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

[gekaap]

Now you are merely lying, like the puss you are.

You know full well that Hawaii wouldn't prevent (and they have no law on their books that does prevent) President Obama from getting his own Birth Certificate.

Nobody said that Hawaii is going to prevent Obama from getting his own birth certificate. On the contrary, it has been attested to time and again that Hawaii has already given Obama a copy of his birth certificate. What Hawaii won't do is issue anyone a copy of their birth certificate other than that which their law prescribes be issued. Hawaii issues to people the type of birth certificate that Obama already has. They are not going to issue a special birth certificate to him, or to anyone, just because some other state demands it.

You are a fraud, Clownie. And by the way, assmunch, there' not a person here who actually believes that a dipshit such as you is a "judge."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_liar.gifs

Anyone who has paid attention knows that I'm not a judge. I'm currently going back to school to complete my BSN. The comment you're referencing was a swipe at Jarhead who tried to claim special knowledge based on his own alleged experiences. It's easy for anyone to claim that they are such and such, and thus some kind of expert. He can claim all he wants that he got his bogus information from the government, but that doesn't make it true, and he's not fooling anyone.

 

[gekaap]

Since whatever powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assigned to the states, as per the Constitution, then the power to decide what constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen" is in fact assigned to the States. Agreed?

Actually, no. The power to interpret the constitution and other federal laws is vested in the Judicial Branch of the government, as per the constitution. The courts have already addressed the issues of "natural born citizen" is any person who is entitled to citizenship upon their birth. Who is entitled to such citizenship at birth is determined by certain parts of the constitution, as well as federal law. The constitution declares that any person born in the United States is a citizen, and the courts have made clear that such people gain citizenship regardless of the citizenship status of their parents . Federal law goes farther and extends citizenship to people who may be born outside of the United States to parents who are citizens. Obama falls into the first category, being a citizen based on birth in the United States.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

Not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the U.S. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

The point is that the long form provides documentation for the state to disqualify him claiming he is not a natural born citizen, thus not meeting the constitutional requirements. If he submits the short form, they can claim he does not meet the requirements of the bill.

The short form just provides the names of parents. The bill does not ask for just a birth certificate. It asks for proof that the candidate meets the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 (The Presidency).

You raise an interesting question, one I'll ask after I finish my sandwich for dinner.

However could you identify what information (specifically) that is on the "long form" that is not on the "short form" and identify exactly how it makes a determination for Natural Born Citizen under Article II Section 1?

To meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth you need to know the parents and the Date/Time/Location of birth. Other than that, what information is required to exist under the Seal of the issuing State?


>>>>

 

[sinister59]

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.)



>>>>

The long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On Hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the US, the state could content Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of Obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why I say Obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

I wonder if Mexico would consider buying back Arizona ?

 

[gekaap]

If arizona thought that document was obama's true birth record and deed to citizenship it never would have any need of this law.

So then you admit that this law is about nothing other than trying to keep Obama off the ballot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If arizona thought that document was obama's true birth record and deed to citizenship it never would have any need of this law.

So then you admit that this law is about nothing other than trying to keep Obama off the ballot.

Is this your attempt at saying obama's document is not legit?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the U.S. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

The point is that the long form provides documentation for the state to disqualify him claiming he is not a natural born citizen, thus not meeting the constitutional requirements. If he submits the short form, they can claim he does not meet the requirements of the bill.

The short form just provides the names of parents. The bill does not ask for just a birth certificate. It asks for proof that the candidate meets the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 (The Presidency).

You raise an interesting question, one I'll ask after I finish my sandwich for dinner.

However could you identify what information (specifically) that is on the "long form" that is not on the "short form" and identify exactly how it makes a determination for Natural Born Citizen under Article II Section 1?

To meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth you need to know the parents and the Date/Time/Location of birth. Other than that, what information is required to exist under the Seal of the issuing State?


>>>>

It's called verification. Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you are merely lying, like the puss you are.

You know full well that Hawaii wouldn't prevent (and they have no law on their books that does prevent) President Obama from getting his own Birth Certificate.

Nobody said that Hawaii is going to prevent Obama from getting his own birth certificate. On the contrary, it has been attested to time and again that Hawaii has already given Obama a copy of his birth certificate. What Hawaii won't do is issue anyone a copy of their birth certificate other than that which their law prescribes be issued. Hawaii issues to people the type of birth certificate that Obama already has. They are not going to issue a special birth certificate to him, or to anyone, just because some other state demands it.

