It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Fine, but what Arizona is saying is that they will only accept the “sufficient documentation” they determine, and exclude several other forms of documentation widely accepted as sufficient for proof of citizenship, namely, passports and short form certificates.
Originally posted by FarArcher
You don't provide sufficient documentation - you don't make the ballot.
Simple standard to meet, should be no problem.
I find this argument unpersuasive. We’re talking about a process that happens only every 4 years and only an incredibly reduced number of people will actually be on the ballot, and they, and their respective parties, are already required to submit an affidavit affirming their qualifications.
Originally posted by FarArcher
This isn't a driver's license. This is the President of the United States they are trying to validate. And they want those documents, as no short cut can be taken with them. No computerized form that can be faked right and left.
Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
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.
Originally posted by aptness
Under current Arizona law no birth certificate, long or short form, is requested.
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.
That is the very crux of the argument. The State regulates their own ballots. It is left to each state to determine ballot eligibility based upon law. By directing the Secretary of State to due diligence is that so bad?
If it imposes no “additional requirements” than what Arizona law already establishes, what’s the reason for this bill?
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.
However, in Arizona, "long-form birth certificate" refers to a specific document: the paper version of the birth record of a person born before 1997. People born in 1997 and subsequent years do not have long-form certificates; their records are available as electronic certified copies, also known as "short form."
No, I am not.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
But I do have to ask, are you a citizen of Arizona?
That’s fine, but we’re talking about a measure that would have an influence on other states’ citizens, would it not?
I am not asking in malice nor ill intentions, but rather establish that we citizens really should have no bearing upon the citizens of Arizona's legislation.
I believe Arizona’s legislation would have imposed additional requirements.
In directing, via law, the Secretary of State to verify and establish ballot eligibility based upon Constitutional authority, how have they contradicted the Constitution? How have they added additional requirements of being eligible to be president, senator or representative?
I didn’t say it was discriminatory, my whole argument is that Arizona’s legislation was clearly at odds with the Constitution, namely from a full faith and credit perspective and possibly overreaching into an exclusively federal power.
A bill requiring the Secretary of State to verify a candidates eligibility is not discrimination.