The Upcoming Arizona "Birther" Law...

[Whoozyerdaddy]

If this passes and it stands up to the Obama Legal Team's challenge ('cause there will be an instant lawsuit here), Obama and every other candidate for president would have to produce a legal, long-form birth certificate to be on the ballot.

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.

The game is afoot... and it's also being presented in Montana, Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania though it's not certain if those laws will pass their respective state legislatures.

So the obvious work around (assuming the laws get passed and hold up in court) is for the Dems to run an alternate candidate and have that candidate pass his electoral votes at the convention if he carries the state...

It's interesting how big this issue is becoming after it seemed to have died out a while back.



http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489

 

[UberNeuman]

Without clicking the link - World Nut Daily.....

 

[Aegeon]

The game is afoot... and it's also being presented in Montana, Georgia, Texas and Pennsylvania though it's not certain if those laws will pass their respective state legislatures.

So the obvious work around (assuming the laws get passed and hold up in court) is for the Dems to run an alternate candidate and have that candidate pass his electoral votes at the convention if he carries the state...

Since you appear confused, the bill as proposed is CLEARLY unconstitutional, or at least there isn't even a remote chance it would ultimately hold up in court.

To be clear, in Hawaii the short form certificate of birth is the ONLY official proof of birth that that State of Hawaii specifically uses now. The state doesn't really bother making sure it keeps other types of these records. MANY similar birth certificates which don't meet all the requirements specified in the law are the official records used in other states. The law would disfranchise a considerable number of naturally born US citizens from running for President. (Technically it would merely prevent them from appearing on that state's ballot, but that would still be viewed as an unacceptable and clearly could effectively create the same result with enough states copying such an effort.)

The part about dual citizenship is even more outrageous if anything. Many people in the US today hold dual citizenship of some type, which is often granted automatically by another country at birth rather than by the action of the individual in question. There is nothing in the US Constitution which would explicitly be an issue for someone having dual citizenship. (And really looking at the US Founding Father's intent, they clearly would not have expected or wanted the naturally born citizen provision to apply as a dis-qualifier to most of the situations that exist today involving dual citizenship if they had been aware of this future development at the time.) This proposed provision would disenfranchise a whole different group of people from the President as well through no fault of their own. It would also be viewed as infringing on what is the US Federal government responsibility regardless. At most you could reasonably propose a new federal law requiring anyone with dual citizenship to renounce non-US citizenship prior to taking their oath of office and this would be one provision which would presumably be upheld by the courts.

These proposals as written are either purely political posturing, or are being created by individuals who don't understand what federal laws and constitutional provisions actually are regarding this subject.

 

[nonlnear]

What we really need is a Constitutional amendment rejecting the natural born standard in favor of (say) twenty years of continuous American citizenship. Unfortunately due to the whole birther debacle, the Democrats might be uneasy about advancing such an amendment for fear of fueling the fire.

 

[her209]

Sounds a lot like Texas except replace with Arizona
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2121183

 

[drebo]

I don't understand why liberals have such a problem with people proving their citizenship.

You want welfare? Prove your citizenship. You want your kid to attend public school? Prove your citizenship. You want to not be deported? You guessed it: prove your citizenship. You want to run for office? Prove your eligability.

It's not hard to follow the rules. It's even easier to make sure that people do when those rules are applied unilaterally.

 

[Aegeon]

I You want to run for office? Prove your eligability.

It's not hard to follow the rules. It's even easier to make sure that people do when those rules are applied unilaterally.

The proposed law creates a standard well beyond what would be possibly justified and would disenfranchise MANY naturally born American citizens from running for the Presidency. (At absolute most you might be argue to argue in a lawsuit for more info in a case where you actually have real specific strong evidence someone is ineligible and there is something wrong with the state's basic birth certificate in the case, which is for legal purposes an identical meaning to a certificate of birth with is just an alternate phrasing of the same thing.)

The part about dual citizenship is not about enforcing the law, but making nonsense claims about the US Constitution.

We're talking about conservative extremists who are simply making up bogus laws without going through the proper federal channels or seeking a US Constitutional Amendment as would actually be proper.

As noted, in addition to all of these points, many view the entire requirement as no longer remotely relevant and entirely unnecessary at this point in the US's history, and think an Amendment should replace it would something much less restrictive if its necessary to keep some variant of this in at all. (I.E. someone who never lived in the US is not going to get elected President regardless of the rules.)

 

[Raghu]

I don't understand why liberals have such a problem with people proving their citizenship.

You want welfare? Prove your citizenship. You want your kid to attend public school? Prove your citizenship. You want to not be deported? You guessed it: prove your citizenship. You want to run for office? Prove your eligability.

It's not hard to follow the rules. It's even easier to make sure that people do when those rules are applied unilaterally.

Why shouldnt tax paying people expect to utilise public facilities like schools?

If you arent a citizen - you cant use the public roads either?

 

[trenchfoot]

Awwwww, the insecure, the bigoted, the isolationists, the white supremacists, the paranoid, the anachronists and on and on and on need their security blanket and their pacifier manifested into the law of the land. Koochie-koochie-koo....there, there now....everything will be allllll right. The grown-up's will take good care of you.

 

[Brigandier]

Awwwww, the insecure, the bigoted, the isolationists, the white supremacists, the paranoid, the anachronists and on and on and on need their security blanket and their pacifier manifested into the law of the land. Koochie-koochie-koo....there, there now....everything will be allllll right. The grown-up's will take good care of you.

Don't blame them, they're just out of their times.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Awwwww, the insecure, the bigoted, the isolationists, the white supremacists, the paranoid, the anachronists and on and on and on need their security blanket and their pacifier manifested into the law of the land. Koochie-koochie-koo....there, there now....everything will be allllll right. The grown-up's will take good care of you.

