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.
Requiring documentation doesn't violate any such clause.
Never said that requiring documentation that a candidate meets the criteria for elective office does.
However, rejecting the public record of another State issued under the Seal of that State sure does.
It has everything to do with a discussion of the Constitutionality of the law. Under the FF&C (Article IV, Section 1) Arizona is Constitutionally bound to give credit to the public records of another state unless exempted by Congress.
It's just a wild coincidence that you are reciting the idiocy from KOS, DU, MoveOn and HuffingGlue..
Wild how that works...
Unlike some who scourer the internet or listen to the radio to find out what their are supposed to support and what their talking points should be I form my own opinions of the law based on actually reading it.
Sorry, fail.
>>>>
Arizona is not regecting the long form BC they have.
I can pass any secureity clearence? Can obama?
I understand that you are a drone of the fascist party and as result you have no clue how American civics work.
What was passed is a bill. IF or when the governor signs it, then and only then, will it be come law.
denying the right to run for president in their state, to people from other states who are perfectly qualified to run.
Apparently not.
This is not an "Elector" issue. Arizona can choose whatever electors they want (again though, they will be sued if they mess with that too much), but they CANNOT WRITE A LAW THAT CREATES REQUIREMENTS TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE.
What?
ROFL - you KOS Kiddies are funny.
Which is what they did, and that is the reason for this entire thread.
What they did was to pass a law requiring documentation that a person is a natural born citizen.
End of story.
Clearly the hive believes that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, else they would simply ignore this.
You do realize that making this statement says much more about your partisan extremism than his (or hers), right?
Well of course.
Say, what party is it I promote, again?
"These Parts" being the Bizarro world. But you said "Divided States of Bizarro World America" incorrectly.
I know that is your dream, but so far the United States Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
I understand that you fight for the day when no one pays heed to a document written by "dead white guys."
Documented evidence was provided. But you can keep on talking, you seem to amuse yourself.
Documented evidence of what?
OK:
1. I would appreciate it if you followed the rules of the posting board and didn't quote pieces of my posts out-of-context.
I've violated no rules.
I back-quote to add context to the reply.
I was told not to do that early on, and expect others to do the same.
You failed to comprehend what it was you were told.
I suspect your were changing back-quotes, which DOES violate the rules. I've changed not one word or letter of what you said.
Why is unclear. How is very clear. Under the SCOTUS Rule of Four, 4 of the justices must vote in the affirmative for a case to be heard by the full court. Since no case yet presented to the SCOTUS has received 4 votes, that means that Roberts, Alito, Scallia, and/or Thomas has voted with the more liberal wing of the court.
>>>>
I can pass any secureity clearence? Can obama?
You can't even spell security clearance, much less pass one.
Arizona does not have the authority to reject the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii in determine the date and place of birth of a United States citizen. If they do, they are violating Article I Section 1 unless Congress has passed a law saying they can.
How much more do I have to repeat myself?
>>>>
Where does it say it?
See post above. Arizona does not have the authority to reject the public records of another state unless exempted by legislation passed by the Federal Constitution under it's authority to do so.
Just like states are required to recognize the legal marriages of other states unless exempted by Congress, which Congress did with the Defense of Marriage act.
>>>>
True.Hawaii has a long form Arizona will recognize it. How much more do I have to repeat myself?Full Faith and Credit is also part of the Constitution and Arizona cannot violate that. Congress has to release states from recognizing public records, they can't do it on their own.
Don't read "hate sites", so your obvious ad hominem attempt is a fail.
>>>>
Arizona does not have the authority to reject the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii in determine the date and place of birth of a United States citizen. If they do, they are violating Article I Section 1 unless Congress has passed a law saying they can.
How much more do I have to repeat myself?
>>>>
I can pass any secureity clearence? Can obama?
You can't even spell security clearance, much less pass one.
I was in the Air Fore I worked around nukes, so yes I have had and can get a security clearEnce.
True.Hawaii has a long form Arizona will recognize it. How much more do I have to repeat myself?
Arizona does not have the authority to reject the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii in determine the date and place of birth of a United States citizen. If they do, they are violating Article I Section 1 unless Congress has passed a law saying they can.
How much more do I have to repeat myself?
