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

[gekaap]

Funny no one has ever challenged the supposed law that you speak of. Do you have the text?

You do realize that the law I'm speaking of is the constitution, right?

OK fine do you have any witnesses to obama's birth to attest that he was born in Hawaii? Sworn affidavit's?

There is no constitutional requirement that there be any witnesses or affidavits. Demanding such would be adding a qualification for the Presidency that is beyond that which the constitution requires.

If not the Long form BC is the only way to verify the short form.

The constitution does not make having a birth certificate a qualification for the Presidency. The state does not have the power to even worry itself with whether the birth certificate is verifiable. It is up to the electoral college to certify the qualifications of a person to be President. And at that, they do so AFTER the person has been elected President. This is what the constitution demands.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Funny no one has ever challenged the supposed law that you speak of. Do you have the text?

You do realize that the law I'm speaking of is the constitution, right?

OK fine do you have any witnesses to obama's birth to attest that he was born in Hawaii? Sworn affidavit's?

There is no constitutional requirement that there be any witnesses or affidavits. Demanding such would be adding a qualification for the Presidency that is beyond that which the constitution requires.

If not the Long form BC is the only way to verify the short form.

The constitution does not make having a birth certificate a qualification for the Presidency. The state does not have the power to even worry itself with whether the birth certificate is verifiable. It is up to the electoral college to certify the qualifications of a person to be President. And at that, they do so AFTER the person has been elected President. This is what the constitution demands.

You do realize that the law I'm speaking of is the constitution, right?

Text please?

There is no constitutional requirement that there be any witnesses or affidavits. Demanding such would be adding a qualification for the Presidency that is beyond that which the constitution requires.

OK are there any witnesses to his birth? That will attest that they were there on the day of his birth?

The constitution does not make having a birth certificate a qualification for the Presidency. The state does not have the power to even worry itself with whether the birth certificate is verifiable. It is up to the electoral college to certify the qualifications of a person to be President. And at that, they do so AFTER the person has been elected President. This is what the constitution demands

Witneses are needed do you have any? Maybe we can get hawaii to cook up a BC for castro and let him be president of the U.S. You would love that wouldn't you?

 

[Toro]

As I said before, this law has some very poor wording and doesn't appear to be well thought out.>>>>

Many of these birfer laws are not well thought out. For example, birfer bills introduced in Missouri and Nebraska were originally worded such that the bill would have disqualified Presidential candidates from Missouri and Nebraska because, if I understand correctly, neither produce the necessary long-form birth certificates as described in the bills. Yet both required a long form to be on the ballot.

It's funny when legislators say "It's not targeted at President Obama," when clearly they are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As I said before, this law has some very poor wording and doesn't appear to be well thought out.>>>>

Many of these birfer laws are not well thought out. For example, birfer bills introduced in Missouri and Nebraska were originally worded such that the bill would have disqualified Presidential candidates from Missouri and Nebraska because, if I understand correctly, neither produce the necessary long-form birth certificates as described in the bills. Yet both required a long form to be on the ballot.

It's funny when legislators say "It's not targeted at President Obama," when clearly they are.

Neither produced? but were they asked to produce?

 

[Toro]

As I said before, this law has some very poor wording and doesn't appear to be well thought out.>>>>

Many of these birfer laws are not well thought out. For example, birfer bills introduced in Missouri and Nebraska were originally worded such that the bill would have disqualified Presidential candidates from Missouri and Nebraska because, if I understand correctly, neither produce the necessary long-form birth certificates as described in the bills. Yet both required a long form to be on the ballot.

It's funny when legislators say "It's not targeted at President Obama," when clearly they are.

Neither produced? but were they asked to produce?

At the time when the original bills were drafted, the states did not produce the forms required in the bill, as I understand it. To make candidates for those states eligible, the states would have to start producing new birth certificates which they are not producing now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Many of these birfer laws are not well thought out. For example, birfer bills introduced in Missouri and Nebraska were originally worded such that the bill would have disqualified Presidential candidates from Missouri and Nebraska because, if I understand correctly, neither produce the necessary long-form birth certificates as described in the bills. Yet both required a long form to be on the ballot.

It's funny when legislators say "It's not targeted at President Obama," when clearly they are.

Neither produced? but were they asked to produce?

At the time when the original bills were drafted, the states did not produce the forms required in the bill, as I understand it. To make candidates for those states eligible, the states would have to start producing new birth certificates which they are not producing now.

If thats the case I agree that would be bull shit.

 

[Vast LWC]

How so, buddy?

Arizona is still going to require it of all future contenders, too include Obama in '12. And they rightfully should if they want to be put on a state ballot.

You lib's can't help yourselves but think that everything is an attack on your beloved annointed one failure of a president. What this bill will do is put to rest rumours once and for all. If it had been in place during the last election, and Arizona held up the validity of his birth, Obama's incompetent ass would be facing far less questioning of his status.

Quit playing the victim card lib's, and look at the bigger picture. I know you all are scrambling to defend a miserably failing president, but it's time to open up your minds.

Yo Jester, how's it hanging?

Let me put this another way:

Arizona has every right to ask for more verification as to the identity of presidential candidates.

However, the only avenue that they can take to do so, is through their appointed representatives in the Federal Government, as it states specifically in the Constitution.

