Ariz. passes 'birther bill' aimed at Obama

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

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.

edit on 16-4-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

State law has absolutely no bearing upon a national tier election. The FEC is there to prevent fraud at the polls even fraud pertaining to the denial of the incumbent the right to appear on the ballot. So sorry, try again!

It would appear that even the ever so eloquent Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has reservations about the legality of this bill and it sounds like she will probably not sign it. Could it be that the Arizona State legislature is becoming too conservative, extremist and reactionary even for her?

azstarnet.com...

From that article posted today, April 16, 2011 Brewer states:

"I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I don't know if we regulate federal elections," she said.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
It would appear that even the ever so eloquent Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has reservations about the legality of this bill and it sounds like she will probably not sign it. Could it be that the Arizona State legislature is becoming too conservative, extremist and reactionary even for her?

azstarnet.com...

From that article posted today, April 16, 2011 Brewer states:

"I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I don't know if we regulate federal elections," she said.

Now she realizes that the States do not have the authourity to regulate Federal Elections as that is FEDERAL TERRITORY! Since she decided to remain quiet on this entire topic she must either continue to remain quiet or come out vehemently against this. Remember, she planted the seeds with SB 1070.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
State law has absolutely no bearing upon a national tier election. The FEC is there to prevent fraud at the polls even fraud pertaining to the denial of the incumbent the right to appear on the ballot. So sorry, try again!

Show me where the FEC has this authority. Where is the statue or regulation.

Here is the FEC FAQ page. Notice how it differs potential candidates seeking Federal office to the Secretary of State of any particular state? Once again, the FEC authority deals with campaign financing, not state ballots.

So, sorry, you try again.

ETA: And even more to go against your false claims of what the FEC does....

"Please note that the rules governing elections for state or local offices and procedures for getting on the ballot for an election are outside of the purview of the FEC. You will want to contact the Secretary of State or appropriate election office in your state for more information. "

Straight from the FEC's mouth....It is okay to admit you are wrong, I do it often when presented with superior evidence contrary to my stance.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
State law has absolutely no bearing upon a national tier election. The FEC is there to prevent fraud at the polls even fraud pertaining to the denial of the incumbent the right to appear on the ballot. So sorry, try again!

Show me where the FEC has this authority. Where is the statue or regulation.

Here is the FEC FAQ page. Notice how it differs potential candidates seeking Federal office to the Secretary of State of any particular state? Once again, the FEC authority deals with campaign financing, not state ballots.

So, sorry, you try again.

Secretary of State is an appointed role and not elected.

From Wikipedia : en.wikipedia.org...
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) oversees campaign financing for all federal elections. The Commission oversees election rules as well as reporting of campaign contributions by the candidates.

The FEC oversees all Election rules set forth by The Federal Government. The 10th is nullified here.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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.

You have to explain why this makes sense and is not at odds with the full faith and credit clause and the other federal statutes, one of which I have mentioned above.

You accept that the birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii, like the one Obama has, means an Arizona court “would have to accept that birth certificate as the original,” but Arizona’s Secretary of State wouldn’t have to accept it, for ballot purposes?

So, a document that must be accepted in a court of law, having legal value, can be dismissed by the Secretary of State, at his discretion? The standards in a court of law, somehow, are lower than for Arizona’s elections?

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

If you concede the Vattel definition is not one you adhere to, what exactly is missing from Obama’s certificate that would be necessary to “accept the assertion [Obama] is eligible to be placed on the ballot”?

The certificate includes the place and date of birth. From that, the Secretary of State, is able to ascertain where Obama was born and his age. What is missing?

Should that form not be allowed because it is a federal office?

The contention is not with the form, or “the process already in place,” but with the requirements the birther bill imposes as acceptable documentation. And you know this.

Maybe a bit bureaucratic I agree, but nothing unconstitutional about it. ... It is also their duty to regulate and determine the eligibility of candidates.

I’ve already gathered that is your opinion, it is not, however, what the courts have said in the various birther lawsuits. They have consistently held that the question of eligibility is a federal matter.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Okay, you present a third party source, whereas I gave it to straight from the Federal Election Commission. But using your source of Wikipedia, they state the following:

Although the Commission's name implies broad authority over U.S. elections, in fact its role is limited to the administration of federal campaign finance laws. It enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, investigates and prosecutes violations (investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties, "watchdog groups," and the public), audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential campaign fund, which provides public funds to candidates for president and nominating conventions.

How long do you want to keep this up Immaculate? I am still waiting for you to point to the U.S. Code and/or regulation that gives the FEC this broad authority you are claiming.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Okay, you present a third party source, whereas I gave it to straight from the Federal Election Commission. But using your source of Wikipedia, they state the following:

Although the Commission's name implies broad authority over U.S. elections, in fact its role is limited to the administration of federal campaign finance laws. It enforces limitations and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures, investigates and prosecutes violations (investigations are typically initiated by complaints from other candidates, parties, "watchdog groups," and the public), audits a limited number of campaigns and organizations for compliance, and administers the presidential campaign fund, which provides public funds to candidates for president and nominating conventions.

