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.

 

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
The two cases aren’t really comparable.

The case you mention dealt with a candidate not being 35 years old, which is a condition specifically in the Constitution and is not a legal concept subject to legal interpretation, contrary to the concept of natural-born citizen.

Further, the Arizona bill, namely in paragraph (B)(2), says one mustn’t have had dual citizenship. That’s the interpretation of the birthers and the respective Arizona lawmakers of what a natural-born citizen is, but that does not reflect the opinion of the Supreme Court, nor the centuries old principle of native-born citizen in common law, which is the foundation of our law.

So, the bill not only oversteps its authority by interfering with a federal question, but it’s even in contradiction with standing jurisprudence. Good luck on that Supreme Court decision.


edit on 26-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
California used to check prez candidates' eligibility


Why on earth do you continue to use WND as a source? It is not an impartial source.


So, I would point out the State of California kicked a candidate off the ballot for not meeting the constitutional eligibility requirement,




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,


Eldridge was kicked out of his entrance as president because he did not meet the requirements of the constitution. It had little to nothing to do with the birth certificate he presented or state laws. In this case California did not require Eldridge to present anything, they merely provided evidence concerning his age that he was not eligible. This is not a comparable case to demanding more records from Obama.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

I did say it needs some work didn't I? So no doubt about language issues, but you challenged the purpose.

The purpose of a state doing a job that whoever else is supposed to be doing it at the Federal level but is poorly executing their duties does have a precedent.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?
Here you go:

Source


California law allowed for the issuance of abstracts for a period. Due to the increase of fraud, outside agencies became stricter in the forms of vital records they would accept, so State law was changed so abstracts are no longer issued.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
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.



It doesn't matter who the dems want to run or not. What matters is who the Bildebergs want in power and Obama is doing a fine job of bringing America down to par with the rest of the world which is their goal. He will most likely get four more years if not by vote by force.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is not a comparable case to demanding more records from Obama.
I believe I said that it's not exactly comparable.

The purpose of citing the case was that the states do have the ability do remove presidential candidates who don't meet constitutional requirements. That was the point I was trying to make, because aptness suggested they didn't have that right, that only Congress could determine who as eligible for president.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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.



A state passing a law requiring that any candidate for president be born by doctor in a hospital in order to be eligible is constitutional just exactly how?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The purpose of citing the case was that the states do have the ability do remove presidential candidates who don't meet constitutional requirements.


Obviously states have the ability to move presidential candidates due to constitutional requirements, so do electors, so do senators, so do congressman. What's needed is evidence and solid references to the constitution to show a candidate or even a sitting president is ineligible. What follows is a process by which congress moves to impeach the president.

Birthers can actually remove the president if he was found ineligible, they just need solid evidence, you need solid evidence. "Questions" will not amount to anything.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Birthers can actually remove the president if he was found ineligible, they just need solid evidence, you need solid evidence. "Questions" will not amount to anything.
You seem to have a presupposition that I want the president removed, this is not the case.

Evidence seems to be what the Arizona bill is asking for, as am I. If the evidence is provided, I'm happy, I'm not on any crusade to remove anyone from office.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm pointing out the inconsistency between California and Hawaii.


Sure you are. Because that makse sense to do.



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.


So what you have are two different hands. What is the problem?


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


This is one of 3 threads on the same topic generated within 15 minutes of each other about the birther issue. I would suggest that if your problem is with what states currently do what and why, then this might be a bad place to discuss that. Seems much like trying to discuss the reality of future space programs in a Billy Meier thread.


Regarding your other dig, it seems to me like asking a candidate to prove constitutional eligibility is supporting the constitution?


Nope. I read the "proposed act." Whoever write it up needs to have their law degree looked at more closely.


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?


Then I guess you can just quietly wait for that to happen. No more discussion to be had there, right?


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?


Because I enjoy the idea of him being on the ballot without bending over backwards to do things not needed done just to make some ignorant nuts happy. Anyone that claimed the BC had not been shown has proven to not have the intellectual curiosity to bother catering to in such a fashion. Watching all your .s explode as you hunt for new excuses to hide your partisan BS and racism (Yup, I said it. Come get some!
) will be far more entertaining to me than having him take time out to have a private conversation with someone telling them to violate his ownconstitutional protections to be secure in his papers. I am counting on it.

I guess one of us is going to be let down.


I would admit the bill needs a little work before passage,


LOL.

I can tell right now. Nothing is going to be passed that will eliminate what Obama has already shown. Then you will all have to go back to crying about the same crap again. This one is going nowhere.


but I do think it reasonable for states to see source documents to verify constitutional eligibility for candidates they put on their ballot.


Sure it is.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but I do think it reasonable for states to see source documents to verify constitutional eligibility for candidates they put on their ballot.
Sure it is.
I'm glad we agree!

