Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship (must show birth certificate to be on the ballot)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:04 PM
Original message
Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship (must show birth certificate to be on the ballot)
Source: KPHO.com (Phoenix)

PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

Read more: http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html



for any of you wondering why JD Hayworth is even considered a reasonable choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not much of a deal
Obama presents this:



and the Arizona SOS has no choice but to accept it under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

Controversy over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It is a big deal because of its exceptionalism...
... unless McCain is also requested to show his Panamanian birth certificate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Hey! we aren't supposed to talk about that
I always thought that the beginning of this nonsense was smoke to cover the McCain story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. Absolutely, just like going after Kerry's war service was to
distract from the chimperor's MIA-ness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #29
102. He was AWOL from the Texas Air Nat'l Guard, which almost never sees action, not missing in ACTION.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 02:22 AM by No Elephants
ETA: Maybe the TANG has never, ever seen action, but I'm not sure, so I said "almost never."

Note: The Texas Air National Guard is significantly different from the Texas National Guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #102
238. It was during wartime...
Wouldn't that be desertion during wartime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
107. Please see Reply 106. Congress also voted that McCain is a citizen. However,
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 02:56 AM by No Elephants
since a vote of Congress can neither alter nor definitively interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution does also expressly give Congress the power to enact naturalization laws. However, a "naturalized" citizen is, by definition, not a natural born citizen; and The Constitution does not give Congress the final say on what Constitution provisions mean.

So, in all, the SCOTUS has to interpret "natural born" citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
53. McCain was born in a US military hospital
He is a US citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #53
103. US Military installations overseas are not technically US Soil
I know he was born to American parents, ergo he is an American citizen. But unlike Obama, he was not born in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #103
106. Well, we don't know exactly what "natural born" citizen meant to the Framers.
However, I very much doubt any SCOTUS will ever hold that a baby born in a military hospital bchis or her daddy was serving in the Armed Forces at the time is thereby rendered Constitutionally ineligible to grow up to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #106
158. We KNOW it didn't include Negroes, though

So their understanding of 3/5 of a person is profoundly not relevant to either the 14th Amendment or US v Wong Kim Ark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #158
191. Or people without penises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #191
214. People Without Penises UNITE!!!
:rofl:

The way you phrased it made me laugh. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #214
219. delete
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 11:28 AM by jberryhill

oops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #106
167. Yes we do
It means you were born a citizen, you had that status from the moment of birth. It was not conferred later.

The purpose was to keep a person with foreign allegiances from becoming president.

At the time, natural born basically meant two American parents wherever the kid is born. Acts in the 1700s, the times of the Founders, pretty much say so.

Obama would not qualify. His father's loyalty would be the question.

But we since then have a fundamental change in the Constitution on the issue. All you need is to be born in the US.

Obama had citizenship from the time he was born = natural born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #167
174. There was never a "two citizen parent" requirement
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 07:50 AM by jberryhill
A birth certificate would not even be probative of that requirement, since nobody who gives birth to a child need indicate their citizenship status, and the father might not even be known.

The notion that children of unknown fathers would not qualify is odious to our system, which in general always has rejected concepts of lineal status disabilities.

Bobby Jindal was not born to US citizens, but he was born in the US and can run for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonwalk Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #174
212. Um, no our system of government has not "always" rejected concepts of lineal status....
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 10:47 AM by Moonwalk
...birth certificates used to label children of unknown fathers as "bastards." And that went on into the 20th century. And this affected a lot of things. Like property rights and such. We might point proudly to "all men were created equal," and even to Alexander Hamilton (a bastard, himself, and born dirt poor), but the truth is, most of our Founders had views about some being more equal than others, especially in regards to how and to whom they were born. They may have hated kings, but way too many of them had the view that only aristocrats should rule. And in an aristocracy, race, creed, religion, sex, and, yes, parentage does matter.

It's a testament to our government system that we got past a lot of that. But it took a very long time before it was "in general" odious to our system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #212
216. About the only thing it affected

...was intestate inheritance under the laws of some states, and the basis for that was more a matter of proof of paternity than anything else. Inheritance is a matter of state law, and the last vestiges of incapacity there were, indeed, eliminated by the Supreme Court.

Bastards could certainly always own property under US law.

As far as birthright citizenship goes, US v. Wong Kim Ark was in 1898, and only arose then under the various Chinese Exclusion Acts which attempted to deny US citizenship by birth to the children of Chinese immigrant laborers.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonwalk Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #216
233. Yes, they could own property--but my point was....
...that the U.S. did discriminate against those who were born out of wedlock by labeling them bastards on their birth certificates and taking this into consideration when it came to certain rights. We will agree that there was no legal impediment to them owning property or voting or even running for office, but it is clear that, as with women, minorities and certain religions (Jews weren't allowed to vote in certain states back in the early days of the U.S.) it can't be said that stigmatizing and discriminating against children of unknown parents was always odious to our system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #174
250. Read here
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=...

Section 3.

Born of "persons" plural. That means two. Note also that the father must have resided in the US.

"Bobby Jindal was not born to US citizens, but he was born in the US and can run for president. "

We've had a certain amendment since the 1790s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #106
188. I guess baby mommy could be serving as well? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #53
104. Yes, but that may be different from "natural born citizen," which is the Constitutional requirement
for President. As one notable example, Ahnuld is a U.S. citizen, but not eligible to run for President. Alexander Hamilton was probably also ineligible to run, even though his genius save the financial bacon of the early U.S.

However, inasmuch as McCain is not running for President this go round, the issue is moot. Please see Reply 101.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #104
155. No

One is born a citizen or one is naturalized. There is no third category.

The eligibility clause also includes citizens of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted. We usually don't mention that category since nobody remains alive who is relevant. That covers Hamilton, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #53
114. Sorry, my bad. I was wrong about Hamilton, but it's too late to edit my other post.
From Article II, Section 1

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #114
142. So, you need to be a citizen, be 35, and to have hung around the US for 14 years.
So what? It doesn't even seem to require the nebulous "natural-born" qualification, as that's immediately followed by "or a citizen of the US".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #142
159. Keep reading...

...or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution. No candidates today are that old.

The birthers even tried to argue that Obama's European trip disqualifed him by breaking the 14 years residency requirement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #53
170. No, he was born in the Canal Zone and cannot be a citizen unless
one of his parents is a citizen. I looked it up when debating various idiots about this.

So to have treated McCain equally required to demand his birth certificate and to demand that he show that at least one of his parents was born on the US. Yet when did the media ever demand to see his, let alone his father's or mother's?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #170
177. Obama's birth certificate was produced in response to rumors about his name

Believe it or not, birtherism got going AFTER the birth certificate was produced.

The charge was that his name was "really" Mohammed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #53
186. acutally he lied about that.
I know Panama very very well, but I won't say why more than that. Anyway, the hospital he claims he was born in wasn't built yet. He was most likely born in the french hospital in Colon.

