Ariz. passes 'birther bill' aimed at Obama

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Obama has essentially told Arizona to pound sand and overtly implied that the state is filled with racists. The feds have sued the state and Obama has been publically rude to the governor.

What goes around comes around. The states have the constitutional right to oversee federal elections within their jurisdiction. He'll provide the legitimate materials or he won't get on the ballot and there are 10 other states that will have similar laws by the time the election rolls around.

Its brilliant. What is he to do but comply? This "I don't want to" or "I've already done it" just ain't going to fly". If he does have the legitimate documentation, folks are just going to look at him like he's a total tool for dragging this business out when it could have been resolved and resolved to everyone's satisfaction in about 2 hours.

I've dealt with State politicians and have participated in the process first hand and can say that Federal Election Commission oversees all House, Senate and Presidential elections and the elections that the states are allowed to oversee if Governor, State Legislature, County level and all local elections. So sorry.

United States Federal Election Commission website :
www.fec.gov...

As the Tea Partiers are so fond of the U.S. Constitution, it is a good idea to remind them of Article IV, section I.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Specifically, this means that if the official representative of Hawaii says that B.H.O. was born in Hawaii and is thus a natural born citizen of the U.S. (as is the case), then Arizona is obligated to accept that fact.

It is furthermore unconstitutional for the legislature of Arizona to apply standards for eligibility for the Presidency which are in conflict with the Constitution.

Originally posted by mbkennel

As the Tea Partiers are so fond of the U.S. Constitution, it is a good idea to remind them of Article IV, section I.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Specifically, this means that if the official representative of Hawaii says that B.H.O. was born in Hawaii and is thus a natural born citizen of the U.S. (as is the case), then Arizona is ordered to accept that fact.

It is furthermore unconstitutional for the legislature of Arizona to apply standards for eligibility for the Presidency which are in conflict with the Constitution.

Each State to Honor all Others is the title of the clause and orders that all states recognize each others citizens. Slightly modified your quote to replace obligated to ordered as no state is exempt from that.

Originally posted by mbkennel
It is furthermore unconstitutional for the legislature of Arizona to apply standards for eligibility for the Presidency which are in conflict with the Constitution.

What is in conflict? This bill, if signed is guiding the Secretary of State of Arizona to confirm the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Verification of age, birth place and residency.

Can you please show me in the proposed bill where it reaches beyond that?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is also not a catch all especially in this context. If that were the case, a prisoner pardoned in one state would have to be pardoned in another because of the clause. This simply isn't the way that clause works nor intended. Each state has the sovereign right and responsibility for their own ballots. Just because another state claims eligibility, does not automatically set the precedence for all 49 other states.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by mbkennel
It is furthermore unconstitutional for the legislature of Arizona to apply standards for eligibility for the Presidency which are in conflict with the Constitution.

What is in conflict? This bill, if signed is guiding the Secretary of State of Arizona to confirm the requirements set forth in the Constitution. Verification of age, birth place and residency.

Can you please show me in the proposed bill where it reaches beyond that?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is also not a catch all especially in this context. If that were the case, a prisoner pardoned in one state would have to be pardoned in another because of the clause. This simply isn't the way that clause works nor intended. Each state has the sovereign right and responsibility for their own ballots. Just because another state claims eligibility, does not automatically set the precedence for all 49 other states.

Each State to Honor all Others clause of Art IV Sec 1 of The Constitution orders that all states are to recognize others citizens. The 14th as well. When it comes to national elections the states cannot set nor enforce policies as it's beyond their jurisdiction and authourity. They furthermore have no authourity nor legal ground to try and enforce policy pertaining to national election qualifications as that is already determined by the national Constitution.

