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.

 

Ariz. passes 'birther bill' aimed at Obama

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
There are no FEDERAL ballots.

The ballots are provided by the state, and the state can certainly demand that prior to any Presidential candidate is put on the ballot, that their Constitutional requirements are met.

You don't provide sufficient documentation - you don't make the ballot.

Simple standard to meet, should be no problem.




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
You don't provide sufficient documentation - you don't make the ballot.
Simple standard to meet, should be no problem.
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.

If Hawaii issues short form birth certificates, and says they are considered for all purposes the same as the original [HRS 338-13(b)], can Arizona reject that document? Considering the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, I don’t believe they can.

Ironically, Arizona stopped issuing long form birth certificates for anyone born after 1989.



edit on 17-4-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

There is a reason they specified certain documents.

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.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

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.
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.

Do you honestly believe someone was going to present a forged birth certificate?

Even if that was what they were trying to prevent, this bill doesn’t require any birth certificate for the Vice-Presidential candidate. I guess they’re not worried about the VP’s qualifications or possible forged birth certificate, huh?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

Sorry.

Didnt see the VOTE OBAMA sticker on your car.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 
That’s your response? Really? Very substantive...

Yeah, I’m sorry too. I regret taking you seriously.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

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.


As to you but do forgive that I trust your claims that you know what you are talking about. I live by the notion of "Trust, but verify" and I have been unable to verify your claims. Everything is pointing in the opposite of what you are saying.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Breaking on CNN and no details except that Gov. Brewer vetoed this bill. I guess she (or someone on her staff) is not as stupid as I'd thought.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Appears this was veto'd...
Of course.



www.cnn.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I live in Ohio, and when I moved here, I had to prove my citizenship before I could vote in the elections. Now if I have to prove my citizenship to vote for a president, why can't the one running for president do the same? It is a double standard.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Under current Arizona law no birth certificate, long or short form, is requested.


And is as such. But I do have to ask, are you a citizen of Arizona? 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. That legislation relates to how they establish eligibility upon their ballots.

As pointed out before, their are no national ballots. The only Federal regulations regarding ballots is that a candidate is not discriminated against based on race, color or creed. 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?


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.


And I agree this is is up for interpretation and subject to abuse. Privately we briefly discussed this. It is too opaque I believe. I believe law should be transparent and this portion, in regards to short-form birth certificates needs to be defined. The State of Arizona has actually made attempts to clarify this very issue. Needless to say, it is for contention.


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


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.


Federal law only establishes elections to a certain point. There is not inherent right to vote on the Federal level. There is precedence that the right to vote is implied, but it is again, left to the states. As in much they adhere to the Voter Rights Act and not discriminate.

A bill requiring the Secretary of State to verify a candidates eligibility is not discrimination. It is due diligence upon the office that is charged with ensuring that not only the candidates are valid, but also that the voters are presented with eligible candidates.

Overall, we have agreed that the bill itself is most likely a waste, but that is not up to me (nor you unless you are a resident of Arizona.)



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Arizona Issues ONLY the Short Form



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."


If this bill had passed, it would have prevented people born in Arizona after 1997 from being on the AZ ballot in the future. Because the Arizona Department of Health now only issues the short form BC!

Arizona can still ask for proof of citizenship. They just have to accept what is nationally accepted as proof of citizenship, including the short form BC.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
But I do have to ask, are you a citizen of Arizona?
No, I am 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.
That’s fine, but we’re talking about a measure that would have an influence on other states’ citizens, would it not?

Citizen from state A wants to run for President, a federal office, and state A no longer issues long form birth certificates, can he be precluded from running in Arizona because Arizona doesn’t accept that birth certificate from state A? That’s the full faith and credit argument.


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 believe Arizona’s legislation would have imposed additional requirements.

The qualifications for office are those stipulated in Article II Section 1 clause 5. So, if a short form birth certificate issued by a state, or a US passport issued by the Department of State, are federally recognized forms of proof of citizenship, both contain the necessary information to satisfy a constitutional requirement, Arizona, by not accepting these documents, is in effect imposing additional requirements.

With this legislation Arizona would be saying “you may prove X by using document Y,” but that’s not the constitutional requirement. The requirement is X, not how X must be proved. Arizona’s argument is further diminished by the fact the it doesn’t accept all federally recognized documents that are proof of X.

Jimmy Carter was the first President to be born in a hospital. Arizona’s legislation would have disqualified 86% of all US Presidents.


A bill requiring the Secretary of State to verify a candidates eligibility is not discrimination.
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.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Sorry, I have been insanely busy. I have enjoyed the intellectual debate and we can continue to go in circles with this. I have taken away from this more knowledge and I believe that is all I really ask for when I go toe to toe with another member here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join