Birther Bill about to pass in Arizona

[HomerJS]

More embarassment for the GOP. The bat-shit crazy wing of the Republican party about to score a victory with the passage of this birther bill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/us-arizona-birther-idUSTRE73E4DQ20110415

Maybe more moderate members of the GOP need to practice the advice given to moderate Muslims, speak out against the radicals in your group.

Not sure this would standup constitutionally. Arizona not recognizing a legal document of another state because they don't like it. It would be like Colorado not recognizing drivers licenses from Florida because their license doesn't include eye color.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Not sure this would standup constitutionally.

Proof of citizenship? Clearly you jest?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

More embarassment for the GOP. The bat-shit crazy wing of the Republican party about to score a victory with the passage of this birther bill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/us-arizona-birther-idUSTRE73E4DQ20110415

Maybe more moderate members of the GOP need to practice the advice given to moderate Muslims, speak out against the radicals in your group.

Not sure this would standup constitutionally. Arizona not recognizing a legal document of another state because they don't like it. It would be like Colorado not recognizing drivers licenses from Florida because their license doesn't include eye color.

You didn't even read the bill did you? As it's written Obama will have no problems being on the ballot because he has the certificate and documentation other than the raised seal birth certificate is acceptable.

 

[fskimospy]

Proof of citizenship? Clearly you jest?

No, their requirements for what constitutes proof of citizenship.

As has been noted in other news outlets, 'LOL circumcision records'.

State issued, official 'short form' certificate of live birth? NOT OKAY.

Record of getting your dick cut in a bizarre religious ritual? GREAT.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, their requirements for what constitutes proof of citizenship.

As has been noted in other news outlets, 'LOL circumcision records'.

State issued, official 'short form' certificate of live birth? NOT OKAY.

Record of getting your dick cut in a bizarre religious ritual? GREAT.

You didn't read it either.

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't read it either.

I sure did. Please point out the relevant portion of the bill that supports what you wrote. I can point out the parts that invalidate his certificate of live birth. (which of course was the whole point)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I sure did. Please point out the relevant portion of the bill that supports what you wrote. I can point out the parts that invalidate his certificate of live birth. (which of course was the whole point)

IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECEIVES ANY DOCUMENTS IN PLACE OF A LONG
2 FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1 AND CANNOT
3 DETERMINE IF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN
4 ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF
5 STATE MAY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OR HOLD
6 HEARINGS AND SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

So the Sec of State submits the documentation for forensic examination, that is to see if the documents are forged.

IF THE CANDIDATE
11 AND NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT COMMITTEE SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO
12 THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, BUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE BELIEVES
13 THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET
14 THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL
15 NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE.

Note that the burden is on the Sec of State to meet the preponderance of evidence to disqualification. It's going to be a hard sell to claim that the government of a state providing documentation and vouching for it isn't valid. Saying "Obama must be from Kenya" isn't contradicting evidence in any way.

What this bill does is pander to the Birthers while allowing everything to proceed along as it has.

 

[Turin39789]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

thought I had full text, looking moar

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.pdf

Yep, it says right there that if he doesn't have his long form then he can't run, right?

People really need to think when they read.

 

[Turin39789]

So the Sec of State submits the documentation for forensic examination, that is to see if the documents are forged.



Note that the burden is on the Sec of State to meet the preponderance of evidence to disqualification. It's going to be a hard sell to claim that the government of a state providing documentation and vouching for it isn't valid. Saying "Obama must be from Kenya" isn't contradicting evidence in any way.

What this bill does is pander to the Birthers while allowing everything to proceed along as it has.

It sounds like the burden on the SoS is to believe or not believe the evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

So the Sec of State submits the documentation for forensic examination, that is to see if the documents are forged.

Not really, the committee checks to see if A.) they can determine eligibility, or B.) see if they are forged.

Note that the burden is on the Sec of State to meet the preponderance of evidence to disqualification. It's going to be a hard sell to claim that the government of a state providing documentation and vouching for it isn't valid. Saying "Obama must be from Kenya" isn't contradicting evidence in any way.

What this bill does is pander to the Birthers while allowing everything to proceed along as it has.

So what you're saying is that while this bill explicitly declares Obama's documentation to be invalid, the fact that the Secretary of State can in their own judgment decide otherwise means that this bill doesn't actually exclude Obama. That's wishful thinking.

The eligibility of presidential candidates should not be subject to the whims of state elected officials, and both HomerJS and I were completely correct in our characterization of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

thought I had full text, looking moar

Here you go.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

 

[Linflas]

More embarassment for the GOP. The bat-shit crazy wing of the Republican party about to score a victory with the passage of this birther bill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/15/us-arizona-birther-idUSTRE73E4DQ20110415

Maybe more moderate members of the GOP need to practice the advice given to moderate Muslims, speak out against the radicals in your group.

Not sure this would standup constitutionally. Arizona not recognizing a legal document of another state because they don't like it. It would be like Colorado not recognizing drivers licenses from Florida because their license doesn't include eye color.

How is it any less constitutional than states setting up all sorts of hurdles for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat to get on the ballot for a Presidential election?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not really, the committee checks to see if A.) they can determine eligibility, or B.) see if they are forged.




