Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law Obama will have to produce birth certificate to r

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again

www.wnd.com

It could be a game-changer.

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were sever

(visit the link for the full news article)

You guy's know what arizona has done?
They said..Put up or Shut up!!!

So are obamabot's gonna get mad?
Or are they gonna realize finally they let this country down by not demanding it sooner?

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. The critical phrases are "natural born citizen" and the requirements of "article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States," which imposes on the president a requirement not demanded of other state and federal officeholders. At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth. Read more: Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law www.wnd.com...

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sorry but your late to the party.
abovetopsecret.com...

It is already getting the birthers all worked in that thread.

reply to post by TheAmused


Has anybody read the actual law? It does not require the original birth certificate neither is the first time birther legislation has gotten this far. I understand, you want Obama to show you his birth certificate because you all don't like him, I get it, but this ain't going anywhere.

Here is a suggestion, lobby congress.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


All these sudden threads are referring to this "act" being proposed.

AN ACT



amending title 16, chapter 4, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 16-507.01; relating to conduct of elections.





(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)







Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 16, chapter 4, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 16-507.01, to read:

START_STATUTE16-507.01. Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications

A. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party's nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.



B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1. An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.

2. A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.

3. A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.

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

It is unfortunately worded very poorly.

So birthers think that Arizona is going to vet obamas eligibility? What happened in 2008 when your own senator, John McCain, let him slide into the presidency without a fight about this birther nonsense.

First he's spending millions to hide his LFBC, which birthers claim doesn't exist.
Then his "grandmother" in Kenya claims he was born there, along with a newspaper In Kenya. Granted
those same people who believe this tripe would never trust a Kenyan newspaper for anything else, nor could they even point out Kenya on a map.

This is all just silliness and detracts from obamas goofy policies.

I'll be honest, I don't know where he was born because I wasn't there. But I'll take his word for it because I'm not looking for a conspiracy in everything the man says/does. If he wasn't born in Hawaii then there is a bigger problem then a "foreigner" being president. Mainly the conspiracy of those involved not to vet him properly and let him actually become president.

Obama will not be the demo choice unless he IS the messiah and pulls a miracle or two, like producing a HBC and making terrific strides with the economy and war issues.

His own party leaders are out to get him or at the least not support him. They will be more dems running for the nonimation than ever before. They will have a hell of a situation on their hands. Obama increasingly appears to be born in Kenya. If that is true and top dems really know that, they cannot take the chance of him allowing him to run again for that reason alone. All things considered, Kenyian or not, the best move the dems can make is to find a good alternative even if they are unsure about his citizenship.

My guess would be that IF he is allowed to run than his citizenship will be virtually proven by that fact alone even if the matter is not properly settled for all interested parties beforehand.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TheAmused

 

Has anybody read the actual law? It does not require the original birth certificate

Practice as you preach my friend.

Have you read it? See B1:

www.azleg.gov.../legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544p.htm

B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1. An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.

2. A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.

3. A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.

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

It looks to me like you're wrong once again about not having to provide the long form birth certificate, unless you were referring to the current law, instead of the law mentioned in the OP.

So a candidate will actually have to prove their constitutional eligibility and states won't have to rely on the word of one department of health official, but can see the source document?

Short form birth certificates don't seem like as good a form of proof as a long form, California has practically banned short form birth certificates due to the fraud associated with them. In fact, they don't even issue short form birth certificates at all any more due to the fraud issue. I guess if all you have to do is fake a computer generated printout, that's way too easy.

But faking a doctor's signature may be way harder. Not physically putting a fake signature on the paper, but getting a list of doctors who were on staff at the hospital and on duty at the date/time mentioned in the certificate, etc.

I think California stopped issuing short form birth certificates over a decade ago because of fraud, and it seems like other states should be as interested in fraud prevention also, so I would be in favor of making it a national policy to not allow any document that's too easy to fake (like short form birth certificates are) as proof of anything.

Some examples where short form birth certificates are not accepted already:

www.freerepublic.com...

I hadn’t seen that version of the bill. That’s even more comical.

Whoever thinks this law has a chance in hell of standing, should have been studying the Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence, instead of reading WND and looking for Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Some examples where short form birth certificates are not accepted already:

www.freerepublic.com...

Any examples from the statest that issue short forms? How about the fine print there that accepts short forms from states as such? Obviously the details might get in the way.

Sidenote: Why do you birthers hate the constitution so much?

reply to post by Sinnthia

Sidenote: Why do you birthers hate the constitution so much?

So expecting proof that the president is eligible according to the rules set out in the constitution is considered "hating the constitution"..?????

I'm baffled by that statement.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Any examples from the statest that issue short forms? How about the fine print there that accepts short forms from states as such? Obviously the details might get in the way.

Sidenote: Why do you birthers hate the constitution so much?

I'm pointing out the inconsistency between California and Hawaii.

On the one hand we have California that has abandoned the short form due to problems with fraud.

On the other hand we have the state of Hawaii standardizing on the short form.

The inconsistency of these 2 different approaches is noteworthy, regardless of where you stand on the Obama issue.

Regarding your other dig, it seems to me like asking a candidate to prove constitutional eligibility is supporting the constitution? And Okubo has already said they'll make the document available if Obama just asks for it, so I don't see what the big deal is? Obama asks for it, Okubo provides it, Obama gets on the ballot and all the birthers shut up, what's wrong with that? I would think you would like that, especially the part about the birthers shutting up?

I would admit the bill needs a little work before passage, but I do think it reasonable for states to see source documents to verify constitutional eligibility for candidates they put on their ballot.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I would admit the bill needs a little work before passage, but I do think it reasonable for states to see source documents to verify constitutional eligibility for candidates they put on their ballot.