But, none of that matters as both of his parents were US citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #186
217. The 1941 hospital replaced an earlier, smaller facility

I used to think he was born in the Colon hospital (which, yes, is in Panama proper), because the Coco Solo hospital was built in 1941. However, there was an earlier facility there which the 1941 hospital replaced, and John McCain's mother has quite a lively story of his birth. Whatever her son may be, I am inclined to believe the lady.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
221. I thought the hospital on the military base
was built AFTER McCain was born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
101. McCain is running for Senate, not President.
The Constitution requires the President to be a "natural born citizen," whatever that meant to the Framers at the time. That is not also a Constitutional requirement for Reps or Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
193. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #193
200. The records were released quite a while ago.
At least on this planet. Not sure where you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #193
224. yes, but officials in Arizona are the ones considering if it's valid
so, they look at Obama's birth certificate and say that they want more proof--or that the BC isn't valid--or like the birther fools saying this is just a copy where's the original. They are the ones who determine what is valid or even if they will recognize a document.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #193
230. 1) He did release his records, where were you?
2) That thing about Michelle has been grossly taken out of context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #193
232. The funny thing is, he has more of a claim to British than Kenyan citizenship.
Kenya recognizes the citizenship of anyone living in Kenya when it became a nation, the offspring of Kenyans living there, etc. The problem is, Kenya doesn't permit dual citizenship. Because Obama is an American citizen, he cannot legally also be a Kenyan citizen. There are no exceptions to the law.

However.

Kenya Colony was part of the British Empire when Obama was born, and his father held a British citizenship under the British Citizenship Act of 1949. British law permits children born outside of British territories, before 1983, with a British father, to claim citizenship for one generation. It's not automatic, but it will always be granted if requested (after 1983 it became automatic). If Obama wanted dual UK citizenship, he'd only have to ask for it.

Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship specifically because of this. They didn't want dual nationality British-Kenyans in their country. You were British, or you were Kenyan. Your choice, but you had to choose. Obama, born in America with American citizenship, falls under the same law.

The Birthers are idiots and have no idea what they're talking about when they feed off comments like the one Michelle made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. a state cannot impose obstructions on the federal government. boycott arizona.
a state senator has called for one of his own state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. Raul Grijalva is not a state senator.
He's the Congressional Representative from AZ-07 (Tucson).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #39
109. Grijalva is indeed a U.S. Rep, but what does he have to do with this thread?
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 02:51 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #39
222. Grijalva has mentioned boycotting his state
because of this bill and the anti-immigrant bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
54. The US Supreme court has said the statehave the right to run their
elections their way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #54
95. Except when George W Bush needs more electoral votes.
Then the SCOTUS says they don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #95
113. Gee, and here I thought Bush v. Gore upheld Florida's decision about the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #113
153. No it didn't

Katherine Harris wanted to certify the result. The FL state supreme court ordered certain recounts. It was the federal courts which stopped the recounts ordered by the Florida state system.

The Supreme Court upheld Harris' certification which had been successfully challenged in the FL state courts. FL election law allowed that challenge. It was the fed courts which pre-empted the operation of FL election law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #153
243. Just remember though that the vote was 7-2 (including Justice
Ginsburg in the majority) that the Florida recount was proceeding (at the direction of the FL Supreme Court) unconstitutionally. The close 5-4 vote was only whether Florida had sufficient time to fix their procedures before the deadline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #95
207. And, they also conveniently ruled that what they established as precedent ...
couldn't wouldn't shouldn't be seen as precedent!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #207
234. That was a particularly infuriating facet of the junta's coup.
They wanted to make sure it couldn't be used against them later if the tables were turned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
108. If you are referring to Bush v. Gore, that is an entirely different issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArcticFox Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #54
245. Maybe, but
The U.S. Constitution specifies the requirements for being President, and they do not include providing any sort of proof of birthplace. This goes beyond how you run an election and directly attacks the federal constitution.

I doubt any state would be allowed to place more stringent requirements on becoming President of the U.S. than are found in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
105. By "boycott Arizona," you mean I should continue not going there?
Well, that should be easy. Count me in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. Exactly. And all the birthers will be able to direct their paranoia
to the State of Arizona in addition to the State of Hawaii.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #56
96. ok.... i see a HAWAII boycott of ARIZONA coming up here....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
89. lol...you ought to e-mail that to those nutbars just to see the response
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
98. The birth cert has been out there forever, and nothing will satisfy these insane haters.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Governor Lingle (R) has vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate. The head of the Dept of Health has personally inspected it and vouched for its authenticity. The employees of the DOH are justifiably sick of being harassed, because this is indeed harassment.

A copy of the birth certificate has been posted online. The birthers want access to "the files" -- that is, they want to go tromping through the private data of everyone ever born in the State. That's not how data is accessed in any State in the Union. You ask for it, pay a fee, and wait for them to send you a photocopy or these days a printout. You don't get to go behind the counter and flail around looking for "proof" of a conspiracy.

There are microfiche posted online of the daily newspaper's vital statistics section announcing the birth of the baby, his birthdate, his name, his parents' names, and their actual street address. This is not a vanity posting like an engagement announcement; these are items drawn from government agencies that list Births, Marriages, Deaths, and Divorce Filings that are required to be published. In the newspaper.

The birthers accuse the State of Hawai'i of a conspiracy going back decades and decades. No matter what proof they *say* they want, as soon as they see it they say it is a forgery. There is no point trying to satisfy them with proof, because they are insatiable. They are nuts. They are full of hate. They are disrespecting a duly elected President of the United States of America, who is mixed-race and has an African name. They are disrespecting my home state, which is full of non-white Polynesian-Americans and Asian-Americans and people of racial mixtures too numerous to mention.

If President Obama were a white guy named Bill Jones, do you think we would be going through this insanity?

What needs to be done is to STOP trying to prove something that has been proven already, and from several different angles. The State of Arizona should not be presented with the POTUS' birth certificate. If they get it they will only claim it is false.

This will go to the Supreme Court. And then God only knows what the RW judges will do with it. After all, they are the ones who gave us George W. Bush, who really was an illegitimate president.

Hekate

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #98
111. If Obama were a REPUBLICAN white guy named Bill Jones, this insanity would not exist..
If Obama were a Republican African American named Barack Hussein Obama, the issue would never have arisen, because he would never have been a Presidential nominee. Probably not even head of the RNC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #98
156. You are so right! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vanbean Donating Member (957 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #98
197. Great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #98
204. Um ... those 1961 newspaper announcements were planted by Malia's grandson
In 2080, he went back to 1961 Hawaii in his time machine and bribed the newspaper editors. There are witnesses to this: out of curiosity, he detoured by The Haight in 1967 -- but he got careless, and he was seen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #204
208. Ha - I knew it!
Obama is really a Kenyan sleeper agent planted almost 50 years ago because it was so likely a mixed race child would be able to become president in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #204
231. Obama is actually the Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 01:04 PM by Blue_Tires
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #98
210. Great post!
The "birthers" will NEVER be satisfied until President Obama is removed from office and/or at least prevented from running for re-election- neither of which, I'm thankful to say, will EVER happen (and especially not over this craziness over his birth certificate). Apparently, "birthers" have never applied the scientific principle of "Occam's Razor" to what they're saying because if they did, they (might) realize how crazy their beliefs actually are. Specifically, their claims that Barack Obama is NOT a US citizen applicable to hold the office of POTUS would require a MASSIVE coverup going back decades right to the moment of his birth and, at least so far, nobody in any position of authority or credibility have stepped forward to expose the ruse (which to the "birthers" is just more evidence of a coverrup, of course :eyes:). More importantly, none of them have addressed perhaps the most important thing, namely, the motivation for Obama's mother/family to lie about where he was born. Did his mother/family KNOW that 40+ years later he would run for the Presidency and that he would definitely need to be ensured US citizenship so THAT'S why they lied/covered up "the truth"????
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelsea0011 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
154. The reality for the birthers is that as soon as the President has to physically produce
that certificate and hand it over himself that they will immediately call it a fake. It has always been their motive to never accept anything and keep the myth going.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
199. NO DEAL
Requirement not made across the board to include all candidates? Singles out one candidate for *special treatment*?