So what you're saying is that while this bill explicitly declares Obama's documentation to be invalid, the fact that the Secretary of State can in their own judgment decide otherwise means that this bill doesn't actually exclude Obama. That's wishful thinking.

The eligibility of presidential candidates should not be subject to the whims of state elected officials, and both HomerJS and I were completely correct in our characterization of it.

It will ultimately fail a Constitutional test, but the "whim" is the preponderance of evidence. I suppose that the "whim" of a court could be to imprison you for life for wearing boots. The "whim" of the FBI to shoot you in the street.

The language has specific meaning. You don't like this bill and neither do I, but your emotions are overruling your analysis.

 

[fskimospy]

It will ultimately fail a Constitutional test, but the "whim" is the preponderance of evidence. I suppose that the "whim" of a court could be to imprison you for life for wearing boots. The "whim" of the FBI to shoot you in the street.

The language has specific meaning. You don't like this bill and neither do I, but your emotions are overruling your analysis.

I'm not emotional about this bill in the slightest, I think it's hilarious. (especially the circumcision part) I'm not worried in the slightest that Obama would be excluded from the Arizona ballot, but that is because this bill will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Certainly you should be able to tell the difference between the whims of elected partisan officials and nonpartisan entities such as FBI agents and judges.

 

[spidey07]

That state is kicking so much ass it's simply amazing. Also 13 other states are considering similar measures. If all the states banded together, maybe "unite", Obama and holder wouldn't have enough time to sue all of them at once.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It sounds like the burden on the SoS is to believe or not believe the evidence.

Nope. Brush up on law.

 

[fskimospy]

That state is kicking so much ass it's simply amazing. Also 13 other states are considering similar measures. If all the states banded together, maybe "unite", Obama and holder wouldn't have enough time to sue all of them at once.

Yeah they would, and practically Obama would just push for an injunction to be put on them all, which could happen in a matter of days if it were important enough (as a presidential election is).

I understand Spidey, you know you can't beat him in a real election, so you're trying to stack the deck. I won't work, and The American People are going to speak.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Certainly you should be able to tell the difference between the whims of elected partisan officials and nonpartisan entities such as FBI agents and judges.

I'm all too familiar with the vagaries of politics. I also know that if the SOS rejected Obama's documentation, a judge would haul his ass in front of the bench. You don't think they know that too? If the intent was to exclude Obama, then say that the long form was the ONLY option.

I trust government less than you do about most things, but thinking that AZ can ignore another states evidence because it's Obama is tin foil territory. It sounds like "Obama want's to turn us into communists" talk.

It's called pandering, an old tradition.

 

[HomerJS]

How is it any less constitutional than states setting up all sorts of hurdles for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat to get on the ballot for a Presidential election?

It's not setting up an additional requirment, it challenging another states definition of a national legal requirement.

Federal govt requires presidential candidates be natural born citizens. State of Hawaii provides legal document backing up claim. Arizona decides they won't recognize that legal document.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not setting up an additional requirment, it challenging another states definition of a national legal requirement.

Federal govt requires presidential candidates be natural born citizens. State of Hawaii provides legal document backing up claim. Arizona decides they won't recognize that legal document.

The reason this will be struck down is not because AZ won't let Obama run but for the same reason the government struck down the immigration law. It is not up to the states to determine who can run due restrictive policies placed on Federal elections.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm all too familiar with the vagaries of politics. I also know that if the SOS rejected Obama's documentation, a judge would haul his ass in front of the bench. You don't think they know that too? If the intent was to exclude Obama, then say that the long form was the ONLY option.

I trust government less than you do about most things, but thinking that AZ can ignore another states evidence because it's Obama is tin foil territory. It sounds like "Obama want's to turn us into communists" talk.

It's called pandering, an old tradition.

I will agree that this bill is primarily about pandering, I also believe it is about embarrassing Obama and forcing him to accede to birther demands for a long form certificate. It's not about winning the legal battle to keep him off the ballot, but the political battle.

Either way, this bill is likely to be struck down long before the election. I guess that's why Arizona is referred to as the 'meth lab of democracy'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I will agree that this bill is primarily about pandering, I also believe it is about embarrassing Obama and forcing him to accede to birther demands for a long form certificate. It's not about winning the legal battle to keep him off the ballot, but the political battle.

Either way, this bill is likely to be struck down long before the election. I guess that's why Arizona is referred to as the 'meth lab of democracy'.

Yep, this discussion is rather academic because it can't possibly stand up. Homer is correct that the SCOTUS isn't going to let one state effectively set the standards of another in for a Federal election.

 

[spidey07]

Perfectly said elsewhere.

Obama is a citizen who was born in Hawaii. Therefore he will have absolutely no problem providing all of the documentation that every other candidate has to provide. Correct? The law is just an attempt to make sure that all candidates are qualified to hold the office. It can’t be targeted at Obama since Obama was born in Hawaii and has a birth certificate.

So, it seems to me that anyone who thinks this law is aimed at Obama, in any way, is a birther.

And, if someone opposes this law because they think it’s aimed at Obama then they are not only a birther, they are also a traitor because they want our nation to be run by someone who is Constitutionally ineligible.

 

[her209]

Hahaha... how much is this charade going to cost Arizona to defend in the courts?