Birther Bill about to pass in Arizona

[spidey07]

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

Nothing. The People are proud to donate money to a free state fighting tyranny.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

nothing

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing. The People are proud to donate money to a free state fighting tyranny.

Why would anyone have to donate any money? The state pays the salary of their workers if they sit on their butts or take a case. Counting costs was always stupid anyway.

 

[Linflas]

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.

Where is it challenging another state? Presidential candidates are not "certified native born" by their home state for an election. All Arizona is doing here is asking that any candidate running for president show documentation supporting their claim that they are native born as required by the US Constitution before they will place their name on the ballot. As long as they equally enforce that provision on every candidate on the ballot I don't see that it will be said to be in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Where is it challenging another state? Presidential candidates are not "certified native born" by their home state for an election. All Arizona is doing here is asking that any candidate running for president show documentation supporting their claim that they are native born as required by the US Constitution before they will place their name on the ballot. As long as they equally enforce that provision on every candidate on the ballot I don't see that it will be said to be in violation of the Constitution.

The problem isn't equal application within a states borders but that they can effectively determine what another has to do in order for a candidate to be recognized in all 50.

While I've quoted the text which shows a long form isn't required, suppose they did write it that way? If they apply it to all 50 states then your argument says it's valid. Then any candidate who doesn't live in a state which issues a raised seal birth certificate would either have to change it's laws or the candidate be deprived of the opportunity to be on a ballot.

Let's take this one step further. Suppose that two states construct laws which have contradictory requirements? Then no matter what there is an exclusion which cannot be resolved.

That's why this law will be struck down and not because the merit of the legislation itself. The precedent set would be an invitation to chaos to make the election unworkable.

Personally I think that evidence for qualification should be a requirement, but at the federal level where the standards would be uniform for all parties in all states.

 

[boomerang]

Doh!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

ROFL! The lunacy of the far right knows no boundries! Spidey you should move to Arizona, it's definately your kind of state

"A free state fighting tyranny":awe:

 

[jonks]

The problem isn't equal application within a states borders but that they can effectively determine what another has to do in order for a candidate to be recognized in all 50.

While I've quoted the text which shows a long form isn't required, suppose they did write it that way? If they apply it to all 50 states then your argument says it's valid. Then any candidate who doesn't live in a state which issues a raised seal birth certificate would either have to change it's laws or the candidate be deprived of the opportunity to be on a ballot.

Let's take this one step further. Suppose that two states construct laws which have contradictory requirements? Then no matter what there is an exclusion which cannot be resolved.

That's why this law will be struck down and not because the merit of the legislation itself. The precedent set would be an invitation to chaos to make the election unworkable.

Personally I think that evidence for qualification should be a requirement, but at the federal level where the standards would be uniform for all parties in all states.

I believe states have some latitude with setting requirements for candidates for federal office to appear on their ballot, i.e. signature requirements. A provision that said "Presidential candidates must establish natural born citizenship" might not be an issue if they didn't specifically exlude official birth certificates as issued by the candidate's state of birth.

 

[HomerJS]

Where is it challenging another state? Presidential candidates are not "certified native born" by their home state for an election. All Arizona is doing here is asking that any candidate running for president show documentation supporting their claim that they are native born as required by the US Constitution before they will place their name on the ballot. As long as they equally enforce that provision on every candidate on the ballot I don't see that it will be said to be in violation of the Constitution.

Hawaii already did that but Arizona is crying that's not good enough for us. Next they will want pictures of his head coming out of a vagina, followed by film of him being carried out of ths hospital. Make sure you get the name of the hospital in the frame.

 

[her209]

Hawaii already did that but Arizona is crying that's not good enough for us. Next they will want pictures of his head coming out of a vagina, followed by film of him being carried out of ths hospital. Make sure you get the name of the hospital in the frame.

Don't forget to interview the doctors and nurses involved with the delivery. Preferably, The Office mockumentary style.

 

[OrByte]

Hawaii already did that but Arizona is crying that's not good enough for us. Next they will want pictures of his head coming out of a vagina, followed by film of him being carried out of ths hospital. Make sure you get the name of the hospital in the frame.

Nah.... Arizona will just settle for a pic of some old white nurse lady holding a pair of scissors to baby Obama's wee wee...

oh that settle's it...he's A-MERICAN for SURE!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Proof of citizenship? Clearly you jest?

NO he is serious . He believes this is about Obama . Actually I thought this was manditory along long time ago . It should have been

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Nah.... Arizona will just settle for a pic of some old white nurse lady holding a pair of scissors to baby Obama's wee wee...

oh that settle's it...he's A-MERICAN for SURE!

Yes, we certainly don't want any nasty uncircumsized penises in the white house

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nah.... Arizona will just settle for a pic of some old white nurse lady holding a pair of scissors to baby Obama's wee wee...

oh that settle's it...he's A-MERICAN for SURE!

He is a us citizen for sure . An American I think not. Many citizen are not Americans

 

[JimW1949]

I am not sure I understand how this would work. If Arizona considers a certain Presidential candidate to be illegal and is therefore not entitled to run for office, then I am assuming that candidate will be left off the ballot in Arizona.

If that is the case, then what happens if someone "writes in" that candidates name? Does the State of Arizona not count that vote? Furthermore, I do not understand how one State could deny their citizens the right to vote for a candidate the other 49 States agree is eligible to run. That makes no logical sense to me.

 

[CallMeJoe]

From Article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"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."

The Congress has standing to determine if the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii is a sufficient proof of Barack Obama's status as a natural born Citizen, and to specify what, if any, additional proofs may be required; the State of Arizona lacks such standing.

At least, according to We the People of the United States...

 

[CallMeJoe]

He is a us citizen for sure . An American I think not. Many citizen are not Americans

I wondered if there were anyone more cognitively challenged than the Birthers; I now have my answer.

 

[sandorski]

From Article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"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."

The Congress has standing to determine if the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii is a sufficient proof of Barack Obama's status as a natural born Citizen, and to specify what, if any, additional proofs may be required; the State of Arizona lacks such standing.

At least, according to We the People of the United States...

That's the crux of the issue. How can a State rule on what makes a Citizen, when Citizenship is not their Jurisdiction to determine?

 

[jonks]

That's the crux of the issue. How can a State rule on what makes a Citizen, when Citizenship is not their Jurisdiction to determine?

Even better, how can McCain get on the ballot there when he can't establish he is a natural born citizen since such an issue has never been legally decided?