I thought you might claim they don't have that right.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You seem to have a presupposition that I want the president removed, this is not the case.


Birthers want the president removed because they feel by him not releasing his birth certificate, he is breaking constitutional law. You? Well I don't know what you want.

You claim that you don't need to see his original birth certificate, but you demand he release a birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the signiture of his physician, which could only be his original.

You further insist you do not seek him to be removed from the presidency, but you demand he release his birth certificate because, well, you believe he is obligated. You also support a law that seeks to remove him as president if he doesn't present his birth certificate.

All I see is contradictions here,


Evidence seems to be what the Arizona bill is asking for


And what is evidence? And how will Arizonan officials authenticate his original birth certificate hypothetically if he does release it? I am curious.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That was the point I was trying to make, because aptness suggested they didn't have that right, that only Congress could determine who as eligible for president.
That’s not what I said. I didn’t say Arizona couldn’t determine, I said they couldn’t define who was eligible.

What California did, in the case you mentioned, was to apply federal law, specifically, a condition in the Constitution. It didn’t change existing federal law. It didn’t made up conditions which are not required by federal law. Something the Arizona bill would do.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but I do think it reasonable for states to see source documents to verify constitutional eligibility for candidates they put on their ballot.
Sure it is.
I'm glad we agree!

I thought you might claim they don't have that right.


It is when you get into what you think are or should be "source documents" that I believe that agreement falls apart.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And what is evidence? And how will Arizonan officials authenticate his original birth certificate hypothetically if he does release it? I am curious.


All birthers are certified, grade A, top of their class, highest paid in the field, document analysts.
Did you not know? Just because none of them even know what a birth certificate looks like from state to state does not mean anything really. I have been wondering myself how any of the birthers that post around here would verify anything they are handed.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

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.


What are you talking about? Americans never have their original birth certificates to begin with. The original is filed (and kept on file) in the state/county in which the person is born. People then can request "copies" of the original at their county/state records department.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
What are you talking about? Americans never have their original birth certificates to begin with. The original is filed (and kept on file) in the state/county in which the person is born. People then can request "copies" of the original at their county/state records department.


So birthers claim they need to use their original birth certificates as ID's, but you are contradicting this claim of theirs by stating that hospitals keep the original birth certificates and pass on certifications (short forms). What happened to all this talk that the DMV requires your original birth certificate if all these hospitals are sitting on it?


Which one is it?

And yes, original birth certificates are passed on to parents. Hospitals don't hold birth certificates, health authorities maintain and keep them, but only if for some reason parents do not take them. I do not think it is practical in any real sense to have hospitals hold original birth certificates of every citizen, it just ain't reality. I have my original long form birth certificate (the last time a checked it is still around, but don't for how long, it was nearly destroyed two decades ago), the hospital did not keep it. As in Obama's case, his birth certificate is held by health authorities, maybe his parents were not given that option of taking it or decided to leave it in the hands of officals?
edit on 26-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So birthers claim they need to use their original birth certificates as ID's, but you are contradicting this claim of theirs by stating that hospitals keep the original birth certificates and pass on certifications (short forms). What happened to all this talk that the DMV requires your original birth certificate if all these hospitals are sitting on it?
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
For the purposes of Hawaii Homelands definition of "original", this is an "original birth certificate" even though it's not THE original birth certificate:



Because it's the long form, they refer to it as "original" but the original document was actually a piece of paper, not an image of the paper as that obviously is.

If they microfilmed all the papers and destroyed the papers, then how should we refer to these microfilmed images of the pieces of paper? They aren't really the original papers, but some like Hawaii Homelands still equate "original" with "long form" though I think that practice should be discouraged.

Fukino said: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures" So Fukino says they have the original which might look like the image I posted.

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


Okubo said, "If someone from Obama's campaign gave us permission in person and presented some kind of verification that he or she was Obama's designee, we could release the vital record."


I can only guess what Okubo offered to release to Obama but my guess is, what she offered to release would probably be something like the microfilmed "original long form birth certificate" which isn't really an "original" using one definition of original (meaning paper) though it is using Fukino's definition of original.

Whether it can be called "original" or not depends on what definition of original is meant. It meets one definition (of Hawaii Homelands) but probably not the other definition(of the original piece of paper that was originally signed).
edit on 26-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


A birth certiifcate certifies the existance of and pertinent legally required information on the original long form birth registration. A short of long copy is to CERTIFY the existence of the registration. Without one, there is no way to certify and thus print up the copy. This is what birth certificates are for. The short form published online certifes that there is a registration such as above showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Birthers need to actually push a new law to do away with all short forms because apparently you are all denying the legal purpose of them. Why are you letting so many states issue them?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer
 


Of course not. It'll be a forgery, don'cha know!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join