NO. DEAL. SUCK IT, ARIZONA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
211. Besides....
..... when did individual states get to decide the form of FEDERAL elections?...outside of the Senate and House? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
253. That might work in court...
But is isn't going to fly on the street.

I'm all for presenting an original birth certificate, or certified copy of the original, rather than a computer generated reprint. It's gotta be the same rules for everyone, though.

It reminds me of the days when a black man would get an all white jury, or vise versa. We need to choose the best candidate from among our peers, even if a particular outsider might do a better job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. States Can't Make Laws Governing Federal Elections
What a bunch of dodo's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vduhr Donating Member (481 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. That was my thought....
How can they deny their citizens the right to vote for the person of their choice for President of the U.S.? Isn't that unconstitutional?

What is going on in Arizona? Is this an example of what the Republicans would do to our country if they become the majority again? I hope the people of this country are really paying attention to this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
62. Sure, why not?
>Is this an example of what the Republicans would do to our country if they become the majority again?

Sure, why not? Republicans excel at the kind of crap they accuse Democrats of doing.

-------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howmad1 Donating Member (959 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
73. What is going on in Arizona:
Is that the state is vying for the title of dumbest state in the dumbest country on the planet. Looks certain that Arizona will take the title in just a very short period of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
119. Please see Reply 112 and Article II, Section 1 of the Constituion of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
132. My thought as well. They are imposing conditions that aren't in the constitution.
Also the Constitution only empowers the states the choose the electorates to vote for President. It does not give them the ability to choose, increase, decrease or verify the qualification of the candidates or conditions for candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #132
161. What about the filing fee? What about the number of signatures?

States impose A LOT of conditions for a candidate to appear on the ballot. In some states a certain number of signatures are required to get on the ballot. That's not in the Constitution either.

Head down to your Secretary of State office, say "I want to run for president" and you'll be asked to do all kinds of stuff that isn't in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
187. well, when you consider all of the real-world examples of what they do when in office
then this is par for the course. The GOP has ALWAYS done this sort of thing to citizens, and somehow people eat it up, usually out of nothing more than greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Well... not quite
States can make laws (including whether to even have) presidential elections. There is no constitutional requirement to hold elections for president -- just that the state legislature must select electors or name the process by which they are selected.

States are given specific authority in the Constitution, so its not automatic that this would be overruled unless it applies to Obama and not the R (equal protection clause).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Hitman Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
67. False
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. That's true for congressional races
but presidential races are covered under a different section of the constitution.

specifically Article II, Section 1,

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


There are no limits on how the state can appoint electors, there isn't even a requirement for an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #67
120. That is a different issue from the one described in the first sentence of Reply 25.
If you understood the second sentence of Reply 25, bless your brains. I have no idea what it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. Please read the Constitution

The Constitution requires state legislatures to determine how their electors are selected, and prohibits involvement by federal officials:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

You might consider the following questions:

1 How do you get on the ballot for president in New York?

2. How do you get on the ballot for president in California?

The answers to those questions are wildly different, because they are answered by looking at those state's laws. Federal law will not give you an answer to either of those questions.

Now, a state cannot unlawfully EXCLUDE a candidate from the ballot, but they can have all sorts of non-discriminatory requirements.

The design here was to avoid federal interference in federal elections, because the fear was a self-perpetuating federal system that would become immune from control by the people voting for the candidates of their choice.

Some states did exclude Nicaraguan Roger Calero from the presidential ballot because he is not a US citizen. Some states did not.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. The Constitution sets out the requirements for President. Native birth
in the U.S. is one of the requirements. Satisfying Arizona's requirements that only mom's torn, folded up original issue birth certificate can serve as proof of birth is not one of the Constitutional requirements. The Supremacy Clause mandates that unless the state acquiesces, the federal law 'rules." This concept and the concept of "pre-emption" (once the federal government makes law in an area, a state cannot interfere) can begin to be understood explored here:


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Thank You
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. Another vote for Bush v Gore

Yeah, having the Supreme Court decide a state's election results is just peachy keen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #57
121. Please see Reply #118.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
64. Supremacy applies to things assigned to the federal goverment

However the job of selecting electors is textually committed to the states and their legislatures by the Constitution. Making a supremacy argument there is absurd, because elections are conducted by states in accordance with state laws, and the federal government does not even conduct elections. There is no federal legislation specifying how one gets on the ballot, which is why it is different in every state.

What a state cannot do, is to impose an unconstitutional bar to the ballot.

I don't know whereyou are getting this "old folded up document stuff" since anyone can get a spiffy new one from any state, just like the one which President Obama's campaign not only was happy to provide, but posted on the internet and allowed anyone to come see it (which factcheck took them up on).

This law is a stupid and silly gesture. However, the Constitution requires elections be conducted in accordance with state law - the Constitution could not be any plainer. As long as the state law does not impose an unconstitutional condition, then it is perfectly within the MANDATE of the Constitution that electors are to be chosen by the states in such manner as state legislatures provide.

I guess you didn't have a problem with the Supreme Court stopping the vote count which the Florida courts had ordered in 2000, One of the objections to Bush v Gore was that it was precisely the kind of federal interference with the fact that the Constitution commits selection of electors to the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. But that law is NOT absolute
Examples:
1. If the state of Arizona (or any state) did not allow anyone from a recognized political party that had enough signatures to be on the ballot
2. If the state of Arizona (or any state) required a literacy test to be on the ballot

There are limits that can be placed on the states regarding their ballots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #70
77. Yes, that's what I said

If you read before you respond, you will note that I already said that a state cannot impose an unconstitutional bar to the ballot.

Try this experiment:

Pick any two states. Now, find out what it takes to be on the ballot for president in those two states. Notice that the answers will be wildly different.

Federal courts can and will strike down unconstitutional ballot access laws. But I'm guessing that most here would be shocked at the legal gyrations required to get onto ballots as a presidential candidate in most states. There is a reason the Obama campaign had a fresh certified birth certificate from 2007 sitting around the Chicago office - the one that factcheck came to look at and photograph.

There are states that already inquire on the subject, which is why Roger Calero - a Nicaraguan citizen and US permanent resident - was not allowed on the ballot in some states. He was the 2008 Socialist Workers Party candidate. Some states require an affidavit of eligibility, and some states don't.

This law is a stupid silly gesture, and I look forward to the exploding heads when President Obama is placed on the AZ ballot.

But the hard core stupid birthers subscribe to an absurd "two citizen parent" theory - which even a birth certificate wouldn't prove. They will be convinced this AZ law is actually a trap.

But, the basic point is that we do not have federally-run elections in this country, and if you read Federalist 68, that was by design.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #77
126. My apologies
thanks for the correction

again I apologise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #126
135. Respect. So few message board posters apologize. I give you props.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #126
150. I get fired up, and didn't mean to come off snarky /nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #150
152. You didn't come off that way in the least
I should have read your post more carefully before I jumped in with a comment that criticized your post

No insult taken on my end
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #64
93. They apparently don't want the "new spiffy" one. They want the
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 01:16 AM by marybourg
"original one". That's what they've been ranting for almost 2 years. The only thing I can figure that means is the "original" one Mrs Obama got from the state of Hawaii lo those many years ago.

Attempting to put restrictions on who can run for President has nothing whatever to do with electors.