You are a fraud, Clownie. And by the way, assmunch, there' not a person here who actually believes that a dipshit such as you is a "judge."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/images/smilies/eusa_liar.gifs

Anyone who has paid attention knows that I'm not a judge. I'm currently going back to school to complete my BSN. The comment you're referencing was a swipe at Jarhead who tried to claim special knowledge based on his own alleged experiences. It's easy for anyone to claim that they are such and such, and thus some kind of expert. He can claim all he wants that he got his bogus information from the government, but that doesn't make it true, and he's not fooling anyone.

oh yell that document that never was accepted by the state registrar of 1961 speaks volumes about the honesty of the DNC.

 

[gekaap]

Is this your attempt at saying obama's document is not legit?

The fact that you somehow might infer that from my statement just goes to show that your thought processes are so detached from reality that you're not sane. You have said several times that AZ passed this law for the sake of vetting all Presidential candidates from hence forth. But now you've shown your true colors, and are admitting that the only reason for this law is to try to keep Obama off the ballot. No concern for truth or reality or the constitution. It's just about keeping Obama off the ballot. Why are you so afraid to see Obama on the ballot? Why are you so afraid that no contender candidate can be presented to defeat Obama?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the long form shows evidence of the citizenship of the father. On hawaii birth certificates issued in 1961, the place of birth of both the father and the mother are shown. If it shows the father's place of birth is outside the us, the state could content obama is not a natural born citizen because his father is not a citizen. That would end up in the courts and would raise the issue of obama's qualifications which is the intent of the law.

That's why i say obama should submit the short form and let the state make their decision.

not exactly true, if it is shown that obama was born aboard then you would have to contact the u.s. Embassy in kenya to see if obama's mother did the proper paperwork for citizenship. We already know where obama's father was born there is no need for a long form to show that.

the point is that the long form provides documentation for the state to disqualify him claiming he is not a natural born citizen, thus not meeting the constitutional requirements. If he submits the short form, they can claim he does not meet the requirements of the bill.

The short form just provides the names of parents. The bill does not ask for just a birth certificate. It asks for proof that the candidate meets the qualifications of article 2 section 1 (the presidency).

the birth place of obama's father is not what is in question

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is this your attempt at saying obama's document is not legit?

The fact that you somehow might infer that from my statement just goes to show that your thought processes are so detached from reality that you're not sane. You have said several times that AZ passed this law for the sake of vetting all Presidential candidates from hence forth. But now you've shown your true colors, and are admitting that the only reason for this law is to try to keep Obama off the ballot. No concern for truth or reality or the constitution. It's just about keeping Obama off the ballot. Why are you so afraid to see Obama on the ballot? Why are you so afraid that no contender candidate can be presented to defeat Obama?

Here's your post

If arizona thought that document was obama's true birth record and deed to citizenship it never would have any need of this law.

So then you admit that this law is about nothing other than trying to keep Obama off the ballot.

This law has nothing to do with keep obama off the Arizona ballot unless you are saying that his document is a fraud.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since whatever powers not specifically granted to the federal government are assigned to the states, as per the Constitution, then the power to decide what constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen" is in fact assigned to the States. Agreed?

Actually, no. The power to interpret the constitution and other federal laws is vested in the Judicial Branch of the government, as per the constitution. The courts have already addressed the issues of "natural born citizen" is any person who is entitled to citizenship upon their birth. Who is entitled to such citizenship at birth is determined by certain parts of the constitution, as well as federal law. The constitution declares that any person born in the United States is a citizen, and the courts have made clear that such people gain citizenship regardless of the citizenship status of their parents . Federal law goes farther and extends citizenship to people who may be born outside of the United States to parents who are citizens. Obama falls into the first category, being a citizen based on birth in the United States.

GK,

We're going to disagree on this, but to my knowledge the SCOTUS has never heard a case involving Presidential eligibility. Now, they've heard plenty of cases involving citizenship, but not Presidential eligibility. With no definitive case, it is unknown if the Court was using "natural born citizen" as a Term of Art in the language used in crafting the decision. Lacking a definitive definition from the SCOTUS or by Congress in the United States Code, then the definition depends on personal political leaning.


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

This actually segues into the question I mentioned in my previous post. In addition to the laws issues with mandating the processes of another State and possible issues if they reject the public record of another State under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution, there is another glaring omission from the law.

