it out your ass sparky the bill is constitutional. I like the way you talked about the Constitution and then insert:

I do not support unConstitutional law simply because I don't like the current occupant of the Oval Office, which is what some people are doing

You're only fooling yourself.