None of what we're discussing here has anything to do with Bush v Gore or with my opinions of that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #93
130. Nobody carries around their "original" birth certificate, I believe ...
they carry around a certified copy, with the original in some file in the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #130
149. Most state don't even issue certified copies anymore

States vary, but in general the practice of making a copy and then sealing it is being phased out. The more common practice now is to print from a database onto security paper and then to seal that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #93
148. The new spiffy one IS an original

It doesn't matter what the birthers want, they wouldn't be satisfied regardless.

For any purpose under any real law an "original" birth certificate is one issued by the state, whether the week after you were born, or the one you picked up last week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #148
157. the real irony is that they were already presented with the real thing, and they refused to believe
it ...

when they were presented with a badly made forgery, they accepted it wholeheartedly ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #157
163. Correct

They say "but it is a computer image" as if they expected to receive their own personal copy. Needless to say, if a state requires a birth certificate to get on the ballot, which is not an onerous requirement, the relevant state official will get one.

This proposed AZ law is really not facially outrageous. The motivation for it, however, is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #93
213. Funny, Because
for any other use they won't take the old, folded one issued by the hospital to Mom and kept in the safty deposit box all these years, they need a shiny state issue on the forge-proof paper. I know this, because when I applied for a passport they laughed at my old, folded relic and told me to come back with a "real" birth certificate. The old, folded thing that has been good since 1958 is just a "souvenier" according to the State Department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #213
235. That is correct
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 01:51 PM by jberryhill
As you might imagine, few birthers would have ever applied for a passport.

The thing one gets at the hospital with the little footprints, etc., is not even a state-issued document, and is correctly deemed a souvenir.

Trivia question - name the first president born IN a hospital at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #52
118. "native birth" is not the language the COTUS uses. "Natural born citizen" is.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 04:17 AM by No Elephants
In general, no one should rely on what your post says about law. I am not saying that to be mean. I just hate to see anyone misled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #118
147. The 14th Amendment Is Pretty Clear

You are either born a US citizen (and not the child of a diplomat) or you are naturalized.

There is no third category.

Yes, the birthers think that "natural born citizen" has some other meaning than being born into the condition of citizenship. They are wrong. And US courts use the terms interchangeably - eg US v Wong Kim Ark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. The AZ legislature is wasting time and money, but.......
that IS one of the "laws governing federal elections" of the President.......minimum age of 35 and born an American citizen.

The AZ legislature needs to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
76. I've sopent my entire voting life in this politcal cesspool--you have NOOOO idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
112. Anything you can cite to support that statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mfcorey1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
122. This is a sad day in America
WE have lost our dignity from things like the actions in Arizona. WE all know what the underlying reason is. Let us see how many idiot states will try to do what Arizona is attempting to do. The way Mitch Mcconnell and his fellow ilk blatantly flaunt their ignorance and the MSM sucks it up is a prime example of the dumbing down of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #122
123. I have no doubt that President Obama is a "natural born citizen."
I state that up front only because BOTH some Democrats and some Republicans have become mentally unhinged over this issue. From the Republican side, the unhinged claim Obama is not a citizen. From the Democratic side, the unhinged claim ANY comment on this issue that is not pure mockery of birthers is racist. And I don't feel like dealing with the mentally unhinged of any politica persuasion over this post.

That said, IMO, every state should, in its laws, have the requirements for Representative, Senator and Presiddent that the Constitution requires, so no court ever has to face the question of what to do if someone, say, too young to be Rep, Senator or President ever gets elected.

I realize the Arizona law is very likely directed at President Obama and is, for that reason, ludicrous. Nonetheless, for the future, I don't think something like this is a bad idea, but for all 3 Constitutional elective offices, plus Vice President (whom the Constitution requires to meet the same Constitutional requirements as the President).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #123
164. Well put

I agree. The motivation for this law is beyond absurd. But it is not outside of the range of permissible state ballot laws.

Basically, if the AZ secretary of state adopted an erroneous definition of NBC, that would get into federal court toot suite, as ballot access suits always do on an emergency injunctive basis. There is no serious question that President Obama is a natural born citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
151. Horeshit. They already do
Here in Florida state law requires candidates for Congress to pay a filing fee or submit petitions with a certain number of signatures. In Pennsylvania, candidates are required to pay both a filing fee and submit petitions with a set number of signatures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
171. They can, to an extent
State laws already determine how candidates can get on the ballot (number of signatures, etc.).

This is one more requirement. It would be perfectly legal, even if dumb.

Remember, it is the states, through their electors, who elect the president, not the people directly or the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Its the help end doubt clause
They will never stop. I have a guy at work that is actively working on creating a not for profit website to solicit donations to name the childrens ward of Kapiolani Hospital after the birth doctor as listed on Obama's long version Birth Cert. He says that if the donation is large enough Obama will not be able to withold the validation because the political backlash of such a selfish act would destroy him...

LOL>...

I think its all hilarious...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's the Red-Meat-To-The-Snarling-Base clause ..
Just like promises of HCR repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Does he really think that the hospital HAS to take the money or change the name?
it is really all hilarious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I don't know what they think....
but he seems to believe that the pressue of say a million dollar donation to be made in the name of Obama's birth doctor to the hospital would be enough for the media to ask the question why wouldn't Obama allow the release of his long version Birth Cert so that the childrens hospital could be the benefactor creating a narrative that the President was being selfish with such a menial detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
100. I have a feeling that hospital officials would not touch this issue with a 10-foot pole. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Its a federal election---they can't interfere with federal election
laws. I hope these folks aren't getting paid serious money for coming up with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. What do the first couple of words here mean to you?
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 09:51 PM by jberryhill
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

We don't have "federal elections". When was the last time you voted in an election that wasn't run by a state?

What a state cannot do is impose discriminatory restrictions on qualified candidates. But states are required by the Constitution to figure out how to elect candidates for federal offices. Saying that "states can't interfere with federal elections" kind of ignores the fact that we don't have federally-run elections, and it is surprising there are quite a few folks who haven't noticed that.

I guess you liked Bush v Gore, in which the federal government STOPPED a state election process mandated by that state's courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankmeCrankme Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
146. why are you being obtuse?
I vote in "Federal" elections every time I vote for President. Federal elections means to just about everyone else but you, elections for Federal office, while state elections mean elections for State office. Now if people were saying federally run elections you might have a point, but they are not.

And how about leaving out the derogatory 'you must of liked Bush v Gore' as a insult in your posts. It isn't an either/or argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #146
166. Because I have longer posts elsewhere in the thread
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 07:34 AM by jberryhill
The federal government does not run elections. The Constitution is really really clear on assigning that job to states, pursuant to state legislation.

You have never voted in an election that was conducted by the federal government. When you voted for president, your vote was counted by a state official, and the total vote was certified by your state's Secretary of State.

Yes, we use "federal elections" to refer to elections for federal offices, but states run all of the elections. The federal government does not.

What a state cannot do is to impose an impermissible discriminatory barrier to getting on the ballot. They can impose fees, signature gathering requirements, deadlines, etc.

If you want to run for president, then you do not go to any federal office to get on the ballot, you go to each state election office. And if you show up a day after that state's filing deadline, screaming "the state can't interfere in a race for federal office!" you will get a lot of funny looks, but you will not be placed on that state's ballot for your "federal election".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. What about the vetting he went through to become a Senator and then President - don't they
know that their is a government department that vets these candidates?

What about him being issued a passport?