How long do you want to keep this up Immaculate? I am still waiting for you to point to the U.S. Code and/or regulation that gives the FEC this broad authority you are claiming.

Any entries in Wikipedia that pertain to The US Federal Government are only allowed to be edited by The US Federal Government only and no private individual is allowed to modify said pages.

Originally posted by aptness
You have to explain why this makes sense and is not at odds with the full faith and credit clause and the other federal statutes, one of which I have mentioned above.

Where is it at odds? Has the state of Arizona or this proposed law denied a birth certificate from another state? If so, then yes it would violate the FFCC. This bill has nothing to do with determining the legality of such documents, but rather defines them as being acceptable proof of verification in determining compliance to the age and place of birth for the candidates' sworn affidavit; used to place such candidate upon their ballot.

You accept that the birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii, like the one Obama has, means an Arizona court “would have to accept that birth certificate as the original,” but Arizona’s Secretary of State wouldn’t have to accept it, for ballot purposes?

I never stated that, in the case of President Obama's birth certificate supplied, would the Secretary of State be able to arbitrarily decide it isn't evidence. The proposed law says otherwise and forces the Secretary to recognize a 'short-form birth certificate'. Thus quieting the calls that a short-form is not acceptable, when this law dictates otherwise.

So, a document that must be accepted in a court of law, having legal value, can be dismissed by the Secretary of State, at his discretion? The standards in a court of law, somehow, are lower than for Arizona’s elections?

No and you are distorting the argument. Even in Arizona's current laws, I am sure that they have accepted a 'short-form' as acceptable proof, this strengthens and fortifies that line of thinking and would keep a possible Secretary of State from disregarding a short-form from being acceptable. I see that as a positive.

The contention is not with the form, or “the process already in place,” but with the requirements the birther bill imposes as acceptable documentation. And you know this.

What additional requirements does it place upon candidate qualification of office? None and you know this.

I’ve already gathered that is your opinion, it is not, however, what the courts have said in the various birther lawsuits. They have consistently held that the question of eligibility is a federal matter.

I see thrown out cases and cases that determined nothing of the sort. Can you guide me to ruling that consistently holds eligibility as a federal matter? If you mean eligibility in terms of meeting the basic Constitutional requirements, than I agree. That is. If you mean ballot eligibility and 'legally qualified candidate', the courts rule otherwise, it is a state issue and responsibility.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Any entries in Wikipedia that pertain to The US Federal Government are only allowed to be edited by The US Federal Government only and no private individual is allowed to modify said pages.

Fair enough, but it still disproves your assertions on the duties and authority of the FEC. But you won't even address that. You keep deflecting and moving your goal posts. Until you address those questions, I see no point to debate the subject with someone who is unwilling to even engage.

Points being:
FEC oversees and regulates campaign finance.
FEC does not have any authority over State ballot requirements or candidate ballot eligibility
FEC directs potential candidates to respective states to determine qualifications needed to be ballot eligible.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Any entries in Wikipedia that pertain to The US Federal Government are only allowed to be edited by The US Federal Government only and no private individual is allowed to modify said pages.

Fair enough, but it still disproves your assertions on the duties and authority of the FEC. But you won't even address that. You keep deflecting and moving your goal posts. Until you address those questions, I see no point to debate the subject with someone who is unwilling to even engage.

Points being:
FEC oversees and regulates campaign finance.
FEC does not have any authority over State ballot requirements or candidate ballot eligibility
FEC directs potential candidates to respective states to determine qualifications needed to be ballot eligible.

"FEC directs potential candidates to respective states to determine qualifications needed to be ballot eligible"

And is authourized to send representatives to oversee how the elections themselves are carried out to the letter of Federal law.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 authourizes The Federal Government to oversee elections under :
en.wikipedia.org...
"The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance.[5] These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964.[5] The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.[6]" in short, The Arizona Secratery of State must seek consent from The US DOJ before doing anything.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Even in Arizona's current laws, I am sure that they have accepted a 'short-form' as acceptable proof, this strengthens and fortifies that line of thinking and would keep a possible Secretary of State from disregarding a short-form from being acceptable. I see that as a positive.

Under current Arizona law no birth certificate, long or short form, is requested.

The proposed law says otherwise and forces the Secretary to recognize a 'short-form birth certificate'. Thus quieting the calls that a short-form is not acceptable, when this law dictates otherwise.

Are you sure?

The bill expressly requests for a “long form birth certificate.” It says if the candidate doesn’t have or provide a long form birth certificate he can submit two or more documents of the several the bill lists, none of which, however, are a short form certificate.