The law amends and updates section 16-311 of the Arizona Revised Statues which includes a definition section. In the new section (16-507.01) a couple of references mandate that the candidate meet the requirements of the Constitution under Article II Section 1. It orders the Secretary of State to evaluate documents in terms of Article II Section 1.

However it provides no clear standards or a definition that the Secretary of State is supposed to use in evaluating the submitted documents. As a matter of fact, if the Secretary of State can't make-up his/her mind - he/she is supposed to make a decision by committee!

To me that's messed up. If you going to write a law, give those that have to implement the law clear standards to satisfy the law. When I was writing draft policies in the Navy as a Chief if I'd have pulled that on my Department Head he'd of had my ass.


>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point is that the long form provides documentation for the state to disqualify him claiming he is not a natural born citizen, thus not meeting the constitutional requirements. If he submits the short form, they can claim he does not meet the requirements of the bill.

The short form just provides the names of parents. The bill does not ask for just a birth certificate. It asks for proof that the candidate meets the qualifications of Article 2 Section 1 (The Presidency).

You raise an interesting question, one I'll ask after I finish my sandwich for dinner.

However could you identify what information (specifically) that is on the "long form" that is not on the "short form" and identify exactly how it makes a determination for Natural Born Citizen under Article II Section 1?

To meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth you need to know the parents and the Date/Time/Location of birth. Other than that, what information is required to exist under the Seal of the issuing State?


>>>>

It's called verification. Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?

Verification of the conditions surrounding a birth event is made by the State in which the birth occurred. An outside State has no authority to question the public records issued under State Seal from another State unless specifically exempted by the Congress of the United States under it's authority in Article IV Section 1.


It's not a Republican or a Democrat issue, it a Constitutional issue. Personally though, I don't "trust" Democrats or Republicans.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

Is this your attempt at saying obama's document is not legit?

The fact that you somehow might infer that from my statement just goes to show that your thought processes are so detached from reality that you're not sane. You have said several times that AZ passed this law for the sake of vetting all Presidential candidates from hence forth. But now you've shown your true colors, and are admitting that the only reason for this law is to try to keep Obama off the ballot. No concern for truth or reality or the constitution. It's just about keeping Obama off the ballot. Why are you so afraid to see Obama on the ballot? Why are you so afraid that no contender candidate can be presented to defeat Obama?

Your belief that the two things are mutually exclusive is where your pathetic excuse for a brain shorted out. If Obama produces a valid birth certificate, then he will not be off the ballot. However, it's obvious that even you understand he will never do such a thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You raise an interesting question, one I'll ask after I finish my sandwich for dinner.

However could you identify what information (specifically) that is on the "long form" that is not on the "short form" and identify exactly how it makes a determination for Natural Born Citizen under Article II Section 1?

To meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth you need to know the parents and the Date/Time/Location of birth. Other than that, what information is required to exist under the Seal of the issuing State?


>>>>

It's called verification. Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?

Verification of the conditions surrounding a birth event is made by the State in which the birth occurred. An outside State has no authority to question the public records issued under State Seal from another State unless specifically exempted by the Congress of the United States under it's authority in Article IV Section 1.


It's not a Republican or a Democrat issue, it a Constitutional issue. Personally though, I don't "trust" Democrats or Republicans.



>>>>

A simple yes or no to the question
Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?
This is your verifcation for me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's called verification. Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?

Verification of the conditions surrounding a birth event is made by the State in which the birth occurred. An outside State has no authority to question the public records issued under State Seal from another State unless specifically exempted by the Congress of the United States under it's authority in Article IV Section 1.


It's not a Republican or a Democrat issue, it a Constitutional issue. Personally though, I don't "trust" Democrats or Republicans.



>>>>

A simple yes or no to the question
Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?
This is your verifcation for me.

Do you even bother to read what is posted before you bang on the keyboard. Here let me emphasis my previous quote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Verification of the conditions surrounding a birth event is made by the State in which the birth occurred. An outside State has no authority to question the public records issued under State Seal from another State unless specifically exempted by the Congress of the United States under it's authority in Article IV Section 1.


It's not a Republican or a Democrat issue, it a Constitutional issue. Personally though, I don't "trust" Democrats or Republicans.


>>>>

A simple yes or no to the question
Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?
This is your verifcation for me.

Do you even bother to read what is posted before you bang on the keyboard. He let me emphasis my previous quote.

Your answer is the normal reply for those who claim they are one thing but are exactly opposite of what they claim. Your writing style is a bit differant than jake starkey but you have the same views as he does.
oh so you do not trust niether, but you somehow think the law is wrong? Careful when you sit on that fence people some times fall and get split in half.