Judicial jurisdiction for court cases in one state only apply to that state and cannot apply in another, if multiple crimes were committed in multiple states then each state is charged with carrying out justice. When a criminal is pardoned in one state and committed a crime in another the second state reserves the right to pursue charges and deny the pardon for that state.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Then why allow states to regulate their own ballots if we take this line of reasoning with the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

The primary purpose to ensure legislative acts, public records and decisions are recognized by the various states. That given, New Mexico does not have a helmet law, but California does. If I rode into California and then invoked the clause, it wouldn't stand.

As far as the public records, this is not to say that a state must accept another states decision regarding eligibility, but that the state cannot deem such public records invalid because they are out of state.

No where in the proposed bill do I see such happening. The bill gives the Secretary of State guidance in determining eligibility to be placed on the states ballot. It lays out specific, yet broad items that can be used to determine such eligibility.

The bill does not say it won't accept public records from another state. It doesn't exclude records from another state. It does however put to rest this ridiculous argument that is cause for such distraction. It does, given if no other state adopts similar laws, allow other states to recognize Arizona's ruling based upon legislative acts.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You do know there is no national election in the sense you are claiming right? The only authority is based in the framework regarding electors, but each state reserves the right to how those electors are chosen. Each ballot must only follow the rules set forth in the Voting Rights Act which only strikes out discrimination.

Voting is a state-granted privileged. As being such, it is the duty of a state's government to determine the rules in accordance with the Constitution. This bill does not overstep Constitutional authority in regards to the eligibility requirements, but rather empowers the state with a verification tool for their own ballots.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Then why allow states to regulate their own ballots if we take this line of reasoning with the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

The primary purpose to ensure legislative acts, public records and decisions are recognized by the various states. That given, New Mexico does not have a helmet law, but California does. If I rode into California and then invoked the clause, it wouldn't stand.

As far as the public records, this is not to say that a state must accept another states decision regarding eligibility, but that the state cannot deem such public records invalid because they are out of state.

No where in the proposed bill do I see such happening. The bill gives the Secretary of State guidance in determining eligibility to be placed on the states ballot. It lays out specific, yet broad items that can be used to determine such eligibility.

The bill does not say it won't accept public records from another state. It doesn't exclude records from another state. It does however put to rest this ridiculous argument that is cause for such distraction. It does, given if no other state adopts similar laws, allow other states to recognize Arizona's ruling based upon legislative acts.

If you travel to another state are you not subjected to the laws of that state? Yes you are but in cases where a national policy exists the national policy becomes the supreme law of the land and this bill attempts to sidestep the national policy here. In this case the 10th does not apply.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

You do know there is no national election in the sense you are claiming right? The only authority is based in the framework regarding electors, but each state reserves the right to how those electors are chosen. Each ballot must only follow the rules set forth in the Voting Rights Act which only strikes out discrimination.

Voting is a state-granted privileged. As being such, it is the duty of a state's government to determine the rules in accordance with the Constitution. This bill does not overstep Constitutional authority in regards to the eligibility requirements, but rather empowers the state with a verification tool for their own ballots.

The individual states are however empowered to set forth it's own rules on how it conducts its own elections and has the authourity to adopt a Code Of Conduct for all State election workers. The state however does not have the authourity to sidestep nor circumvent national policy when one exists for this.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


And what national policy (I assume law you mean) does this bill sidestep? Federal Voting Rights Act? Nope, this bill from Arizona has no discriminatory language nor does it impose different rules to the ballot.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

And what national policy (I assume law you mean) does this bill sidestep? Federal Voting Rights Act? Nope, this bill from Arizona has no discriminatory language nor does it impose different rules to the ballot.

It denies clearly the orders of one state and violates Article IV Sec I. Measures like this one usually form the groundwork for the next Civil War.