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. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long birth certificate ...

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
(b) Hospital birth record.
(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birther.
(d) Early census record.

Nowhere is a short form birth certificate listed as an acceptable document.

What additional requirements does it place upon candidate qualification of office?

If it imposes no “additional requirements” than what Arizona law already establishes, what’s the reason for this bill?

I see thrown out cases and cases that determined nothing of the sort. Can you guide me to ruling that consistently holds eligibility as a federal matter?

Keyes v. Bowen—

Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states' election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee's election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes. ...

And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice-President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 United States Code section 15.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


That is because we are told that they are the only ones who can do anything about it. Look at how many court cases have been wrongfully thrown out. Sure is some justice system we have.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
"FEC directs potential candidates to respective states to determine qualifications needed to be ballot eligible"

And is authourized to send representatives to oversee how the elections themselves are carried out to the letter of Federal law.

And what regulation and/or law authorizes them to send representatives to see how 'elections themselves' are carried out? Here is the FEC Law & Regulations page. These are the statues that guide and authorize the busines of the FEC, which is Campaign Finance...not monitoring of the election process as it pertains to ballot eligibility and the laws and statues from the various states.

Another reference from the FEC site:
Ballot Access: "State laws and procedures govern how federal candidates come to appear on election ballots. Filing a Form 2 "Statement of Candidacy" with the FEC does not qualify a candidate for any ballot. "

It is the Judicial branch, specifically the FBI or the U.S. Attorney that handles voter fraud and provides agents to investigate any claims of such.

...in short, The Arizona Secratery of State must seek consent from The US DOJ before doing anything.

The practice of 'preclearance' applies to how the voting process occurs. This includes tests, redesigning once district held elections to at-large elections, etc to try and circumvent Section 2 of the Voter Right Act. As of 2008, Arizona still remains on the list of jurisdictions that fall under the preclearance (section 5) rule. As for what exactly falls under the preclearance rule, it seems there is only vague information. From the information I have researched, I see it pertains to certain election activities, but there is no definative list.

This one requires more research and you quite possibly be right. I see no challenges in court regarding ballot requirements and the preclearance provision in the Voter Rights Act.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I told you I knew what I was talking about, trust me. I am not like these elected dingbats and losers and can assure you that I can be trusted when I speak of matters like this.

Thank you for the intelligent, mature way that this is being handled. Star for you for not attacking or resorting to childish antics.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Just cause you liberals repeat a lie over and over again does not make it true. You have not settled the questions about Obama's citizenship but it looks like Arizona and other States will do that for you when your man tries to run for a second term.

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Just cause you liberals repeat a lie over and over again does not make it true. You have not settled the questions about Obama's citizenship but it looks like Arizona and other States will do that for you when your man tries to run for a second term.

This has been disproven a thousand times and will gladly disprove and debunk this like ten thousand more.

BTW, no state has the authourity to determine the eligibility of an incumbent candidate who already meets and well exceeds that of the Federal Government's requirements. The poster 3 posts up from this one and I are usually involved in a heated debate and when he asked for proof it was provided and the poster is now looking at this entire mess with different eyes based on facts.

On a serious note, can you provide evidence to back up your claim because if you cannot do not respond to this post and thread and all others will be ignored.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


LOL - You haven't debunked or disproved anything except in you own feeble mind. A Certificate of Live Birth is not a valid legal document. Soon, you will see the States demand of Barry Soetoro something that all previous Presidents have openly & willingly complied with, but for some reason Barry wants to hide. I really don't understand why you think Barry should be exempt. I applaud AZ. & all other States that simply want the truth for their citizens.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Actually I can use it.

Since the majority of birthers want Congress to do something about it, to launch investigations etc...

But since Congress has recognized him as being born in Hawaii thats counter productive to what birthers want.

So now Congress can't be trusted, so which is it. Either you want them to investigate, and you will accept their results.

Or you are a child, and you won't accept any answer that is given to you. No matter what is done there will always be a "well what about this then...."

edit on 4/15/2011 by ThaLoccster because: (no reason given)

When there is a Congress which shows itself to be one of integrity, I will accept their findings. Since that is blatantly not the case, I do not currently accept what they say. To quote Ron Paul, (who, in case you aren't aware, is also not a child) 'Government lies, we all know that'.

Attempts to belittle someone by insinuating they are a child because they don't believe what they are being told, is not only a sign of weakness in your argument, but a sign that you unquestioningly still swallow the bs which pours out of DC.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
[Who pays 2 million in lawyer fees to cover up a "non-issue"?

Well, according to the countless threads on ATS (including this one) and all the media attention "birthers" have gotten, I'd wouldn't say it's a "non-issue" now would I?

I on the other hand could care less one way or the other. If he stays, America is screwed. If he's impeached, America is screwed. A darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario if you will.