Do they hate because they

. hate the government because they think the departments cheated?

or

. is it all as carefully orchestrated as we believe to sustain and maintaim the war of bigotry to keep these vulnerables as their voting base, to feed them, to not lose any single person, but to add more to their voting base who are also bigots. And to make bigots where they didn't exist before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
83. What government department vets candidates? nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #83
110. You have to be a registered voter in your state/district...
When you register to vote you have to show identification and affirm that the information you provide is true. This is what I found out locally -- Note that you have to provide your driver's license and Social Security number. If you don't have a DL a Passport will also do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.sbcvote.com/Elections/VoterRegistration.aspx
As a Santa Barbara County resident you may register to vote if:
you are a citizen of the United States
you are a resident of California
you are not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony
you will be at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election
you have not been judged by a court to be mentally incompetent to register and vote
>snip<
Is Voter Registration Information confidential?
Voter record information is not available for public inspection. However, voter information is made available for political, governmental, educational and journalistic purposes.
"Information on yourVoter Registration Card will be used by elections officials to send you official information on the voting process, such as the location of your polling place and the issues and candidates that will appear on the ballot. Commercial use of voter registration information is prohibited by law and is a misdemeanor. Voter information may be provided to a candidate for office, a ballot measure committee, or other person for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. Driver's license and social security numbers, or your signature as shown on your voter registration card, cannot be released for these purposes. If you have any questions about the use of voter information or wish to report suspected misuse of such information, please call the Secretary of State's Voter Protection and Assistance Hotline. "Certain voters facing life-threatening situations may qualify for confidential voter status. For more information, please contact the Secretary of State's Safe At Home program or visit the Secretary of State's Web site at www.ss.ca.gov ."
>snip<

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So it all starts with registering to vote in the first place.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #110
125. No. Any naturalized citizen can register to vote, but a naturalized citizen cannot be President.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 04:42 AM by No Elephants
Just ask California Gov. Ahnuld. Or, see Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #125
176. And that is the point - there are only two categories

The birthers try, poorly, to suggest that there are three types of citizens. There are only two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #125
225. And just awhile back
some of the repukes wanted to change the Constitution so that Arnold could run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #110
184. OK, but if you read what I responded to, that is still not an answer. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
124. Govt dept that vets candidates? Where did you get that from?
And what does a passport have to do with anything? I'll bet anything Ahnuld has a passport, but he is not eligible to be POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #124
237. I read that a long time ago. If it's the WH then the SS does it.. McCain, there
was a little fuss about McCain running for President and having been born in Panama or the Panama Canal - I believ it was the Panama Canal (at the time).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh yea, sure, this is not about feeding the racists out there, not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
12. Finally! between this and their new racist immigration laws they have sunk to the depths of...
Oklahoma and Texas. I am sure the will be next with this garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bergie321 Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. They will probably combine the 2 laws and
Have Sheriff Joe pull over Obama's motorcade next time he's in town to check his citizenship...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I think these idiots should be checked for brains before they leave their state.
They would never get past the border.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Incitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. I don't think that will end well for the Sheriff. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
99. That's Guvner Joe to you, Bub.
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
229. I suspect Sheriff Joe would have a hard time doing that
flat on his stomach being worked over by the Secret Service. As if some whacko like that could get that close to the POTUS after what happened to Saint Ronald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. I was raised in Arizona, moved, then transferred with the government
back to Phoenix. Most of my family is from Arizona and there are quite a few who still live there. This "proof shite" is so out there, I am speechless. Even if Obama proved his birth-what KO was saying--they could still say it was questionable and keep him off the ballot. We used to tease about the snowbirds who would come to Arizona and then leave after winter. Growing up, this was not the looney bin.

And the other bill quite disturbs me. Sounds like Germany "show your papers." Working at SSA, half of the employees were Mexican American. Most of my friends were hispanic from school to work. Arizona was once Mexican territory and there are generational families there. I believe this bill allows police to stop anyone, basically, with brown skin. Arizona has gone off the deep end.

I WILL BE BOYCOTTING ARIZONA--IF FAMILY MEMBERS WANT TO SEE US, THEY CAN COME AND VISIT.

I swear Goldwater is looking more decent than these looney tunes--we at one time elected good democratic officials--sad, very sad to witness such bigotry and ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. You are correct in that Hispanic American citizens will be
stopped and harrassed. The right says that it's only to catch illegal immigrants but what happens is that they will justify the next step and then the next step until they force Hispanics out of the state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
127. Sorry, but I cannot stand fake nostalgia for dead Republicans. Goldwater was as big a POS
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 04:51 AM by No Elephants
as anyone. He just was not a religious nut. He was a defender and upholder of "states rights"--and that was always code for either slavery or Jim Crow laws. Further, he stayed loyal to that other POS, Joe McCarthy, long after most others in Washington, D.C. had backed the fuck away from him. And, had he been alive, he would have sung "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," right along with his POS successor.

Geez, I hope no one makes me dissect political coward and racist Eisenhower again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #127
226. Goldwater in his later years
saw the changing tide in the repuke party and didn't like it. Yeah, Goldwater was very conservative, but he respected many on the other side. He spoke about Kennedy and himself campaigning against each other--traveling together and debating. Also, I believe he cared about the people in this country--had a different ideology-but cared. Not like what we have now, many who'd sell their mother for more power or a better deal with any corporate greedhead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bergie321 Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Man I love my state
They always make me so proud with crap like this :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I feel for ya
we have Bobblehead McDonnell running the show in Va
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
50. We should really thank Arizona for dropping us back to second place in the
Tour de Idiotic State Government race. But I have faith that Ken Kookoonilly will roar back with something just as outrageous in no time. He really, really wants to win!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #13
180. We're no better so don't sweat it.
Plenty of nutjobs here would go even further if they could.

Colorado.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetaTrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. Let's not forget that Arizona is where al-Qaeda established its operations in the U.S.
Per Arizona Monthly

There are 59 references to Arizona in the 9/11 Commission Report. But it tells only a fragment of the story when it comes to terrorists in the Grand Canyon State. A joint FBI-CIA analysis titled Arizona: Long Range Nexus for Islamic Extremists remains classified. Its existence was revealed for the first time when the 9/11 Commission released its final report this summer. But the long-standing link between Islamic terrorists and the Arizona desert has been in the public record for yearsand its centered dead on Tucson, and in particular, the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT).

For nearly two decades, the most important nexus for international jihad outside of Pakistan and the Middle East has been Arizona.

Its not clear quite how or why the state has attracted what seems to be more than its fair share of individuals linked to terrorist organizations over the years. Experts have posited that the familiar desert climate; the anonymity provided by life in cities outside New York, California, and D.C.; and the easy access to a wealth of flight-training schools all played a role. But the most ominous explanation came from FBI agent Kenneth Williams, the author of the now infamous Phoenix Memo. In his testimony to a congressional committee in 2003, he said, These people dont continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state. I believe that something was established there, and I think its been there for a long time.


Senator McCain doesn't seem to like to talk about those medals he gave to Taliban warlords, though.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. They got their IDs in Virginia
see what less government gets you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
128. My son jokes that it's clear I am the link to Al Qaeda in the U.S.
My mom lived in Paterson and in Union City, NJ. I've lived in Manhattan and Boston. All those locations were mentioned in connection with sleeper cells and, of course, Manhattan and Boston were pivotal in 911. And, on 911, I was scheduled to fly from Houston to Logan, thereby (according to my son) establishing my alibi.

Okay, it was funny when he said it. I just hope this post doesn't earn me a one way ticket to Bagram.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
24. Oh my gawd! These fucking fools. Arizona the most embarrassing state in the country.
Fucking A. I've got to get the fuck outta here soon! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. Floridians and Texans break out in cheer!
:toast: :party: :beer: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #37
86. Hahahaha! I was about to post, "This takes some heat off Florida!"


