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

[gekaap]

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

Which violates the constitution.

 

[gekaap]

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

And if it doesn't exist? Then the statute requires that the candidate be both baptized and circumcised. Wait, did you say baptized? That's a violation of the constitution too. It places a religious test as a qualification.

 

[The T]

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.

14th Amendment has ZERO to DO with this issue...Clown...

 

[gekaap]

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.

In case you haven't read it, the FF&C clause gives Congress regulatory powers. The federal DOMA makes it legal for a state to disrecognize a marriage from another state that does not meet its own definitions of marriage.

 

[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.

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

No. If they had any cajones, and that is what they meant, they would be suing the state of Hawaii, the former governor of Hawaii, and Obama for fraud. Instead they prefer to attack states rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Your definition of the term "valid" has no connection with objective reality. The state of AZ determines what "valid" means, not a gang of clueless Obama worshiping drones.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You can't marry a dog because it cannot consent.

How sad to discover you are still an idiot.

 

[gekaap]

14th Amendment has ZERO to DO with this issue...Clown...

Yes it does. The 14th amendment is what dictates all people born in the US are citizens at birth. Court decisions regarding the meaning of the 14th amendment have established clear precedents about what makes a person a natural born citizen. That means that the 14th amendment has alot to do with what WorldWatcher and I were talking about, which is the definition of "natural born citizen."

 

[bripat9643]

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

And if it doesn't exist? Then the statute requires that the candidate be both baptized and circumcised. Wait, did you say baptized? That's a violation of the constitution too. It places a religious test as a qualification.

It requires no such thing. it simply lists for forms of proof that are acceptable. The U.S. State Department will often accept a baptismal certificate in place of a valid birth certificate on visa applications. Is that a violation of the Constitution? If so, there are millions of foreigners in this country who need to be kicked out.

 

[bripat9643]

14th Amendment has ZERO to DO with this issue...Clown...

Yes it does. The 14th amendment is what dictates all people born in the US are citizens at birth. Court decisions regarding the meaning of the 14th amendment have established clear precedents about what makes a person a natural born citizen. That means that the 14th amendment has alot to do with what WorldWatcher and I were talking about, which is the definition of "natural born citizen."

The term "natural born" is in the original draft of the Constitution. Whether you are a citizen or not is not the issue. You can be a citizen and still not be eligible to be the president. The 14th Amendment has no relevance. The meaning "natural born" had when the Constitution was signed is the only language that is relevant.

 

[gekaap]

Your definition of the term "valid" has no connection with objective reality. The state of AZ determines what "valid" means, not a gang of clueless Obama worshiping drones.

Actually, the constitution demands that what Hawaii deems as a valid Hawaiian state record must be recognized by all states other as a valid record. BTW, I don't worship Obama. As a matter of fact, I don't like him at all. I'm dying to see a great candidate come forward to defeat Obama in 2012. I'm just not blinded with partisan hackery and hatred that I need to fabricate lies and disregard the constitution in order to speak out against him as President.

 

[The T]

14th Amendment has ZERO to DO with this issue...Clown...

Yes it does. The 14th amendment is what dictates all people born in the US are citizens at birth. Court decisions regarding the meaning of the 14th amendment have established clear precedents about what makes a person a natural born citizen. That means that the 14th amendment has alot to do with what WorldWatcher and I were talking about, which is the definition of "natural born citizen."

Yeah Nevermind...DUMBFUCK

ARTICLE 2 U.S. Constitution

 

[bripat9643]

Your definition of the term "valid" has no connection with objective reality. The state of AZ determines what "valid" means, not a gang of clueless Obama worshiping drones.

Actually, the constitution demands that what Hawaii deems as a valid Hawaiian state record must be recognized by all states other as a valid record.

No it doesn't. The constitution allows each state to set its own election laws, including any requirements imposed to run for office. furthermore, the AZ law says nothing about whether HI documents are "valid" in any objective sense. It only states what AZ requires to be an eligible candidate.

BTW, I don't worship Obama. As a matter of fact, I don't like him at all. I'm dying to see a great candidate come forward to defeat Obama in 2012. I'm just not blinded with partisan hackery and hatred that I need to fabricate lies and disregard the constitution in order to speak out against him as President.