 

[The T]

A simple yes or no to the question
Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?
This is your verifcation for me.

Do you even bother to read what is posted before you bang on the keyboard. He let me emphasis my previous quote.

Your answer is the normal reply for those who claim they are one thing but are exactly opposite of what they claim. Your writing style is a bit differant than jake starkey but you have the same views as he does.
oh so you do not trust niether, but you somehow think the law is wrong? Careful when you sit on that fence people some times fall and get split in half.

-Or- A pole goes right up thier asses...

 

[WorldWatcher]

A simple yes or no to the question
Do you trust the democrats to be truthful?
This is your verifcation for me.

Do you even bother to read what is posted before you bang on the keyboard. He let me emphasis my previous quote.

Your answer is the normal reply for those who claim they are one thing but are exactly opposite of what they claim. Your writing style is a bit differant than jake starkey but you have the same views as he does.
oh so you do not trust niether, but you somehow think the law is wrong? Careful when you sit on that fence people some times fall and get split in half.

Stop being stupid will ya. Try actually reading my posts for content and not through the partisan glasses you appear to wear.

I love the idea of the law, all candidates should have to provide documented evidence that they meet the qualifications for elected office. I think it's a shame that we've come this far into the existence of this country and prior to the election of 2008 not one State had ANY laws requiring verification of a candidate qualification for the office of President (or Senator or Representative for that matter) prior to appearing on the ballot.

Yes I have issues with this law because it is poorly written and has Constitutional problems that will cause it to be overturned in court because Arizona is attempting to exercise authority it does not possess.

1. One they cannot mandate irrelevant information be included in the public records of another state.

2. If they reject an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii they will be in violation of Article IV Section 1 of the Federal Constitution.​

Multiple times I've suggested how this law could have been written to bypass those fundamental flaws.

1. Require documentation under the Seal of a State for placement on the ballot, limited to those items needed to determine citizenship at birth (Parents, Date & Time, and Location). Anything other than that is irrelevent to determine citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

2. If the state wants to define "Natural Born Citizen" in terms of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, then do it. Don't write a law without the definition as standards and then expect State officials to be able to enforce the law in a consistent manner.​

During one election cycle a Democrat can allow someone with a foreign citizen parent on the ballot. During another election cycle a Republican can say - Nope - you have to have two citizen parents. That's why I don't trust Democrats or Republicans, both are influenced by political leanings when they should be acting under clear definition of the law.



>>>>

 

[The T]

Do you even bother to read what is posted before you bang on the keyboard. He let me emphasis my previous quote.

Your answer is the normal reply for those who claim they are one thing but are exactly opposite of what they claim. Your writing style is a bit differant than jake starkey but you have the same views as he does.
oh so you do not trust niether, but you somehow think the law is wrong? Careful when you sit on that fence people some times fall and get split in half.

Stop being stupid will ya. Try actually reading my posts for content and not through the partisan glasses you appear to wear.

I love the idea of the law, all candidates should have to provide documented evidence that they meet the qualifications for elected office. I think it's a shame that we've come this far into the existence of this country and prior to the election of 2008 not one State had ANY laws requiring verification of a candidate qualification for the office of President (or Senator or Representative for that matter) prior to appearing on the ballot.

Yes I have issues with this law because it is poorly written and has Constitutional problems that will cause it to be overturned in court because Arizona is attempting to exercise authority it does not possess.

1. One they cannot mandate irrelevant information be included in the public records of another state.

2. If they reject an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii they will be in violation of Article IV Section 1 of the Federal Constitution.



Multiple times I've suggested how this law could have been written to bypass those fundamental flaws.

1. Require documentation under the Seal of a State for placement on the ballot, limited to those items needed to determine citizenship at birth (Parents, Date & Time, and Location). Anything other than that is irrelevent to determine citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

2. If the state wants to define "Natural Born Citizen" in terms of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, then do it. Don't write a law without the definition as standards and then expect State officials to be able to enforce the law in a consistent manner.


During one election cycle a Democrat can allow someone with a foreign citizen parent on the ballot. During another election cycle a Republican can say - Nope - you have to have two citizen parents. That's why I don't trust Democrats or Republicans, both are influenced by political leanings when they should be acting under clear definition of the law.



>>>>

What Constitutional Problems?

Yer either a Natural Citizen or you are NOT.