I think that's a lame response. It's clever and all in an insulting kind of way. But it really doesn't convey a position on the issue.

There are a half dozen states contemplating legislation to keep an obvious presidential candidate off their ballots. It's interesting.

 

[Kadarin]

IIRC there's nothing in the Constitution preventing dual citizenship, so that's out right there.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

any type of law that would require a president to have been born a us citizen is idiotic in the first place. maybe they should deal with that law instead. under that law, sarah palin or dan quayle would be eligible to be president but winston churchill wouldnt?#$%^&*(*

 

[IBMer]

Here is the problem with those laws. Because of the way things get upheld through state lines, Arizona has to accept the accepted method of proof of birth for Hawaii. If it wasn't for the defense of marriage law that Clinton passed, any gay marriage conducted in a state that allowed gay marriage would instantly have to be recognized by every other state, even if they had laws against it. The only thing that can change this is maybe a federal law or an amendment.

 

[nonlnear]

any type of law that would require a president to have been born a us citizen is idiotic in the first place.

It served a valid security concern when the country was formed, thus it was not idiotic in the first place. It serves no good purpose today.

Here is the problem with those laws. Because of the way things get upheld through state lines, Arizona has to accept the accepted method of proof of birth for Hawaii. If it wasn't for the defense of marriage law that Clinton passed, any gay marriage conducted in a state that allowed gay marriage would instantly have to be recognized by every other state, even if they had laws against it. The only thing that can change this is maybe a federal law or an amendment.

Even if the natural born requirement were removed via an amaendment, it would still be a very good thing if the federal government took over the administration of citizenship records from the states. USCIS manages immigration, but for many non-immigrant citizens their primary proof of citizenship is in a podunk county archives repository. It's insane really. The need for reform of citizenship records keeping is much bigger than the Presidential question.

 

[Red Dawn]

Cool, AZ just solidified it's place as Nutter Capital of America.

 

[episodic]

All I know is my mom, born in a rural area in 1934 had no problem getting her original birth certificate. If it is there - just get it for once and for all.

 

[IronWing]

Since I live in Arizona I need to get my butt in gear and get a citizen initiative going that would amend the state constitution. My amendment would be that if law makers enact legislation that is later ruled un-Constitutional under the federal Constitution as it exists at the time the law is passed then the legislators could be held personally liable for all legal fees and damages arising from the un-Constitutional law, liable for both the legal fees of those who successfully fight the law and the state's legal fees in defending it. As things stand now, our nutjob legislators can vote their every fart into law with no consequences to themselves.

 

[nyker96]

I don't care what anyone says, but da birthers are the best!!

 

[IBMer]

Even if the natural born requirement were removed via an amaendment, it would still be a very good thing if the federal government took over the administration of citizenship records from the states. USCIS manages immigration, but for many non-immigrant citizens their primary proof of citizenship is in a podunk county archives repository. It's insane really. The need for reform of citizenship records keeping is much bigger than the Presidential question.

As states get more and more computerized, its a lot easier to keep these records. I recently got a copy of my birth certificate for a passport in 5 days from Kansas City, Kansas. Reguardless of that, Hawaii has the certificate of live birth as proof of birth in the state. Every other single state is legally obligated to accept that as proof of birth, regardless if they make a law against it or not.

 

[nonlnear]

As states get more and more computerized, its a lot easier to keep these records. I recently got a copy of my birth certificate for a passport in 5 days from Kansas City, Kansas. Reguardless of that, Hawaii has the certificate of live birth as proof of birth in the state. Every other single state is legally obligated to accept that as proof of birth, regardless if they make a law against it or not.

There are some states that aren't modernizing nearly as quickly as one would think...

Even if they were modernizing, there are still good reasons to want a federally administered citizenship register. It's one of those things that didn't make sense in the 1700s but makes good sense today.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

wait birthers may be crazy but are people in this thread actually suggesting you should be able to be president if you were born out side the U.S. and its territories?

 

[her209]

wait birthers may be crazy but are people in this thread actually suggesting you should be able to be president if you were born out side the U.S. and its territories?

False dilemma. No one in this thread is suggesting this.

 

[nonlnear]

wait birthers may be crazy but are people in this thread actually suggesting you should be able to be president if you were born out side the U.S. and its territories?

I am suggesting that the law be changed to allow it, not that it should become common practice with the law as it is.

 

[trenchfoot]

I think that's a lame response. It's clever and all in an insulting kind of way. But it really doesn't convey a position on the issue.

There are a half dozen states contemplating legislation to keep an obvious presidential candidate off their ballots. It's interesting.

Yeah, after reading the other posts in this thread and then reviewing mine, I can see where you're coming from and agree my post can easily be viewed that way. I'll keep what you said in mind as I think you're spot on with your observation. I could have gotten the gist of my message across without mocking the folks I was referring to and without being condescending.

Hey, I grew up a little more. Thanks:thumbsup:

My position: I think a lot of what's driving the effort by the birthers with providing everything they need to feel "right" about Obama's qualifications, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports his eligibility, has to do more with them accepting the fact that he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if there was any doubt whatsoever in the vetting process that qualified him and every other presidential candidate to run, and that the main reason they want to enact such legislation is to make it harder, or better yet, impossible for people like Obama to ever again threaten their way of life as they know and want it.

This drive to insist on providing exactly what they want for assurances is a problem with them not being honest about their intentions, rather than them attempting to shore up the vetting process. Their motivation is visceral rather than intellectual in origins.

This whole scenario would never have cropped up if Obama only had provided them with an easier way of attacking his presence in office.

All you have to do is look at what States are driving this effort to see what the problem is.

There never has been a more credible threat to them since Kennedy took office.