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

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

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.

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.
Format Document

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

It also gives the name of th birth doctor and place of birth as in hospital

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

It also gives the name of th birth doctor and place of birth as in hospital

1. Place of birth (as in City, Town, or Rural Location) is different that the name of the hospital. For example using Hawaii as an example "Place of Birth" is contained in box 6a and would contain "Honolulu" while the name of the hospital is contained in box 6c and would contain "U.S. Army Triipler General Hospital". Location determines citizenship of the child, not the name of the hospital.


2. Now, please explain how the name of the birth doctor or the name of the hospital has anything to do with the citizenship of the parents which is what the first post of this message was about. Please do not deflect.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

It also gives the name of th birth doctor and place of birth as in hospital

1. Place of birth (as in City, Town, or Rural Location) is different that the name of the hospital. For example using Hawaii as an example "Place of Birth" is contained in box 6a and would contain "Honolulu" while the name of the hospital is contained in box 6c and would contain "U.S. Army Triipler General Hospital". Location determines citizenship of the child, not the name of the hospital.


2. Now, please explain how the name of the birth doctor or the name of the hospital has anything to do with the citizenship of the parents which is what the first post of this message was about. Please do not deflect.



>>>>

a long form BC line 6 B

To answer your question directly the document obama jhas is deemed a fake and a cover up by the hawaii government in 2007

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WorldWatcher
U.S. Navy Chief (Ret.)
Member #27321 Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 755
Thanks: 5
Thanked 231 Times in 156 Posts
Rep Power: 55



Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC

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.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2...-f1-burges.pdf
Quote:
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.
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.
Format Document

Thank you for confirming that the long form is not required.



>>>>
I noticed you didn't mention this part

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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 long form lists the parents.

The short form lists the parents.

Neither lists the citizenship status of the parent at time of birth.




How does the long form prove the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth where the short for does not?

(Truly curious here.)



>>>>

It also gives the name of th birth doctor and place of birth as in hospital

1. Place of birth (as in City, Town, or Rural Location) is different that the name of the hospital. For example using Hawaii as an example "Place of Birth" is contained in box 6a and would contain "Honolulu" while the name of the hospital is contained in box 6c and would contain "U.S. Army Triipler General Hospital". Location determines citizenship of the child, not the name of the hospital.


2. Now, please explain how the name of the birth doctor or the name of the hospital has anything to do with the citizenship of the parents which is what the first post of this message was about. Please do not deflect.



>>>>

a long form BC line 6 B

Thank you for proving my point. The long form does not contain the citizenship status of the parents as I said.

To answer your question directly the document obama jhas is deemed a fake and a cover up by the hawaii government in 2007

Please tell us which state official received the COLB from the 2008 Obama campaign and deemed it a fake. I"m not talking about an image on a web site as that is not an official version turned into a government entity.

So please detail for us what government entity received Obama's COLB and deemed it fake.


In addition a coverup by the Republican governor of Hawaii in 2007? All I can say is



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Place of birth (as in City, Town, or Rural Location) is different that the name of the hospital. For example using Hawaii as an example "Place of Birth" is contained in box 6a and would contain "Honolulu" while the name of the hospital is contained in box 6c and would contain "U.S. Army Triipler General Hospital". Location determines citizenship of the child, not the name of the hospital.


2. Now, please explain how the name of the birth doctor or the name of the hospital has anything to do with the citizenship of the parents which is what the first post of this message was about. Please do not deflect.



>>>>

a long form BC line 6 B

Thank you for proving my point. The long form does not contain the citizenship status of the parents as I said.

To answer your question directly the document obama jhas is deemed a fake and a cover up by the hawaii government in 2007

Please tell us which state official received the COLB from the 2008 Obama campaign and deemed it a fake. I"m not talking about an image on a web site as that is not an official version turned into a government entity.

So please detail for us what government entity received Obama's COLB and deemed it fake.



>>>>

Dude are you that stupid? if you show the hospital a person was born in it will give you an iea where they were born. A hospital in kenya is not a hospital in Hawaii and visa verse

So please detail for us what government entity received Obama's COLB and deemed it fake.

The state of Arizona for starters if not there would not be any need for this law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher
U.S. Navy Chief (Ret.)
Member #27321 Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 755
Thanks: 5
Thanked 231 Times in 156 Posts
Rep Power: 55



Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC

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.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2...-f1-burges.pdf
Quote:
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.
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.
Format Document

Thank you for confirming that the long form is not required.



