It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Ridicules AZ Birther Bill

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

UPDATE: The White House has ridiculed a proposed Arizona law that would force President Barack Obama to provide a birth certificate when he runs for president in the state in 2012, calling the legislation a waste of taxpayers' money.

"I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "This is a question that has been answered exhaustively."

The "question" at hand is Obama's citizenship. The proposed Arizona law, which passed the state House this week but still needs Senate and gubernatorial approval, was inspired by the "birther" movement that believes Obama wasn't born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to be president.

rawstory.com...


Since Arizona's Republican-dominated House passed the bill, lawmakers have found themselves at the receiving end of ridicule from numerous political commentators.
"Members of the Arizona state House have made a strong bid for this year's coveted 'nuttiest legislative body' award," writes Robert Schlesinger at US News & World Report.
"The legislation serves less to provide birthers with a way to nail Obama, and serves more to embarrass legislators in Arizona -- as the birther bills in other states have embarrassed their sponsors," writes David Weigel at the Washington Post.

Weigel argues that the legislation is irrelevant because "even if this Arizona bill is signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) it will ... be answered by a certification of live birth from Barack Obama."

Weigel also points to a clause in the proposed law that gives the Arizona secretary of state the discretion to decide whether or not a candidate has met the requirements for eligiblity.
That power amounts to "a nuclear weapon [in] the hands of a partisan elected official," but "it's unlikely that the official could ever use that weapon," presumably because of the political backlash caused by a politician blocking an opponent from running in an election.


This just will not die. No matter what you believe he is President, and I seriously doubt this will change.





It is not truth that matters, but victory. ~Adolf Hitler


[edit on 21-4-2010 by webpirate]




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Unfortunately it won't die. I'm not saying I'm in this camp, but it does look bad when you're asked to prove something and then you throw every excuse you can to no provide said info. It looks bad when your own wife slips and says your home country is Kenya. It looks bad when NO ONE at your own school can say you went there. It just looks bad. With the Certificate of Live Birth that has supposedly been put out (I haven't seen it, just read about it), people are used to actual birth certificates so it could be just throwing people off.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by digifanatic
Unfortunately it won't die. I'm not saying I'm in this camp, but it does look bad when you're asked to prove something and then you throw every excuse you can to no provide said info.


Then add the fact that Obama has spent millions of dollars to make this go away just adds to the drama.

I think Obama was born in Kenya and Obama's parents took advantage of Hawaii's lax birth certificate procedures to ensure US citizenship for their son. You don't spend millions of dollars to hide it if it wasn't true.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Weigel argues that the legislation is irrelevant because "even if this Arizona bill is signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.) it will ... be answered by a certification of live birth from Barack Obama."


Not if the legislation requires the LONG FORM, it won't. Second line.



[edit on 21-4-2010 by sos37]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I don't EVER recall this kind of talk between the federal government and a state government.

Perhaps the situation is escalating.

Which state will be next?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Producing a visual birth certificate is not difficult and not taxing. In order to mend divisions between our population he should show it just to settle it with transparency and finality. Perhaps he does not want to settle the division. He could end the argument and he has not. Why?



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   


"I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "This is a question that has been answered exhaustively."


UHHH what??

Obviously not exhaustively enough for alot of people to be convinced. not only that but you shouldn't have to go to "exhaustive" measures to prove you are a citizen. It's called a long form birth certificate and college records that DONT show that you were a foreign student that recieved foreign aid.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Why would the Federal Government criticize a state for verifying citizenship of its presidential candidates?

I'm not a birther but I don't see what the big deal is, obviously presidential candidates should have to verify that they were born in the United States of America.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


It is a waste of money for a number of reasons:

1) The bill itself oversteps constitutional guidelines as the eligibility of president is left up to the electors and congress during the presidential confirmation. The states have no standing over the matter to dictate the eligibility over the presidency.

2) If this bill did have any relevance it would need all 50 states to verify the presidents eligibility and it would need to be ammended into the constitution. In any case states do have opportunity to verify the eligibility of the president during confirmation of the president and that day came and went.

3) The bill defeats itself as it does not specify the difference between the long form birth certificate or the short form. As the presidents short form was already verified the point of any further verification is a moot. Arizonan authorities will not have the standing to dictate whether an Hawaiian birth certificate is valid because they dont have the records and they do not issue them. It would just end up needing to be verified by Hawaiian officials again.

As for the politicians passing this bill, I'd bet my bottom dollar they realize its utter waste but they don't care. Why? Because it panders to their birther constituents. Its a shame states money is being wasted for a bill that will really do nothing, but hey! If thats how Arizonans choose to waste their tax payers money, oh well.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I totally agree.
There even have state senators saying this law is making the state look ridiculous to the rest of the country. But, Arizona seems to be going out of it's way lately to be at odds with a lot of what is going on elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I am so sick of "labels" these days. I mean seriously, who made up the word "birther?" If you simply question something such as the legitimacy of a president, just as you question most things, why must some lame new label be attached to you?

I don't feel that the citizenship issue has been fully resolved yet, but I don't consider myself a "birther." I am simply an American and a human being. So sick of the labels...



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Not if the legislation requires the LONG FORM, it won't. Second line.


The legislation doesn't require the long form. It doesn't even require a birth certificate.

Amendment HB 2441



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

C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot.


I criticize this bill too. Not because of Obama, but because the Sec. of State is not a document's expert and could deny someone who is perfectly legal because the "documents" didn't meet their approval.

I do support a federal process to check eligibility of all candidates.
But not state by state. That would lead to a fiasco.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join