The point of having elected representatives in the Federal Government is for just this reason: So you can make the voice of your people heard on a national level.

Because Hawaii has already affirmed Obama's citizen status, the Constitution strictly forbids Arizona to contradict that judgement. They just can't do it.

If every state had the ability to make their own requirements for a presidential candidate, then every state could just create qualifications that disqualified any candidate they didn't like. That is the reason Article IV, sections 1 and 2 exist in the first place.

Arizona is, once again, attempting to exceed it's authority, and to do so is unconstitutional and illegal.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Yes, true, interpretation of the Constitution is the jurisdiction of the courts, but actual power to verify that someone is a citizen is granted to the state of their birth. As far as I know, a judge does not sign my birth certificate.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Yes, yes they are, I'm glad we agree.

And, under the Constitution, Arizona simply does not have the right to do that.

 

[Vast LWC]

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 is not giving the federal congress anything. That particular power is specifically granted in the Constitution.

Or do you believe we should only abide by the parts of the Constitution you happen to agree with?

 

[Vast LWC]

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 the Constitutional world, the answer is "yes". Which is why the anti-gay-marriage lobby pushed so hard for a Constitutional amendment.

Liability, you should know better. Are you proposing that we should ignore not only the Constitution, but the original intent of the founders that states should not be able to quash the sovereign rights of other states?

 

[Vast LWC]

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

How sad to discover you are still an idiot.

According to that theory I don't have to pay taxes.

If you didn't have to pay taxes, the nation wouldn't have to provide anything for you, like roads, or the protections afforded to every citizen by the state.

So, if you attempt to drive on a US road, paid for by taxpayer money, you theoretically could be removed.

 

[Vast LWC]

At the time when the original bills were drafted, the states did not produce the forms required in the bill, as I understand it. To make candidates for those states eligible, the states would have to start producing new birth certificates which they are not producing now.

Well my suggestion is this:

Every other state should draft legislation stating that if a certain portion of the state you come from is too close to the Mexican Border, then you can't run for President.

After all, being that close to the border brings their citizenship status into doubt.

That would stop any future candidates not only from Arizona, but from Texas as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How so, buddy?

Arizona is still going to require it of all future contenders, too include Obama in '12. And they rightfully should if they want to be put on a state ballot.

You lib's can't help yourselves but think that everything is an attack on your beloved annointed one failure of a president. What this bill will do is put to rest rumours once and for all. If it had been in place during the last election, and Arizona held up the validity of his birth, Obama's incompetent ass would be facing far less questioning of his status.

Quit playing the victim card lib's, and look at the bigger picture. I know you all are scrambling to defend a miserably failing president, but it's time to open up your minds.

Yo Jester, how's it hanging?

Let me put this another way:

Arizona has every right to ask for more verification as to the identity of presidential candidates.

However, the only avenue that they can take to do so, is through their appointed representatives in the Federal Government, as it states specifically in the Constitution.

The point of having elected representatives in the Federal Government is for just this reason: So you can make the voice of your people heard on a national level.

Because Hawaii has already affirmed Obama's citizen status, the Constitution strictly forbids Arizona to contradict that judgement. They just can't do it.

If every state had the ability to make their own requirements for a presidential candidate, then every state could just create qualifications that disqualified any candidate they didn't like. That is the reason Article IV, sections 1 and 2 exist in the first place.

Arizona is, once again, attempting to exceed it's authority, and to do so is unconstitutional and illegal.

Every state already has their own requirements for vetting a presidential candidate, Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Opinions aren't above the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 the Constitutional world, the answer is "yes". Which is why the anti-gay-marriage lobby pushed so hard for a Constitutional amendment.

Liability, you should know better. Are you proposing that we should ignore not only the Constitution, but the original intent of the founders that states should not be able to quash the sovereign rights of other states?

And exactly what would you be doing to arizona?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Yes, yes they are, I'm glad we agree.

And, under the Constitution, Arizona simply does not have the right to do that.

So it's unconstitutional to calla fraudulent document a fraud? Yes I think they do within their own state boundary's

 

[Vast LWC]

Every state already has their own requirements for vetting a presidential candidate, Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Opinions aren't above the law.

Arizona does not have jurisdiction over the citizenship status of the people of Hawaii. If Arizona wants to make this rule apply for IT'S OWN CITIZENS who run for president, then it has every right to, but Obama is not a citizen of Arizona, he is a citizen of Hawaii and of the United States.

 

[Vast LWC]

So it's unconstitutional to calla fraudulent document a fraud? Yes I think they do within their own state boundary's

A document is not considered fraudulent until it is judged to be so. Since the state of Hawaii has in fact judged said document to NOT be fraudulent, Arizona has no right to contradict said judgement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So it's unconstitutional to calla fraudulent document a fraud? Yes I think they do within their own state boundary's

A document is not considered fraudulent until it is judged to be so. Since the state of Hawaii has in fact judged said document to NOT be fraudulent, Arizona has no right to contradict said judgement.

I guess we'll have to wait and see when and if this goes to court.

Hawaii has in fact judged said document to NOT be fraudulent

And the state of hawaii is lying.

 

[Seawytch]

OMFG...this law is clearly unconstitutional. First you have US Term Limits vs Thornton and then there is "Full Faith and Credit". I thought Tea Baggers were supposed to be the "Constitutionalists"?