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.
The two cases aren’t really comparable.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
California used to check prez candidates' eligibility
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,
Here you go:
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?
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.
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.
I believe I said that it's not exactly comparable.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is not a comparable case to demanding more records from Obama.
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.
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.
You seem to have a presupposition that I want the president removed, this is not the case.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
I'm glad we agree!
Originally posted by Sinnthia
Sure it is.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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
That’s not what I said. I didn’t say Arizona couldn’t determine, I said they couldn’t define who was eligible.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm glad we agree!
Originally posted by Sinnthia
Sure it is.
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.
I thought you might claim they don't have that right.
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.
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.
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.
reply to post by Southern Guardian
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?
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."