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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
There's a prior thread on this - maybe they can be combined?:

Prior Thread Link


edit on 26-1-2011 by EssenSieMich because: sp




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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Have you ever seen me "demand it"? I think he ought to release it


So you do not think he should have to release his birth certificate but you want him to? Ok, so you want him to play to your ethical standards.


Arizona wants to see documentation for 2012 Presidential candidates based on this legislation, but even Arizona isn't demanding it.


This bill requires presidential candidates to present their original birth certificates, so how is Arizona not demanding it if it is a requirement?


If Obama doesn't run in 2012 there's no provision in this bill that demands to see anything from Obama.


Yes, and it was apparent I was talking about Obama running in the 2012 elections. So, is Arizona demanding Obama release his original birth certificate or not?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Arizona has been following a process like many other states in issuing short form birth certificates as opposed to long form ones:


BIRTH SHORT
A certified birth certificate that can typically be used for travel, passport, proof of citizenship, social security, driver's license, school registration, personal identification and other legal purposes. The Birth Certificate - Short is available for events that occurred within the State of Arizona from 1990 to present.

BIRTH LONG
A certified birth certificate that can typically be used for travel, passport, proof of citizenship, social security, driver's license, school registration, personal identification and other legal purposes. The Birth Certificate - Long is available for events that occurred within the State of Arizona from 1903 to 1989.

www.vitalchek.com...

Along with the full faith and credit clause and the constitutional guidelines leaving the presidential eligibility process to congress, Arizona will have it's issues with it's own citizens. There are many many hurdles and issues this law tramples over, so far that it is not even worth it.

I do believe these Arizona representitives are playing the part of fools. They know full well that this bill ain't going anywhere, just like the "papers please" bill they gathered afew months back. They play towards something that may be controversial among their constituents in time for the election period, hence "2012" is the marked year for the bill to supposedly go into place. Although I don't understand why these representitives have to fight for fringe conservative constituents? Who else will they vote for? The Democrats? But then again, maybe they are competing with other rightwing politicians.
edit on 26-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Why is Obama the only President who has ever caused all this fervor over a birth certificate? Do you know where John McCain was born? Have you ever seen the birth certificate of ANY other President? I would like to see ANY evidence that Obama was NOT born in the USA if anyone can find any.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Everyone automatically think's i dislike obama.
cause of this birth certificate issue.

i dont dislike nor hate any man.
lets get this strait.

But when it come's to the safety of my country i love..
Yes there has to be a law to force a candidate who runs for any political office in this great country to show 100% with long form they are natural born citizen's.

As for the argument still going on.
Is "Natural born" meaning.

Some even congress think's. it meant "Born of two united state citizen's".
cause otherwise there could be a conflict of loyalty toward America.
And some think it means "Born from at least 1 legal united sates citizen on united state's soil"
But we all see how many anchor babies we have now don't you?
As with the Hispanic a woman can come over here get pregnant by a united state
s man..her kid is a united states citizen and she get's to stay.
So it's flawed in a way.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
Why is Obama the only President who has ever caused all this fervor over a birth certificate? Do you know where John McCain was born? Have you ever seen the birth certificate of ANY other President? I would like to see ANY evidence that Obama was NOT born in the USA if anyone can find any.


Yes Mcain got sued to prove he was eligible to run for president.
and won.
he was born in panama to a military family.
on a military base.
But did you ask him for paper work when he risked his life in war and was a pow?
No you didnt lol

As for proof of obama..
can you show me 100% proof he was?
You can;t or we all wouldn't be talking about it here now.
Unlike McCain..obama has sent 1.7million on lawsuit's to block and make sure no one ever finds out in court.
that is a fact.

As for proof he wasn't..
Well even his own grandma said he was born in kenya.
we all have seen the video.
she even saw him born she said.
But yeah granny's lie all the time for no reason lol
But all i am saying is there is responsible doubt ..and to be president there should be NO DOUBT .



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
Yes Mcain got sued to prove he was eligible to run for president. and won.
McCain was sued and all the lawsuits were dismissed by lack of standing of the plaintiff, just like with the Obama lawsuits.


he was born in panama to a military family. on a military base.
How ironic that you are here demanding “100% proof” — whatever that means — about Obama and you are completely ignorant in respect to McCain, but point to McCain as an example of what Obama should have done.

McCain isn’t a US citizen because he was “born to a military family,” nor he is a US citizen because he was born “on a military base.” McCain is a US citizen by an act of Congress — the Act of Aug. 4 1937 — enacted 11 months after McCain’s birth.