>>>>
I noticed you didn't mention this part

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

How about finishing the paragraph:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:​

So no, a candidate does not have to submit a long form birth certificate. They will accept non-governmental records over the record of a a birth document issued under the Seal of a State.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WorldWatcher
U.S. Navy Chief (Ret.)
Member #27321 Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 755
Thanks: 5
Thanked 231 Times in 156 Posts
Rep Power: 55



Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC

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.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2...-f1-burges.pdf
Quote:
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.
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.
Format Document

Thank you for confirming that the long form is not required.



>>>>
I noticed you didn't mention this part

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

How about finishing the paragraph:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:​

So no, a candidate does not have to submit a long form birth certificate.


>>>>

He does if he has one

 

[Toro]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.

“It wouldn’t hold up for a nanosecond,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. “I’m not even sure if it’s intended seriously.” ...

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

“It’s an interference with federal supremacy. It’s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,” said Tribe.

Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.

“It wouldn’t hold up for a nanosecond,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. “I’m not even sure if it’s intended seriously.” ...

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

“It’s an interference with federal supremacy. It’s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,” said Tribe.

Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

 

[Toro]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.

“It wouldn’t hold up for a nanosecond,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. “I’m not even sure if it’s intended seriously.” ...

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

“It’s an interference with federal supremacy. It’s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,” said Tribe.

Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

You mean the one about the Republican governor and sec of state who think it may be unconstitutional?

 

[blu]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.

“It wouldn’t hold up for a nanosecond,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. “I’m not even sure if it’s intended seriously.” ...

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

“It’s an interference with federal supremacy. It’s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,” said Tribe.

Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

you are amazingly fucking stupid. they quoted the exact sources they used, and yet you deflect to "huffy puffy"

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher
U.S. Navy Chief (Ret.)
Member #27321 Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: VA
Posts: 755
Thanks: 5
Thanked 231 Times in 156 Posts
Rep Power: 55



Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775
Quote: Originally Posted by Flopper
Quote: Originally Posted by Vast LWC

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.

The better option for Obama is to submit his birth certificate, which proves he is a US citizen, and let the state decide if he is qualified. If they do not qualify him, then the Obama campaign can claim the state, which is controlled by Republicans are keeping him off the ballot for purely politically reasons. That would be an easy sell since most people, 77% reject the birther theory.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2...-f1-burges.pdf
Quote:
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.
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.
Format Document

Thank you for confirming that the long form is not required.



>>>>
I noticed you didn't mention this part

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

How about finishing the paragraph:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:​

So no, a candidate does not have to submit a long form birth certificate.


>>>>

He does if he has one

And if he doesn't, he can use non-official documents over an official document issued under the Seal of a State. See if I were a Dem, I could take my long form, mail it to my sister and tell her to keep it for me. At that point I would no longer "possess" a long form and wouldn't be required to submit it.

Long form is not required.

Badly worded law.

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How about finishing the paragraph:

1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:​

So no, a candidate does not have to submit a long form birth certificate.


>>>>

He does if he has one

And if he doesn't, he can use non-official documents over an official document issued under the Seal of a State. See if I were a Dem, I could take my long form, mail it to my sister and tell her to keep it for me. At that point I would no longer "possess" a long form and wouldn't be required to submit it.

Long form is not required.

Badly worded law.

>>>>

only if he doesn't hae a long form Hawaii has it. Or do they?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.

“It wouldn’t hold up for a nanosecond,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars who has worked for the Justice Department under President Obama. “I’m not even sure if it’s intended seriously.” ...

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

“It’s an interference with federal supremacy. It’s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,” said Tribe.

Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

3 of 4 links are not to huffy puffy. Trying to deflect?


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.



Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

you are amazingly fucking stupid. they quoted the exact sources they used, and yet you deflect to "huffy puffy"

stupidity has a name and that name is blu.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He does if he has one

And if he doesn't, he can use non-official documents over an official document issued under the Seal of a State. See if I were a Dem, I could take my long form, mail it to my sister and tell her to keep it for me. At that point I would no longer "possess" a long form and wouldn't be required to submit it.

Long form is not required.

Badly worded law.

>>>>

only if he doesn't hae a long form Hawaii has it. Or do they?

Please translate this to English.


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bill has passed the Arizona House.

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

However, Governor Brewer may veto it.

Brewer hints she may veto Arizona's 'birther' bill - East Valley Tribune: Politics

Her Secretary of State thinks it may be unconstitutional.

Arizona's presidential citizenship bill worries Bennett - East Valley Tribune: Politics

As do other legal scholars.



Arizona Birther Bill Is Unconstitutional, Legal Scholars Say

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

3 of 4 links are not to huffy puffy. Trying to deflect?


>>>>

nope just using the last link in the post.

 

[gekaap]

Surely you can use another source other than huffy puffy?

Wait a second, the OP used a BS blog, and you're complaining about the Huffington Post?