:P

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #37
91. lol...from Fla here...LMAO! Thank you!!! ..eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
239. Interesting. The two states that had Bushes for governors.
I wonder if there's a coincidence... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #239
248. You're starting to scare me, man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pezDispenser Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
51. in our defense, as a fellow Arizonian
there are a fair number of states in the running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
205. But yours just won handily nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pezDispenser Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #205
252. hahaha
it wouldn't be so funny if it weren't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Applan Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
60. I'm right behind you
Sick of the place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzNick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
88. No, we need to fight
This state is turning red faster than they think.

Let's make a stand...!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
129. In fariness, it has plenty of competition. Hell, even Massachusetts just elected Scott Brown a U.S.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 04:59 AM by No Elephants
Senator, courtesy of Tea Party efforts, and hosted Sarah Palin on Boston Common (practically hallowed ground for proud Bostonians).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. I left the place 18 years ago.
Thank goodness!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #26
81. I left 20 years ago.
Glad I live here now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nebulous Abstraction Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
27. ugh!
...these Birthers are so stupid it makes my hair hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarface2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
28. i hope obama refuses to comply
arizona is a loser...screw them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. For the love of the FSM...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
athenasatanjesus Donating Member (592 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
31. I hope at least this Birther crap puts an end to the false equivalency perception.
Many moderates believe that just as many on the left as well as on the right care more about attacking the other side then coming up with solutions,these birthers and the fact that there is a healthy enough number of conservatives that have supported them should prove to moderates that have bought into that lie that the right is much more obsessed with attacking then the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
32. Perhaps they should get McCain to show HIS papers.
Then they would see that he was NOT born in the US, but was born in PANAMA, and as such, he is not eligible to run for president. If Panama Johnny had to show his "papers," they would throw him out on a rail. A Central American, without legal immigration papers, is their own senator! What a bunch of morons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
71. you're right but with one coda...McCain is white
Thats all that really counts. When you get down to it, right-wing Arizonans would rather elect one of those white Canadian snowbirds Governor or Congressman than an Hispanic-American with roots in Arizona going back hundreds of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #71
136. Please see Reply # 106.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #71
172. Amen. That is why there was never a demand for his birth certificate.
McCain born in the Canal Zone is also a citizen based on the fact one of his parents must have been. Yet whenever was it demanded he produce one parent's certificate showing at least one of them was born in the US?

And why there has never been such a demand before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
92. The congress did make him..and he showed them! After a suit was filed against McCain..first.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 01:12 AM by flyarm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

This "fight " was started by a lawsuit against McCain!


snip from link:

Senators sympathetic to McCain's position, including Democrats Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), dropped an earlier attempt to quell the eligibility controversy with legislation. McCaskill acknowledged in an interview that there is "no way" to completely resolve the question short of a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which could not be concluded before November.

She described the nonbinding resolution, which she sponsored, as "the quickest, clearest and most efficient" way for the Senate to send a message to the courts that McCain has the right to be president.

One person who disagrees with that premise is New Hampshire resident Fred Hollander, who has filed a suit in U.S. District Court claiming that the Republican candidate is "not a natural born citizen." In an attempt to prove his argument, the 49-year-old computer programmer filed a subpoena last month seeking McCain's birth certificate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
134. Please see Reply #106. And Reply # 101.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. These nut cases, whatever state they live in, should request "official" copies of their own birth
certificates.

I know that, at least the ones in Minnesota, would be handed a piece of paper that, except for state name & seal, looks just like Obama's. I would imagine a lot (if not all) of the states have switched over to this format.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. I know that's what you get in Idaho
The problem the Teabaggers have not faced: the governor of Hawaii has confirmed Obama was born there. Linda Lingle is a Republican.

If a member of the opposition party who was running for president was claiming Hawaiian birth when he was born in Kenya, don't you think she would have broken out her nicest suit and headed for the local Fox affiliate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
47. Yes, due, in the case of my birth state, to the requirements of
the double-speakly-named "Patriot Act"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #33
79. Most states have

It's not as if your average birther would need, or even want, a passport, since they believe travel abroad is a symptom of anti-Americanism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
34. 1987: Arizona governor Evan Mecham rescinds MLK Day as his first act in office
setting off a boycott of the state.

It's not the people of Arizona who do bad things, it just the (elected) officials...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunasun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. I was just thnking
well isn't this the state that doesn't even acknowledge MLK which = United States Federal holiday ?
so not surprised..........too much sun seems to hurt the brain(AZ<FL>TX>MS etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadbear Donating Member (799 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
40. Would Obama even have a chance in Arizona?
Just leave his name off the ballot. Let Willard have the electoral votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Willard!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RFKHumphreyObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Clinton won the state's electoral votes in 1996 and Obama may have won last time
had McCain not been the candidate. It's a competitive state, which is precisely the reason these smelly bigots want to keep him off the ballot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
44. why is Arizona so weird? Has the House paid its taxes.
I wonder have all the AZ house members paid their taxes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SargeUNN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #44
90. Grover Norquist owns the Legislature here in AZ
Most of the legislature is in bed with this moron and it shows. The libertarian movement is strong here and the government here is failing the people, and were it outside the U.S. it would soon become a failed state. So if you think libertarians are ok, think again, they stink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
46. McCain's birth certificate is faded ink on parchment written in Medieval Latin. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #46
168. It was never demanded by anybody
And that is what proves the racist nature of these demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
48. I guess the hot weather is eroding the legislators' brains.
I mean c'mon this is just legislation to grant credibility to a bunch of cranks rather than legitimately protect the democratic process. Aren't there other measures/background checks of political candidates besides silly legislation like this and that one bill introduced by US Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
139. What other measures/background checks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #139
251. To make sure that the Constitutional age/citizenship provisions are upheld
What's there to prevent a 34-year-old or naturalized citizen from running for president or underage candidates in general? I thought that some branch of the government performed background checks on political candidates; that's why I keep thinking that those "birth certificate requirement bills" pushed by Republicans and only Republicans are just to appease the kooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
55. Then Arizona will officially certify his citizenship, because they'll have no choice
when he gives them a valid Certification of Live Birth.

This will just backfire on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
58. It would be funny if AZ's law effects the other candidates and not Obama.
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 10:57 PM by caseymoz
The silliness of the Birther movement has always been that Obama DID present his Birth Certificate, and displayed it, and with the only one that Hawaii issues. The "original" they demand is not one Hawaii has ever issued, and there was no procedure for requesting or issuing it.

So, the question is, can any other candidate meet the standard AZ is setting? Alternately, wouldn't it be funny if it excluded everybody, and so demonstrate once and for all that the Birther standard of proof is impossible.

Frankly, I wish they'd pass it and settle this farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #58
115. Exactly. By law the original, original by law can't leave the records archive...
...and non-authorised personel are likewise forbiden by law from entering the archives.

And that is exactly the hook they want to hang this on. No scrutineer acceptable to them will ever be granted access to the archives which give these dickheads all the reason they need to keep up their stupid games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
59. Don't forget AZ's rabid fight against MLK day -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
61. What if someone does NOT have a birth certificate?
It is now uncommon, but prior to about 1900 quite common. People were born at home, often without a Doctor being present (Mid-wives did most birthing prior to about 1900). My Grandfather had to produce the family bible as proof of several of his relatives date of birth for it was the only record of their births (This was for people who applied for Social Security when it first started). My own father did not believe he had a birth Certificate and joined the army in 1941, the Post office in 1947 and other groups without ever needing one (when he turned 65 and applied for Medicare he had to produce a birth certificate, but then I had learn the rule in cases like his, make a request for a Birth Certificate and when it comes back none found that paper is good enough for the Social Security Administration).

