Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?
Stop talking out of your ass you're trying to camouflage the bullshit with your own shit.
According to the article from an Arizona newspaper, the bill just passed will not allow Arizonan's born after 1997 to submit their own states Arizona birth certificate to their own state to run for President because Arizona doesn't issue "long form" birth certificates.
Is that true or not?
Don't worry, I can understand why you would feel the need to get defensive, offensive, and insulting. After being shown how stupid the poor wording of the law makes the bill, one you appear to be so personally invested in, look like it was written by amateurs.
>>>>
Don't let the fact that obama was born before 1997 stop you continue on liberal. Not concerned with anyone else unless they are planning to run for president.
Don't let the fact that obama was born before 1997 stop you continue on liberal. Not concerned with anyone else unless they are planning to run for president.
Not the point.
The point is that the Arizona Republic, which I believe is one of the major newspapers in the State of Arizona is reporting that the Arizona Legislature is reporting that the Arizona Legislature wrote a law that says means that in 2032 the State of Arizona will not accept birth certificates issued by - well - the State of Arizona.
>>>>
That is the point but do continue.
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"?
Not the point.
The point is that the Arizona Republic, which I believe is one of the major newspapers in the State of Arizona is reporting that the Arizona Legislature is reporting that the Arizona Legislature wrote a law that says means that in 2032 the State of Arizona will not accept birth certificates issued by - well - the State of Arizona.
>>>>
That is the point but do continue.
The point I made was that the law passed by Arizona effectively bars those born in Arizona from running for President because their own state is reported as not issuing the type of birth certificate that is required under that States law.
You don't have an issue with that?
>>>>
According to the article from an Arizona newspaper, the bill just passed will not allow Arizonan's born after 1997 to submit their own states Arizona birth certificate to their own state to run for President because Arizona doesn't issue "long form" birth certificates.
Is that true or not?
Don't worry, I can understand why you would feel the need to get defensive, offensive, and insulting. After being shown how stupid the poor wording of the law makes the bill, one you appear to be so personally invested in, look like it was written by amateurs.
>>>>
Don't let the fact that obama was born before 1997 stop you continue on liberal. Not concerned with anyone else unless they are planning to run for president.
So you have no issue with a law in Arizona that will effectively bar someone born in Arizona from running for President in the State they were born in?
Gotcha.
>>>>
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.
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.
If the short form of the BC is an authorized birth certificate for the State of Hawaii, AZ has no authority to require a long form. (That's the Full Faith and Credit part).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"?
no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
If the short form of the BC is an authorized birth certificate for the State of Hawaii, AZ has no authority to require a long form. (That's the Full Faith and Credit part).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"?
no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
Do you honestly believe that this law won't be found unconstitutional or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
If the short form of the BC is an authorized birth certificate for the State of Hawaii, AZ has no authority to require a long form. (That's the Full Faith and Credit part).no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
Do you honestly believe that this law won't be found unconstitutional or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Hawaii still has and still issue the long form BC.
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"?
no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
If the short form of the BC is an authorized birth certificate for the State of Hawaii, AZ has no authority to require a long form. (That's the Full Faith and Credit part).
Do you honestly believe that this law won't be found unconstitutional or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Hawaii still has and still issue the long form BC.
So? The short for is an authorized BC by the state of Hawaii. AZ has ZERO authority to regulate what they issue.
You also have not addressed US Term Limits vs Thorton.
So? The short for is an authorized BC by the state of Hawaii. AZ has ZERO authority to regulate what they issue.
You also have not addressed US Term Limits vs Thorton
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"?
no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
Not the issue, the Constitutional issue arises if Arizona rejects Hawaii's short from birth certificate issued as a public record under the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV Section 1) of the United States Constitution unless exempted to do so by the United States Congress as required by that same section.
>>>>
no one has said Arizona will not accept Hawaii's long form BC try again.
Not the issue, the Constitutional issue arises if Arizona rejects Hawaii's short from birth certificate issued as a public record under the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV Section 1) of the United States Constitution unless exempted to do so by the United States Congress as required by that same section.
>>>>
it's the only issue until you dream something else up.
Brief summary and link and I will look at it. I am not chasing down something just because you said to do it.
Brief summary and link and I will look at it. I am not chasing down something just because you said to do it.
Already did..post number 790 (not that long ago)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...l-eligibility-bill-21-9-a-20.html#post3541134
In November 1966, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was elected from a District in New York to serve in the United States House of Representatives for the 90th Congress. Allegations that he had engaged in serious misconduct while serving as a committee chairman during the 89th Congress led to the appointment of a Select Committee to determine his eligibility to take his seat. That Committee found that Powell met the age, citizenship, and residency requirements set forth in Art. I, §2, cl. 2. The Committee also found, however, that Powell had wrongfully diverted House funds for the use of others and himself and had made false reports on expenditures of foreign currency. Based on those findings, the House after debate adopted House Resolution 278, excluding Powell from membership in the House, and declared his seat vacant. See 395 U. S., at 489-493.
Not the issue, the Constitutional issue arises if Arizona rejects Hawaii's short from birth certificate issued as a public record under the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV Section 1) of the United States Constitution unless exempted to do so by the United States Congress as required by that same section.
>>>>
it's the only issue until you dream something else up.
It the issue that will torpedo the law and render it void. I've suggested multiple times how the law could have been written in a Constitutional manner and achieved the same result.
>>>>
