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

[WorldWatcher]

What Constitutional Problems?

Yer either a Natural Citizen or you are NOT.

Article IV Section 1


>>>>

 

[The T]

what constitutional problems?

Yer either a natural citizen or you are not.

article iv section 1


>>>>

*and* ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Exactly

 

[The T]

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.

Exactly

Some want to take it too far...THEY ARE the Dangerous IDIOTS...

 

[Ravi]

This issue is stupid.

The Arizona law basically is saying that no state matters, no state document is valid unless it is deemed valid by every other state's whims. Clearly this is unconstitutional and against states rights.

The hatred so many feel for Obama has turned them into big government champions that need a federal government to issue birth certificates.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.



>>>>

I have nothing else to say you have proven to mewhere you political compass points.

 

[WorldWatcher]

what constitutional problems?

Yer either a natural citizen or you are not.

article iv section 1


>>>>

*and* ?

Arizona cannot reject the public records of another State unless expressly authorized by the Federal Congress.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This issue is stupid.

The Arizona law basically is saying that no state matters, no state document is valid unless it is deemed valid by every other state's whims. Clearly this is unconstitutional and against states rights.

The hatred so many feel for Obama has turned them into big government champions that need a federal government to issue birth certificates.

No what the Arizona law is doing is calling the document in Hawaii a fraud

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

I have nothing else to say you have proven to mewhere you political compass points.

Yep, my compass points right of center.


After being slapped around I can understand why you have nothing more to say.


BTW, I can actually read also.

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

article iv section 1


>>>>

*and* ?

Arizona cannot reject the public records of another State unless expressly authorized by the Federal Congress.



>>>>

and Arizona will not reject the hawaiian long form if it exist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.



>>>>

I have nothing else to say you have proven to mewhere you political compass points.

Yep, my compass points right of center.

I can actually read also.

>>>>

WRightTTTTT........

 

[The T]

article iv section 1


>>>>

*and* ?

Arizona cannot reject the public records of another State unless expressly authorized by the Federal Congress.



>>>>

YOU give the FEDERAL CONGRESS too much POWER...

But for YOU? That's Okee Doakee...

9th and TENTH Amendments...*YES* they still have relevence...they haven't been written out, only largely *IGNORED* and BY YOU...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

*and* ?

Arizona cannot reject the public records of another State unless expressly authorized by the Federal Congress.



>>>>

YOU give the FEDERAL CONGRESS too much POWER...

But for YOU? That's Okee Doakee...

9th and TENTH Amendments...*YES* they still have relevence...they haven't been written out, only largely *IGNORED* and BY YOU...

He's just right of center.

 

[The T]

*fucking idiot*

 

[The T]

Arizona cannot reject the public records of another State unless expressly authorized by the Federal Congress.



>>>>

YOU give the FEDERAL CONGRESS too much POWER...

But for YOU? That's Okee Doakee...

9th and TENTH Amendments...*YES* they still have relevence...they haven't been written out, only largely *IGNORED* and BY YOU...

He's just right of center.

He's right of a stinking TURD.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

YOU give the FEDERAL CONGRESS too much POWER...

But for YOU? That's Okee Doakee...

9th and TENTH Amendments...*YES* they still have relevence...they haven't been written out, only largely *IGNORED* and BY YOU...

He's just right of center.

He's right of a stinking TURD.

He says it's a Constitutional issue with him. I've been calling BS on him for about 20 pages. It's more political issue than anything else, at least that is how I am taking his replies.

 

[Liability]

I love the liberals VERY limited grasp of what the States are obliged to do under the full faith and credit clause.

If California (to go for an obvious example) permits the "legal" marriage between a man (or a woman) and his or her dog, does that mean that if the newlyweds then move to Texas, Texas is obliged to deem man and bitch to be husband and wife?

In the liberal fantasy world, the answer is "yes." But the correct answer is still "no."

For example, if South Carolina recognizes "common law marriage" the happy couple may be deemed married IN the STATE of South Carolina. But that doesn't mean the qualify as legally married in the State of New York which does not recognize common law marriages.

"AHH! FULL FAITH AND CREDIT," cry the liberals. But to no avail. Their woeful lack of comprehension, thankfully, is not binding on the rest of us.

 

[The T]

He's just right of center.

He's right of a stinking TURD.

He says it's a Constitutional issue with him. I've been calling BS on him for about 20 pages. It's more political issue than anything else, at least that is how I am taking his replies.

There's NOTHING Constitutional of this except that the FED has shown that they won't DO thier JOB, and left it to a STATE...and then prosecutes a STATE for doing the JOB that they (The FED) refuses to do per the Constitution?

How convoluted is this?

 

[gekaap]

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.

You're right, the court has never heard a case about presidential eligibility. But the court has heard cases concerning citizenship status, and the applications of the 14th amendment, and in those decisions has explicitly referenced the natural born citizenship requirement to hold the Presidency. The court has used this section of the constitution to explain that it is evident that the constitution considered that citizenship at birth was possible, and that the constitution understood natural born citizenship to be in contrast to naturalized citizenship. The court then went farther to acertain the meaning of the constitution regarding such citizenship by birth, and ultimately concluded any person born in the US was a natural born citizen, and that there is no consideration regarding the citizenship status of the parents.

Lacking a definitive definition from the SCOTUS or by Congress in the United States Code, then the definition depends on personal political leaning.

I believe that the US Code also codifies natural born citizenship as belonging to any person born in the US.

 

[gekaap]

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.

Actually, the AZ bill, if passed, would require that valid birth certificates be rejected as being inadequate. The bill requires that only some valid birth certificates be accepted. That's the problem.