Right. Unfortunately Stalin and Pol Pot won't be on the ballot.

 

[gekaap]

The term "natural born" is in the original draft of the Constitution. Whether you are a citizen or not is not the issue. You can be a citizen and still not be eligible to be the president. The 14th Amendment has no relevance. The meaning "natural born" had when the Constitution was signed is the only language that is relevant.

You are obviously are ignorant about what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, and you apparently ignored my earlier explanation. The Supreme Court has addressed "natural born citizenship" in cases that first arose regarding the 14th amendment's declaration that all people born in the US are citizens. What happened is that the court had to determine whether the 14th amendment created new classes of citizenship, or whether it was operating within already established terms. In order to make such a determination, the Court referenced the constitution's language regarding qualifications for the Presidency. This made it clear to the court that from its inception, the constitution always considered it possible for people to gain citizenship at birth. The court then had to consider what the constitution meant by "natural born citizen" and in doing so the Court ultimately found that the rules under the Common Law of England continued to apply, because no law, constitutional or otherwise, had ever been passed regarding citizenship to establish any different rule. In other words, the constitution understood natural born citizenship to operate as per the rules that were in effect over the colonies up to the point of the constitution being adopted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

*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...

Actually I don't, the Constitution gives Congress the power and responsibility and has since it's final ratification on June 21st, 1788

Constitution of the United States
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.​

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

Yes, the Constitution is Okee Doakee with me.

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

Let's take a look...

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

The 9th Amendment refers to the rights of people, governments don't have rights, people have rights. So the 9th doesn't apply.

Now for the 10th Amendment. Please note that only those powers not delegated to the United States are retained by the States. The power to determine the "effect thereof" of public records between the various States is specifically delegated to the Congress of the United States via Article IV Section 1. Since it's delegted to the United States the Arizona legislature is not empowered to reject public birth records from another State. Well that is unless you can site the section of the United States Code that one State need not honor the public birth record of another State.

Do you have that section of the USC handy?


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


Thomas, you should try to be more knowledgeable about the Constitution before you site it.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

It requires no such thing. it simply lists for forms of proof that are acceptable. The U.S. State Department will often accept a baptismal certificate in place of a valid birth certificate on visa applications. Is that a violation of the Constitution? If so, there are millions of foreigners in this country who need to be kicked out.

No, it's not a violation of the constitution because the constitution does not prohibit the government from using religious based records for visa applications. Furthermore, such people have options, and choose to use baptismal records.

However, the constitution explicitly forbids any religious test from being applied to a person in order to hold the office of President of the United States. The AZ law would seem to present such a test. The law refuses to honor certain types of birth records from other states. Candidates who come from states whose records are not honored by AZ would then be explicitly required by the statute to present a baptismal record. This then creates the situation that all people from the many states who do not issue the restrictive class of records that AZ demands must have been baptized. Any person who is from one of those states, and who was not baptized is deemed by the AZ law as ineligible to the Presidency. Therefore, the law is additionally unconstitutional because it requires a religious test to be applied.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

1. The fuss about Full Faith and Credit is why Congress passed DOMA. There was the realization that if Same-sex Marriage became a reality in Hawaii, that other States would be required to recognize it under the Constitution. So DOMA was passed as an exercise of Congressional authority under Article IV Section 1 to exempt States from having to honor those Civil Marriages.

2. I think that you will find that States do recognize Common Law marriages from other States as does the Federal government. You may not enter into a Common Law marriage in a certain State, but it recognizes ones entered into in other States.



>>>>

 

[gekaap]

No it doesn't. The constitution allows each state to set its own election laws, including any requirements imposed to run for office.

Wrong. The constitution allows each state to choose its own elections. But it does not give the states the authority to adopt for itself laws that establish rules by which the state can refuse to honor the records of another state.

furthermore, the AZ law says nothing about whether HI documents are "valid" in any objective sense. It only states what AZ requires to be an eligible candidate.

You're the one who said that this was about what AZ considers "valid."

 

[gekaap]

Yeah Nevermind...DUMBFUCK

ARTICLE 2 U.S. Constitution

Nevermind what? The fact that you're wrong.

 

[Intense]

Arizona song by Paul Shanklin

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goMb-pf6pyM&NR=1]YouTube - Arizona song by Paul Shanklin[/ame]