The problem is beyond the language, it’s with the purpose itself. What makes you think a state can define what the requirements for office of President of the United States are? Not only that but the bill even defines what paperwork is acceptable to meet those requirements.

Freshmen Constitutional law students everywhere are laughing out lout reading this bill.

So when (if) he produces his birth certificate, and he is proven to be a natural born US citizen, will everyone shut up about it?

Originally posted by aptness
What makes you take a state can define what the requirements for office of President of the United States are?

It can't, the constitution defines the constitutional requirements. But somebody has to confirm those constitutional requirements are met. That should be the purpose, to determine that the candidates placed on the ballot conform to the requirements for office stated in the constitution.

Right?

reply to post by TheAmused


Yeah this wont be going anywhere. The FEderal Election Commission is responsbile for Federal Election requirements as spelled out in the Constitution, not Arizona. As much as Arizona likes to point out how the Feds step on State authority, they are doing the exact same thing here.

As much as I agree that any candidae for office should be required to release the information proving they are eiligible to hold the office they are running for, this is not going to do it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It can't, the constitution defines the constitutional requirements. But somebody has to confirm those constitutional requirements are met.

The Constitution and federal law already stipulate whose burden it is to confirm those requirements: Congress.

The federal Constitution sets out requirements for a federal office and a state, through its legislature, can define what paperwork is required for that federal office?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TheAmused

 

Has anybody read the actual law? It does not require the original birth certificate

Practice as you preach my friend.

Wow it does, the other former birther laws don't. I stand corrected Arbitrageur, you got me on this one.

So a candidate will actually have to prove their constitutional eligibility and states won't have to rely on the word of one department of health official, but can see the source document?

This is not pratical in any sense. Many many americans no longer have their original birth certificates. Both of my elder parents no longer have their original birth certificates, none of my family members have their any longer. I am the only person in my family as far as I am aware that still has my original birth certificate. A law the requires the original birth certificate will automatically disqualify millions of natural born citizens who have lost theirs through circumstances, and because of this I do not see this law coming to fruitition.

There are many other factors, including the fact Arizona does not have any standing over this matter, congress does, constitutionally.

Short form birth certificates don't seem like as good a form of proof as a long form, California has practically banned short form birth certificates due to the fraud associated with them.

Can you give me a link to this? Every state has it's own laws concerning birth certificates. Regarding california banning short form birth certificates, it makes little difference. Whether a birth certificate is short form or long form it is still a certification of live birth, a copy of the original, and the realiance on it's authenticity depends on the verification from officials. The only difference is the minor additional information contained.

Even if Obama's birth certificate contained his hospital, what difference would it make? You cannot access his records.

But faking a doctor's signature may be way harder.

I don't get this. Your saying that any doctors signiture is good enough for you? This makes little sense. How is a doctors signiture suppose to authenticate a birth certificate? I understand the point about an attending physcian or doctor at the time of said persons birth, but concerning a certification of live birth or long form, one that is the copy of the original, are insisting that these same doctors are required to resign these new birth certificates years after? What if your doctors dead? What if they are out of the country? You have strange requirements for authenticity which is impratical in reality.

There have been numerous birther lawsuits and legislations pushed over the years, and have been either dismissed or disappeared. The truth is, along with the fact the requirement of this law is unrealistic, it is also not authority. The state of arizona can dictate to the rest of the country the requirements of the president. Eligibility and verification is left up to congress and only congress.
www.usconstitution.net...

As stated, this is a waste of time, and like the 80 or so other birth lawsuits and laws, this one will dissappear off into irrelevance. The only way to get to the president over his eligibility is through congress. Some republicans, as typical as they are, are playing towards the votes of their constituents, no different to the Alabama governor, or secessionist Rick Perry. But whatever rows your boat.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It can't, the constitution defines the constitutional requirements. But somebody has to confirm those constitutional requirements are met.

The Constitution and federal law already stipulate whose burden it is to confirm those requirements: Congress.

The federal Constitution sets out requirements for a federal office and a state, through its legislature, can define what paperwork is required for that federal office?

California has removed a presidential candidate from the ballot before due to a failure to meet constitutional requirements, and this action was challenged all the way up to the supreme court.

California used to check prez candidates' eligibility

in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president, and then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."

So, I would point out the State of California kicked a candidate off the ballot for not meeting the constitutional eligibility requirement, and they won the fight in the supreme court for their right to do so. The facts in the Arizona case would be different so I can't predict the supreme court decision or if it would even get that far, if it even passes.

I am just pointing out that your argument has some huge holes in it.

Edit to add: This also shows that whoever's job it was besides California's to vet that candidates met constitutional requirements, wasn't doing a very good job.

reply to post by TheAmused


Yep:

Arizona is a "closed record" state. That means that vital records are not public record. Arizona law restricts the public's access to vital records as follows to protect the confidentiality rights of our citizens. Arizona Administrative Code R9-19-403 specifies that only the following may receive a certified copy of a birth certificate

www.azdhs.gov...

So will they be passing a law declaring that the president is not a citizen of the United states as well? And then there is this little gem below:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738,

Read more: Full Faith and Credit Clause - Further Readings - Court, Marriage, Judgment, Custody, Recognize, and Enforcement law.jrank.org...

Also, from what I've read on Arizona's birth certificate laws, they stopped issuing long form birth certificates since 1990, though this was a claim, I have not confirmed it on a government website of sorts. I'm having difficulty trying to find exactly what Arizona issues but I will post later if I find anything.