>>>>
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen. That would have to be decided in courts which would drag on forever and would give the opposition plenty of talking points. The better choice for Obama would be to submit his birth certificate and let the state which is controls by Republicans disqualify a sitting Democrat president . After all, he isn't going win the state anyway and it will give him some great material for campaigning.
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen.
You can't even spell security clearance, much less pass one.
I was in the Air Fore I worked around nukes, so yes I have had and can get a security clearEnce.
Err, former Army MI here.
And I was just saying that to get your goat, but you're still not spelling it right.
Security clearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But hey at least you're closer.
Why because I don't care.
True.
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen. That would have to be decided in courts which would drag on forever and would give the opposition plenty of talking points. The better choice for Obama would be to submit his birth certificate and let the state which is controls by Republicans disqualify a sitting Democrat president . He isn't going to win the state anyway and it will give him some great material for campaigning.
I can see clearly now you just gave your sides argument away. The above comment is what the left fears the most. They have doubts about the validity of the document.
If obama submits the required documents according to Arizona law how can Arizona challenge anything?
Here's how it will work
obama presents the long form Arizona verifies the information and obama is allowed on the ballot. No challenge needed.
Now if it is found out that obama was not born in Hawaii Arizona will or should contact the U.S. Embassy in Kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paper work for his citizenship born abroad.
True.
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen. That would have to be decided in courts which would drag on forever and would give the opposition plenty of talking points. The better choice for Obama would be to submit his birth certificate and let the state which is controls by Republicans disqualify a sitting Democrat president . He isn't going to win the state anyway and it will give him some great material for campaigning.
No, they can't, because:
1. the long form Birth Certificate is not a needed qualification to be president.
And
2. Having foreign-born parents does not disqualify someone from being a "Natural Born" citizen, they only need to have been born here themselves and to have lived here for at least 14 years.
Unless they were born in another country before the constitution was ratified, in which case they're 250 years old, and they're still a "Natural Born" citizen.
I can see clearly now you just gave your sides argument away. The above comment is what the left fears the most. They have doubts about the validity of the document.
If obama submits the required documents according to Arizona law how can Arizona challenge anything?
Here's how it will work
obama presents the long form Arizona verifies the information and obama is allowed on the ballot. No challenge needed.
Now if it is found out that obama was not born in Hawaii Arizona will or should contact the U.S. Embassy in Kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paper work for his citizenship born abroad.
"The left" doesn't "Fear" anything, we're just pointing out how you are wrong.
True.
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen. That would have to be decided in courts which would drag on forever and would give the opposition plenty of talking points. The better choice for Obama would be to submit his birth certificate and let the state which is controls by Republicans disqualify a sitting Democrat president . He isn't going to win the state anyway and it will give him some great material for campaigning.
No, they can't, because:
1. the long form Birth Certificate is not a needed qualification to be president.
And
2. Having foreign-born parents does not disqualify someone from being a "Natural Born" citizen, they only need to have been born here themselves and to have lived here for at least 14 years.
Unless they were born in another country before the constitution was ratified, in which case they're 250 years old, and they're still a "Natural Born" citizen.
True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens. The state Democratic Party would challenge that ruling which would throw it into court. All it would take is a lower court to side with the state and Republican advertising would claim the court has ruled that Obama is not qualified to be president.True.
If the president does submit a long form birth certificate, then the state can challenge his qualifications by asserting that he is not a natural born citizen because one of his parents was not a US citizen. That would have to be decided in courts which would drag on forever and would give the opposition plenty of talking points. The better choice for Obama would be to submit his birth certificate and let the state which is controls by Republicans disqualify a sitting Democrat president . He isn't going to win the state anyway and it will give him some great material for campaigning.
No, they can't, because:
1. the long form Birth Certificate is not a needed qualification to be president.
And
2. Having foreign-born parents does not disqualify someone from being a "Natural Born" citizen, they only need to have been born here themselves and to have lived here for at least 14 years.
Unless they were born in another country before the constitution was ratified, in which case they're 250 years old, and they're still a "Natural Born" citizen.
True, the long form certificate is not required but according to the bill, the candidate must prove that he or she is a natural born citizen. The short form certificate, which Obama has, clearly proves he is a US citizen. However, the term natural born is not defined in the constitution. This gives the state the option of refusing to put him on the ballot because the certificate of live birth does not prove his parents are US citizens which means the state interprets natural born as requiring that both parents be citizens.