Thus my father made a formal request for a birth certificate and the State sent him one, with the name "Wilbert" on it. He NEVER ever used that name. He suspected that when his mother gave birth the Doctor asked for a name. She did NOT want to name the child till her husband could join in the decision, so someone wrote down Wilbert and sent that to the state. When my grandfather came home a few weeks later (he worked replacing roofing on steel mills throughout the US) they decided on my father's name, a name he used till he died. Thus you had someone using a name different then on his birth certificate for 65 years. Birth Certificate in many states are just registrations of birth nothing more.

Anyway, just to point out that even today we have people born in the US without birth certificates (or at least with Birth Certificate with the right name on it). If such a person is nominated to any office how can he get on the ballot in Arizona?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
63. It has to be the heat.
Can't be the water, they get too much of it from us and we're not insane.

Regardless, for these yahoos no document exists that can transform Obama into a caucasian -- and THAT is all they care about.

-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
66. I have potholes outside my house...
Because these idiots waste millions chest thumping for their idiot base. Why in the hell did I ever move here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Permanut Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. I got potholes too
and I want to know whose asphalt is it.

Sorry, old family joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. Teeheehee good stuff :D n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
68. it's comforting to know that not all nutcases live in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaPera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. No it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #72
80. so sayeth the California resident
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #80
140. I say it, too. If all nutcases were in a single state, life would be easier.
Maybe not for sane Texans, but for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentauros Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #140
242. Life would be easier in most fantasy worlds.
Maybe you should write a book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
urotsukidoji Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
75. Tragic bigotry in action...
I moved to Tucson from Richmond, VA....little did I know that THIS would be a hotter hotbed of stupid.

I suppose it's good that I can always look to my elected state legislature to decide who I should hate.

Wait...did we even ELECT Jan Brewer Governor??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #75
87. welcome to the site!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
82. Must stop the black guy from getting re-elected!
Racist assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
47of74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
84. This is my message to every last scumbag that supports that measure


And I mean it from the very bottom of my heart too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SargeUNN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
85. Oh But WAIT we in AZ are now going to make you
show you are a citizen of the U.S. even if you are just visiting us here. At least that bill has passed both house and senate here and Gov. Brewer has 5 days to veto or sign. She is wanting to be elected so look for her to give in to the nutty legislators which are 75% birthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss_Underestimated Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
94. I'll be boycotting AZ from now on. Too bad; I've never been to the Grand Canyon
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 01:33 AM by Miss_Underestimated
Would've been nice B-)

It was on my bucket list
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. ARIZONA ALSO WANTS HIM TO PROVE HE IS 1/2 WHITE
FACTS:

THE GRAND CANYON IS ALMOST AS OLD AS JOHN MCCAIN

THE GRAND CANYON IS ALMOST AS DEEP AS THE STOOPIDITY OF THE POPULATION WHO VOTED FOR THIS SHIT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #94
116. Fly over it from the Nevada side.
That's also a great way to see it, and your money goes to Nevada, not Arizona.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #116
138. +1

true and it is a short flight and you can also visit Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Valley of Fire State Park - more and more

the carp at Lake Mead are hilarious to feed too - popcorn and bread and they go crazy for it



video is even funnier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEPkM2ltpBE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #94
141. No problem. Just don't kick the bucket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
117. far more appropriate would be an intelligence test as a requirement to run for state office
it appears that a goodly number of AZ legislators would fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spicegal Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
131. All of this has one purpose only and that's to attempt to delegitimize Obama's presidency.
They did this to Clinton too, but it's been much worse with Obama because he's African American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
133. Imagine the media outcry had any Dem public official called for Bush to produce proof
that he ever served any of his service ... they decried the "proof" which did show he was known to someone there ...

or that he provide his original driver's license ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
137. Laughing stock would be a few steps up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
143. Please read the Constitution. It's short. It's online, as amended to date.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 05:40 AM by No Elephants
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution

Wiki has a discussion of most or all of its provisions, but you don't even have to go that far. Just at least read it through once, using an online dictionary to look up any word you don't know.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
144. "the laughing stock of the nation."
Rep. Sinema nails it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
145. The constitution lays out the requirements for any potential president.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that a state may not add requirements of their own or refuse candidates based on their race, religion or political affiliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #145
169. It also directs states to conduct the elections

You are correct, there ate things a state cannot do.

Enacting non-discriminatory ballot access laws is what they are supposed to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
160. Nothing better illustrates
the racist nature and bankrupt ideology of the extreme right wing in this country than this bullshit birther issue. These people are no better than the ones we defeated in WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
162. This Kansan is sending good vibes to like minded Arizonians
I feel your pain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
165. This will get blasted as unconstitutional...
no state can supersede federal law. Presidential elections are constitutionally mandated, AZ just choked on it's own hubris.

For Hayworth, or anyone else to support this, proves that fools rush in at every opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #165
173. Take a look at how the Constitution mandates those elections

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

Are you saying that states can't

1 require a candidate to fill out an application made up by the state?

2 charge a fee?

3. Require x number of signatures to qualify for the ballot?

Etc etc.

The question is not "Can states regulate their ballots". Of course they can. The Constitution leaves it up to state legislation by it's express terms.

What they can't do is to impose an unreasonable or discriminatory condition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #173
175. "What they can't do is to impose an unreasonable or discriminatory condition."
Precisely what they are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #175
178. Not really
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 08:05 AM by jberryhill
Most states already require an affidavit of eligibility. Requiring a certified copy of a birth certificate is not discriminatory.

Sure, they are doing it out of an impulse that arises fundamentally from racism, but it is not facially discriminatory, nor discriminatory as applied

Several states did not allow Roger Calero, the socialist workers party candidate, on their ballot for president because he is not a US citizen, but a permanent resident from Nicaragua. That decision by those states was not at all discriminatory, because he was not an eligible candidate.

You might as well argue the filing fee discriminates against poor candidates, since it does not relate to an actual qualification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #178
182. And how do they take him off the next ballot...
after having him on the first? I can't picture the, "he was a citizen then, but not now" argument going too far.

The face of this is indeed discriminatory, and his place of birth, being Hawaii makes him eligible. This is all about some stupid idea that PO, or anyone else for that matter has to perpetually carry around a BC, that may well be forged in the first place if carried on one's person. The only way to verify a live a birht is though the state in which said birth took place, precisely what happened, much to the chagrin of those who feel PO is somehow, not a citizen.

The other thing is, taking the Constitution verbatim is rarely, if ever an avenue that is pursued by most. It, like other legal documents is open for discussion, which is why we have oral arguments at the Supreme Court level. The burden of proof would be on the state to prove someone was not a citizen. If an individual was denied the right to vote, and later proved that he/she were indeed a citizen, the state would be liable for damages.

This is a remarkably stupid piece of legislation, and reeks of, "show me your papers!" per the mot brutal of totalitarian regimes. Some purveyor of freedom the AZ legislature is. I guess most of them missed the history lesson in school that shows what happens when this kind of stuff, passed off as "justified"; they walked right into the very thing they say the despise...a totalitarian regime. I guess that's OK when "they" are the totalitarians.

It sickens me to see something like this in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #182
185. Huh?
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 08:42 AM by jberryhill
How do they take him off the next ballot?