McCain, contrary to Obama, never disclosed his birth certificate, long or short form. The birth certificates available on the internet supposedly of McCain were obtained by Fred Hollander, one of the plaintiffs that sued McCain. And, contrary to Obama, no official entities ever vouched for the authenticity of those certificates.

If you are going to make wild claims, at least get your facts straight. You wouldn’t look this uninformed.


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



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


LOL unlike OBAMA...
Mcain was born in a military family ...
His father was fighting for our great country....
He was born at the base he was stationed at...
What is so hard to understand on Mcain?

I swear to god..lol

Mcain this and Mcain that Mcain hit us with a wiffle ball bat!!!!

As i said before did you demand mcain's long form birth certificate when he signed up and fought and was a POW for this country?
dang hypocrite's.

At the very least..
Obama was born into duel citizenship.
His father was under British rule a the time of his birth .
And that alone should have not been allowed to be as president.

even if later in life he gave away all those British right...as duel citizenship.
it doesn't make him a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to me or a lot of American's.
Just saying.




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

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



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
Mcain was born in a military family ...
His father was fighting for our great country....
He was born at the base he was stationed at...
I thought the birthers argued Obama isn’t eligible because he doesn’t fulfill the natural-born citizen clause, and all you have said about McCain is completely irrelevant to that question.


As i said before did you demand mcain's long form birth certificate when he fought and was a POW for this country?dang hypocrite's.
I didn’t demand anyone’s birth certificate. I am on record saying I am against the natural-born citizen clause, so as a matter of personal preference, I could care less about McCain’s birth certificate.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy in your argument. It is you, sir, who is the hypocrite. You claim to know nothing of Obama, and therefore demand “100% proof,” but it’s quite clear that you don’t anything about McCain’s situation either.

You are arguing McCain is eligible based on personal reassurances — he was born to a military family, he served in the military — that have absolutely no relevance to the question of natural-born citizenship. I thought this was a discussion based on what the Constitution required.

How telling that you justify your demands based on your personal feelings.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
McCain was sued and all the lawsuits were dismissed by lack of standing of the plaintiff, just like with the Obama lawsuits.
Most of the Obama lawsuits had standing problems, but apparently at least one petitioner, Hollister, had standing:

Kagan, Sotomayor blew chance to stop eligibility challenge?


Lawyers working for a retired military officer who is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president say the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion, thus conceding the point and possibly requiring a new conference vote among the seven remaining justices, including four mostly conservative, on whether the high court will hear arguments over Obama's legitimacy...

This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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.


So if we liked him it would be OK with you that he was born in Kenya?
Its all right with you that we just over look the rules so long as we like the guy?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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.


So if we liked him it would be OK with you that he was born in Kenya?
Its all right with you that we just over look the rules so long as we like the guy?


That seem's to be the argument that get's brought up every time this subject come's up.
look at the thread you will see 8 poster's with the same REACH AROUND tactic lol



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973. McCain experienced episodes of torture, and refused an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer. His war wounds left him with lifelong physical limitations. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and moved to Arizona, where he entered politics

Did you or anyone question your so called illegal immigrant before he fought and risked his life for his country?
NO THEY DID NOT!!
Any idiot knows
If you father and mother are stationed in let's say Germany...she give's birth to you in germany...
on a military base..you a dang american.
For god sake's man listen to yourself.
The whole argument does that make him natural born...
Heck YES it does..
He was born on united states soil a government base.

Mcain can't even raise his arm's above his head due to the torture he endured for US the AMERICAN people.
LOL
and you still question him.

But when it come's to obama...the black man.
You all draw a line.
As if your brainwashed or something to be honest.

And A typical start on mcain or sarah palin lol
as the only defense you have left.

Btw i didnt vote for none of the above...
i didnt want to waste my vote lol

Please all i am saying is this.
If you can prove to me PROVE...as if i am a court...
I want no doubt left that obama is a legal natural born citizen..and was not born with duel citizenship.
Can you do that for me?
If you can't....anything you say is equal to bull crap am i correct?
So prove to me he is END OF STORY.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Both sides seem biased to me...

The people demanding his birth certificate have never bothered to care if any other president had a birth certificate...

The people who like Obama seem to be suggesting that it is none of our business and he shouldn't have to prove anything.

In fact, all presidential candidates should have to prove their citizenship long before the vote comes in. Obama, Huckabee, I don't care...prove you're a citizen or you can't be president in my eyes.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
You should really reconsider all that time you waste on WND.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
Oh no, it’s a conspiracy!

It’s not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse to hear a case without explanation. Here’s a recent one.


reply to post by TheAmused
 
You are embarrassing yourself and your true colors are showing. Consider this my final response to your irrelevant drivel.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

www.theobamafile.com...
Here is legal grounds on which some of what i say hold merit.

If you read them ..it tell's you in those court case's they was deemed natural born and so forth.
Where does obama fall?
If there court said there that...Why is obama not lumped in there?
I thought every man in this country had to live by the same law's as the next.
they was not meant to be bent or broken.

If you look at case
US Constitution 14th Amendment, Sec. 1 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939
They was deemed in court to be naturalized citizens.
NOT NATURAL BORN.

and here is what is supposedly mcains real live birth record.
not 100% sure on it lol


man you take what i say the wrong way.

I take the possibility of a non natural born citizen seriously when it come's to my presiden'ts.
But for some if he is black it seems to be ok.
Or as long as he isnt mcain.
what ever there reason.
Just cause you like obama doesn't make it ok ..that he might not be.
and that is your whole argument in a nutshell.
Heck i like the guy he seem's like a good guy to me.
but am i sure he is a natural born citizen?NO
as i said.


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

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



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 
You’re way in over your head.

Instead of relying on that chart you should have actually read the Supreme Court cases cited, because then you would have realized that they actually contradict, basically, the whole chart.

First, “native born” and “natural born” are the same thing. The terms describe the common law principle given to people who were born as citizens within the jurisdiction of the King of England.

Second, let me, from the cited Supreme Court cases in the chart (Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg), show you how the opinions of the Supreme Court in those cases actually contradict what the chart claims.

Regarding the claim that a natural-born citizen is only someone born to 2 citizen parents: from Wong Kim Ark

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.
Also, from Wong Kim Ark

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
Still from Wong Kim Ark

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England (...) We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Yet from Wong Kim Ark

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.

Now from Perkins v. Elg, which will also address the claims of Obama’s dual citizenship—

On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law.

Lastly, if one accepted that chart — which I don’t and the reason should now be obvious even to you — then McCain isn’t a natural-born citizen, since the chart claims one must be born to 2 citizen parents and in the United States. McCain doesn’t fulfill the second condition.

Some final words regarding some comments you have made:


Originally posted by TheAmused
Just cause you like obama doesn't make it ok
Because I’m not in favor of your cause I must “like Obama”? Sir, I invite you to read the relevant posts I have made in the past regarding what I think of Obama and his policies. You assume too much.


and that is your whole argument in a nutshell.
My argument is backed up by the Supreme Court cases I just cited and quoted above — and that your little chart claims backs up their claims — and by the fact that you bithers have yet to present any credible and tangible evidence to demonstrate that Obama wasn’t born in the United Sates.

I understand this might be surprising to you but I give more weight to the statements of the relevant authorities — Hawaii’s Department of Health — than to hearsay and flawed or just plain baseless pseudo-legal arguments on WND or similar websites.

I hope I have been of assistance in clarifying your misconceptions and misinformation regarding this subject.



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



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
Why is Obama the only President who has ever caused all this fervor over a birth certificate? Do you know where John McCain was born? Have you ever seen the birth certificate of ANY other President? I would like to see ANY evidence that Obama was NOT born in the USA if anyone can find any.


Basically Obama is not a WASP, so some birthers hate that fact, so make up all sort of silly demands they want Obama to comply with.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
You should really reconsider all that time you waste on WND.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
Oh no, it’s a conspiracy!

It’s not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse to hear a case without explanation.
I never said it was uncommon, what I said was that not all cases had been dismissed for lack of standing as you implied, and in this case, (the Robertson decision that led up to the Supreme court appeal), Robertson decided something to the effect that Americans had already diligently determined the president's eligibility on twitter among other places (he didn't mention ATS for some reason???
) so he didn't need to see a birth certificate. That is what sounds like the conspiracy, how the hell can a judge refer to twitter as a means of confirming the president's eligibility, instead of seeing the actual birth certificate?
edit on 27-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused

Yes Mcain got sued to prove he was eligible to run for president.
and won.


That is just not true. McCain was declared eligible by congress so that this issue would just go away.
They did not do the same for Obama because Obama actually was eligible and did not need a special declaration of such.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join