How would this affect the electoral college process, since it is state specific?
(honest question, morning here and I'm kinda slow. . . . )

Originally posted by beezzer
How would this affect the electoral college process, since it is state specific?
(honest question, morning here and I'm kinda slow. . . . )

It would not because all Arizona would have to do is issue it's 11 Electoral College votes to the GOP candidate if it so chooses.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


It sounds like a state, any state, could invalidate any electoral process just through the electoral process. I'd have to assume that there are checks and balances in place though, to prevent this from happening. As most are aware, I'm no fan of Obama, but as stated above, Constitutional measures would invalidate any attempt of ANY state to usurpt the election process.
What's to stop any state from passing a law that would focus on a variety of issues that could exclude a candidate from running in that area?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

It sounds like a state, any state, could invalidate any electoral process just through the electoral process. I'd have to assume that there are checks and balances in place though, to prevent this from happening. As most are aware, I'm no fan of Obama, but as stated above, Constitutional measures would invalidate any attempt of ANY state to usurpt the election process.
What's to stop any state from passing a law that would focus on a variety of issues that could exclude a candidate from running in that area?

No state can pass any law that bans or denies the incumbent candidate the right to appear on the ballot as POTUS elections is decreed Federal territory. The FEC sends its people into every state during a national tier election to prevent cases of fraud and if a state denies the incumbent this right The FEC can place the incumbent on the ballot without no regard to how the state feels about it as The FEC is only accountable and answerable to The US Federal Government and no other entity.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Source List:
Law Library
Hawaii Records Search - Birth Certificates

Some clarity in regards to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC). This clause "ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state." So first, how can you invoke the clause if there has been no judgement by the State of Hawaii judicial and/or legislative act(s) in regards to a specific birth certificate; namely, that of President Obama. Second, we can start claiming the public record portion of the clause, but the problem here is that Hawaiian birth certificate records are classified "Confidential - no public access permitted".

These two facts make the FFCC moot. There is no unconstitutionality within this bill in regards to how that state determines ballot eligibility. If you notice, the bill is not determining the eligibility of the candidate itself, but rather determining if that person can be placed upon a ballot. In determining such, they want to utilize known documents that have long been established and traditionally used in genealogical methods of establishing a record of a persons birth, age, place of birth, etc. These are to be used to help the Secretary of State for Arizona determine ballot eligibility.

----Not specifically you Immaculate, just in general. I am approaching this as objectively as I can.-----
Don't get my discussion and debate on this issue muddled with the thought that I follow the line of thinking that President Obama is not a citizen. I don't buy into that notion. I am analyzing, discussing and debating the bill itself in terms of law and constitutionality.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
So first, how can you invoke the clause if there has been no judgement by the State of Hawaii judicial and/or legislative act(s) in regards to a specific birth certificate; namely, that of President Obama.

The certificate Obama has presented does indeed include a ‘judgment’ by a state of Hawaii legislative act. If you look at copy of the certificate, it says on the bottom—

This copy serves as prima evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

That’s a determination made by a legislative act, namely HRS 338-13(b)—

Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

Second, we can start claiming the public record portion of the clause, but the problem here is that Hawaiian birth certificate records are classified "Confidential - no public access permitted".

I find this argument unpersuasive.

Even if one accepted your argument that a birth certificate, since the vital records are protected information, wouldn’t be covered by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, it would be by other federal laws, including 28 USC 1739—

All nonjudicial records or books kept in any public office of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.

Obama’s certificate includes the “attestation of the custodian of such records” and “the seal of his office.”

There is no unconstitutionality within this bill in regards to how that state determines ballot eligibility. If you notice, the bill is not determining the eligibility of the candidate itself, but rather determining if that person can be placed upon a ballot.

This makes no sense. If you claim the bill “is not determining the eligibility” of a candidate what justification could they have for refusing someone to be put on the ballot? By “determining if that person can be placed upon a ballot” implies they have the power to refuse to put someone’s name on the ballot.

Additionally, this bill provides standing to any citizen of Arizona to sue the state if that citizen disagrees with the determination of the Secretary of State. In 16-507.01-F, the bill states—

A member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section

So even if Obama got a long birth certificate, one of the Vattelist birthers would sue the state because he thinks natural born citizen means having 2 citizen parents.

You honestly believe a state, or an individual citizen of a state, can define the qualifications and determine the acceptable documents for a federal office?

The only thing this bill will accomplish is waste more of Arizonians money.

Great idea, however, you can bet team obama has lawyers all over this and it'll just become another talking point in his 2 year long re election bid? remember "WeWon" seems to be his slogan of choice and it's not like anyone eis allowed to have an opinion without the race card being played, it was a nice attempt, but it'll be derailed by the administrtion just as quickly as everything else that makes sense any more.

The statement at the bottom, reading "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings"; citing HRS 338-13(b). That statement is not a judgement but yes it is a legislative act. HRS 338-13(b) is a statute that covers when one requests copies of a birth certificate and they receive not the original, but a certified copy. HRS 338-13 validates those certified copies as being an original.

In context to the Arizona bill, that legislative act from Hawaii, pertaining to birth certificates would mean that Arizona court proceedings would have to accept that birth certificate as the original; even if it is a certified copy. It does not however force Arizona's hand in automatically accepting Hawaii's assertion that a candidate is eligible to be placed on a ballot.

So even if Obama got a long birth certificate, one of the Vattelist birthers, would sue the state because he thinks natural born citizen means having 2 citizen parents.

And under the proposed law, I would fight a 'birithers' attempts in this regard.

You honestly believe a state, or an individual citizen of a state, can define the qualifications and determine the acceptable documents for a federal office?

One, they are not defining the qualifications, they are amending a process already in place Federal Candidate Affadavit Form. Should that form not be allowed because it is a federal office? This law amends that form and rather than rely solely upon the sworn word of a candidate, introduces a process that confirms that sworn statement. Maybe a bit bureaucratic I agree, but nothing unconstitutional about it.

The only thing this bill will accomplish is waste more of Arizonians money.

Quite possibly so, but that is the States prerogative. It is also their duty to regulate and determine the eligibility of candidates. This puts up no road blocks accept verification that basic constitutional requirements are met. This bill does not violate the Federal Voting Act, their own state laws pertaining to candidate eligibility or the Constitution.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
No state can pass any law that bans or denies the incumbent candidate the right to appear on the ballot as POTUS elections is decreed Federal territory. The FEC sends its people into every state during a national tier election to prevent cases of fraud and if a state denies the incumbent this right The FEC can place the incumbent on the ballot without no regard to how the state feels about it as The FEC is only accountable and answerable to The US Federal Government and no other entity.

I think you have the duties of the FEC confused here. Their only authority is administering and enforcing campaign finance laws.

FEC Mission Statement - Source

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

Show me where they have the authority to force a state to go against their duties of determining eligibility and ballot placement. Even though an election is for a federal position, it remains a State issue, not Federal. The States only requirements are to ensure they follow the basic requirements in regard to the Constitution and the various laws of the United States of America.

(The below is the only federal regulation/law I could find that pertains candidates. There is also a court case associated with such, which you will find below.)
According to U.S. Code, Title 47 - Telecommunication a 'legally qualified candidate' is defined as: Source

1 - Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;
2 - Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and

In direct reference to the office of the president and/or vice-president a candidate is determined 'legally qualified' if they meet the following:

1 - Meet the above requirements
2 - Has qualified for a place on the ballot.

The sections of course are a lot longer, but I have left nothing out. The only thing, this regulation is aimed at determining a 'legally qualified candidate' with regards to equal access to broadcast networks. Upon further research, I found a case from 1975, 7th Court of Appeals

Ishmael FLORY v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and the United States of America is the case.

You can find it HERE

In this case, the 7th Court of Appeals found "We hold that it is proper ... to defer to state law in determining who is a legally qualified candidate. Ultimately state law will determine who can be elected, and this is a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language"

While the case was ultimately about equal time access to broadcast networks, the finding above adds to the debate the ultimate responsibility of candidate eligibility rests with the various states.