They don't. Because the campaign will satisfy the AZ filing requirements just as it satisfies the paperwork requirements for filing in every other state and DC.

Nobody is asking anyone to "perpetually carry around a birth certificate" any more than asking anyone to perpetually carry around the filing fee, the thousands of signatures on petitions, the application form, or anything else.

Is it facially discriminatory to ask for a BC when you get a driver's license or any other state application?

States will issue as many certified copies as you want, and cheaply. Having someone submit one with an application is no big deal.

If you actually read the article, you'll find that this is an amendment to the affidavit requirement that was already in place. The candidate was already required to produce "papers".

The only reason this attracts the kind of attention it does is because we all know there are idiots who don't think that President Obama was born in Hawaii, or they have a variant definition of "natural born citizen".

But, seriously, do you have ANY conception of the amount of paperwork required to get on the ballot as a presidential candidate in any state? It is not easy, and this requirement is pretty much a nothing, which will have zero practical effect.

What it will do is piss off the birthers even more, when President Obama appears on the ballot in AZ for the presidential election. Which he will.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtLiberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
179. Didn't these people care about the legitimacy of GWB's two terms?
George W. Bush lost both the 2000 and 2004 elections, yet he was able to reside in the White House for eight years, ruining the country and appointing two far-right justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
181. Maybe there's a silver lining if this bill passes
Obama presents his birth certificate to the AZ legislature, they put him on the ballot, and that's the end of the birther movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #181
183. They'll say it's a forgery...
the State of Hawaii already proved he was a citizen, and these morons think that back in the 50's, this was some kind of prescient move by the liberals to have PO placed in the presidency since he was born.

These people are incredibly stupid...how they got to positions of power is incredible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #183
190. Arizona beats Virginia in being an embarrassment....
and that's saying a lot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #190
249. HEY!
We are plenty embarassing here in the Oooooold Dominion

thank. you. very. much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #183
247. Yes, but if AZ is forced to put him on the ballot I think that will take most of the wind
out of their sails. It's sure to get a lot of publicity, and how are they going to explain it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #181
189. Oh no, you underestimate the determined stupidity here

Look, we live in a country where people argue that humans never landed on the moon.

There are already birthers who claim, wrongly, that a president needs to be a child of two citizen parents. They even claim Chester Arthur was illegitimate because his father was British. They would also disqualify Bobby Jindal, who was born in Louisiana to parents who were not citizens.

The crazy goes deep with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
192. Yay for Arizona.


I guess I should find it reassuring that my little hell-hole doesn't have a monopoly on teh stupid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
194. Got no problem with it as it effectively ends the birther crap -
- for now and in the future so what's not to like? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #194
196. What's "Not To Like" Is the Motivation...

It's really not a big deal. States have all sorts of paperwork requirements for getting on the ballot, and some states do require an affirmation of eligibility (e.g. Roger Calero's candidacy).

However, the REASON why they are doing this now is what is offensive.

Hence, the reaction to this fairly mundane thing is more emotionally driven than anything else, and understandably so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #194
203. For starters, the fact that it won't end it at all
If Obama presented a birth certificate everyone who voted for that measure, and most of the state, would just refuse to recognize it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
195. Arizona carries only 10 electoral votes
Who cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
198. Fine by me
Obama shows the same valid, legal document used in 2008, and life goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BolivarianHero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
201. Wow...
As if Sheriff Joe wasn't evidence enough that Arizonans are too stupid to deserve an NHL team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amb123 Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
202. Arizona has become the world's largest insane asylum.
AZ Republicans have made it a crime to be Poor, Hispanic and a Child in Arizona. They've stopped funding for welfare programs, stopped funding for Public Education, stopped funding for Health Care (AHCCCS) and turned our law enforcement officers into immigration agents. Now this.

Arizona, land of the Midnight Crazy!

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #202
209. How many citizens agree with them . . . and is it possible to fight back???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
206. Stupid stupid stupid
You can't do that. You might show a CERTIFIED COPY of your birth certificate, but you can't show the real one.

Stupid fucking people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
215. On a positive note, the AZ Birthers have now outed themselves.
Time for Arizona to vote them out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subaltern Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
218. Arizona: the \"show us your papers\" state, you darkies.
Didn\'t they have a big fight over MLK day back in the 80s or 90s?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
220. What's double funny is that there was no "William J. Clinton" or "Gerald R. Ford" on a BC

Neither of them was born with those names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wildewolfe Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
223. The one bright side...
by the time Orly gets involved and opens up... her fines with interest should be enough to cover the deficit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
227. Deranged
Most of the citizens of this state are not retarded,they are a bunh of deranged red necks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwooldri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
228. This is insanity. My son is in the exact same situation as President Obama.
I'm British, my wifes' American - both by birth on our respective countries soils to parents who were also born in the same country and so on.

My sons have dual nationality - automatically. The United States recognizes my sons as natural born citizens because they were born here to an American parent. The United Kingdom recognizes my sons as British citizens (no natural born requirement there) by descent because I am a British Citizen. Descent only goes down one generation, so for my sons to hand down their British citizenship they'll have to move to the UK and have their children there - but then their children will be US citizens but not by natural born status, because they would have been born on foreign soil.

Will this mean that my sons are ineligible to run for President? Apart from their dual nationality (and they can once they're 18 go through a lengthy and tedious process of rescinding their British citizenship) then according to the US constitution yes they can run but according to these "birthers" no they will not be eligible, because I'm not American.

For the record we have extremely pale coloured skin and blonde hair and blue eyes. All three of us.

However my sons could in theory be President of the United States of America and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - renounce their British Citizenship, run for election, win the Presidency, call the UK and ask for their citizenship back, and then join a UK political party and run for leadership and be elected an MP in an election. Unless the US constitution bars sitting Presidents from gaining citizenships of other countries whilst in office.

Also here's something to think about... The birthers claim that Barack Sr. was British because Kenya was a British colony at the time of the Presidents' birth. If that's the case, then our President in theory COULD BE a dual citizen, and after his time in office, it could be feasible that the UK government want to list him in an Honours List - give him a Knighthood or something... I like the sound of Sir President Barack Obama. It wouldn't even be an honourary knighthood given to distinguished non-citizens (Bob Geldolf has a knighthood but cannot be legally called Sir Bob since he is Irish).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #228
236. I'll take the last part

People tremendously misunderstand notions of "dual citizenship".

As far as US law is concerned, one is a US citizen or not. US law doesn't care whom else might recognize you as a citizen.

Under the conditions of Kenyan independence and its separation from Britain, Mr. Obama would have needed to make a further confirmation to the UK of his intent upon reaching 18. He did not.

However, it would not have mattered at all relative to his US status, just as it does not matter than many natural born US citizens have perfected Irish citizenship through lineage, and Israeli citizenship, to cite two common examples of citizenships obtained by US citizens in addition to their US one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
240. Obama need not to worry about Arizona... I doubt he will get very many votes from that state.
I wonder what McCain thinks about all this. Will he run again in 2012 and if he does then will he show his birth certificate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
241. When the Republican Governor of Hawaii certifies Obama's Birth Certificate (again...)
Is the Republican Governor of Arizona going to be foolish enough to reject that Certification?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #241
244. No Kidding!
Isn't a state certified Birth Certificate the required form of proof for most things - over say - some easily forged hand written document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-10 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
246. They can start with "outside the Panama Canal Zone" "Never a Maverick" McCain.
Edited on Wed Apr-21-10 06:47 PM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC