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.

 

Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
While I enjoy the birther controversy I don't thing that this bill could trump FEC rules.

Also, what's to stop any state, if this passes from enacting other laws that might preclude a candidate running in that state? The potential for abuse is staggering.




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
i have a question

could a foreigner be president just as good as a person born in the us?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
While I enjoy the birther controversy I don't thing that this bill could trump FEC rules.

Also, what's to stop any state, if this passes from enacting other laws that might preclude a candidate running in that state? The potential for abuse is staggering.


But doesn't this bill merely mimic existing Fed rules?

Therefore I see no potential for abuse..



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Not sure if it mimics, have to read.
But say California passed a law that would inhibit a candidate from running if he/she is against abortion because that would be in violation of a womans "civil rights".
Not that I agree but just imagine the potential.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Originally posted by Southern Guardian



Opinion? What is your qualifications for confirming an authenticity of an Hawaiian birth certificate?

My opinion comment was in relation to you calling anyone that disagrees with you 'childish"..


I'll say what I believe and you are most welcome to say what you wish.



Facts are facts and that's all I stated...


Let's go back to what you said:

” the president needs to be a natural born citizen and the short form simply doesn't adequately prove that.”

Where in the constitution are presidents required to present their long form birth certificates?
Which presidents have presented their long form birth certificates?
On what authority do you hold to dictate Hawaiian law and the "Full faith clause"?

You talk about facts, right?


I don't give a damn if it's Obama or the tooth fairy..


You do give a damn. Fact is, he is been asked to provide more evidence of his eligibility, and yet people like you kept shut during the last couple of presidents. You know what your personal issues are here, you ain't doing anything convincing me otherwise.


Simple FACT is the short form does NOT adequately prove someone to be a "natural born citizen"


Simple fact, you are not of any authority to dictate what is adequate, sorry.

2008 elections came and gone, and people like you are still whining, right before the 2012 elections. Childish? Yes.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


You are dissapointed that the Governor did not violate the constitution?
What kind of patriots are you birthers?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Let's go back to what you said:

” the president needs to be a natural born citizen and the short form simply doesn't adequately prove that.”

Where in the constitution are presidents required to present their long form birth certificates?
Which presidents have presented their long form birth certificates?
On what authority do you hold to dictate Hawaiian law and the "Full faith clause"?

You talk about facts, right?


Why do you continually twist or add words I never said??

Point to where I said Presidents ARE required to show their Long Form...



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by tungus
 


You have to wonder what happened to majority rule and representative Government in the US..

All I see now are vetoes, signings and executive orders...

Looks like dictatorship to me...


It would seem that the education being recieved in Australia about the US is quite lacking. Signing statements date back to Madison and the last president practically used them to order his lunch they were so commonplace the last decade. Why you are seeing it now would be all on you. To keep trying to tell Americans how it should be in America would just sound a lot better from another American.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Schaden
 


I just checked the roll call votes. It appears it already passed the house and senate with a 2/3 majority. So I guess all they need to do is have the same vote over again and it becomes law.


You'd think the Governor would have had no right to veto a law if it passed with that majority..
Doesn't make sense to me but then when did Government ever make sense?


Checks and balances. Even if it had been 100% voting for, it still had to go to the governor to sign or veto it. If vetoed it goes back, it gets it's 100% and becomes a law.

That being said, I honestly can't say if I agree with her decision or not. I can see where she is coming from with the whole "one person gets to decide" thing, but the bill just puts into state law what the Constitution allows for. It certainly isn't unconstitutional.

/TOA



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


It would seem that the education being recieved in Australia about the US is quite lacking. Signing statements date back to Madison and the last president practically used them to order his lunch they were so commonplace the last decade. Why you are seeing it now would be all on you. To keep trying to tell Americans how it should be in America would just sound a lot better from another American.


Did I say somewhere that it hasn't been going on in the past??

Oh and sometimes you need an outside opinion..
That's why we have unbiased,uninvolved mediators etc..

Not to mention the Americans, especially their Government are certainly not shy in telling many countries how they should be run..


Funny how when it's the other way you have a little sook..Hypocrite much??



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
but the bill just puts into state law what the Constitution allows for. It certainly isn't unconstitutional.

/TOA


Can you please show me where the constitution outlines baptimsal and circumcision certificates as proof of citizenship as well as any wording allowing any 1 state to have different eligibilty requirements from the other 49?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


I think she did the right thing.

Chicken? Hardly.

The birthers are the real chickens. They have no answers to anything so they've decided to troll Obama with this birth certificate nonsense.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Did I say somewhere that it hasn't been going on in the past??

Unless "what happened" means something different down under...

Originally posted by backinblack
You have to wonder what happened to majority rule and representative Government in the US..
...you would be indicating a change. Perhaps you are just posting in this thread to finally express your disgust with President Madison?


Oh and sometimes you need an outside opinion..
That's why we have unbiased,uninvolved mediators etc..


Sometimes you need an informed opinion and the ones expressed in birther threads are rarely that. All I have seen from you are incorrect suppositions so you can keep your opinion or just accept it will be rebuffed by anyone with any knowledge. Up to you how you waste your time I guess.


Not to mention the Americans, especially their Government are certainly not shy in telling many countries how they should be run..


Really? Americans do that or the American government does that? When I start telling you how your country should run, you can tell me how mine should be run. Until then I think you want to talk to our presidents and generals etc. I never sent an army anywhere.


Funny how when it's the other way you have a little sook..Hypocrite much??

Not sure you understand the word "hypocrite" since I have never told you how Australia should do anything.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



Unless "what happened" means something different down under...


Did I mention somewhere when this change occurred?
I don't seem to recall that..Please point it out..

Sometimes you need an informed opinion and the ones expressed in birther threads are rarely that. All I have seen from you are incorrect suppositions so you can keep your opinion or just accept it will be rebuffed by anyone with any knowledge. Up to you how you waste your time I guess.


Don't generalize..I have made very few statements other than saying I don't understand Obama's reticence in showing a document that bears no information he has not already stated..
Again please point out where I have said different..

Really? Americans do that or the American government does that? When I start telling you how your country should run, you can tell me how mine should be run. Until then I think you want to talk to our presidents and generals etc. I never sent an army anywhere.


I did state "especially Government" and don't recall specifically mentioning you..

Not sure you understand the word "hypocrite" since I have never told you how Australia should do anything.

Did I mention Australia somewhere??
Again please point that out to me...

For someone continually picking up on other people's words, you are very prone to reading stuff that simply isn't there...



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Did I mention somewhere when this change occurred?
I don't seem to recall that..Please point it out..

No, you did not give a specific time table. You simply asked "what happened?" If something "happened" then at some point, things were different. Otherwise, what are you saying "happened?" Makes no sense to say something "happened" but that it never actually happened.



Don't generalize..I have made very few statements other than saying I don't understand Obama's reticence in showing a document that bears no information he has not already stated..
Again please point out where I have said different..

How many birther threads would you like me to quote you from?
Shall we start here?

Originally posted by backinblack
Simple FACT is the short form does NOT adequately prove someone to be a "natural born citizen"...

No, that is not a FACT here in the US.

I did state "especially Government" and don't recall specifically mentioning you..

Who are you calling a hypocrite then? I thought that post was to me, but it was really to the government?

Did I mention Australia somewhere??
Again please point that out to me...

No, I did because that is where have stated you are spouting this nonsense from.

Originally posted by backinblack
Edit: We don't need US troops on Aussie soil BTW, as with Haiti..
edit on 4-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



For someone continually picking up on other people's words, you are very prone to reading stuff that simply isn't there...


Do you think I can not read what you post in other birther threads?
edit on 19-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 


According to some, we've already got one - and soon he'll bankrupt the US of A. Does that answer your question?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I'll just concentrate on this bit because the rest of your post is the usual off topic derailing stuff and I obviously do not find this topic as important as you judging by your post record..
Heck, it's almost full time with you..



Originally posted by backinblack

Simple FACT is the short form does NOT adequately prove someone to be a "natural born citizen"...



No, that is not a FACT here in the US.


So tell me, how does a Short Form 100% prove all requirements of "natural born citizenship" ??
Has it not already been shown that by illegal means and very few people involved, a short form was quite easy to obtain back then?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So tell me, how does a Short Form 100% prove all requirements of "natural born citizenship" ??

Because in the US it is legally accepted proof that he was born in Hawaii and to whom.

Has it not already been shown that by illegal means and very few people involved, a short form was quite easy to obtain back then?

That states place of birth as Hawaii? No. That has never been shown even once. It is said alot but it has yet to be shown by anyone.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Has it not already been shown that by illegal means and very few people involved, a short form was quite easy to obtain back then?


No, that has not been shown at all here. It has been claimed to be shown by birthers, but like all birther claims is just not true.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



No, that has not been shown at all here. It has been claimed to be shown by birthers, but like all birther claims is just not true.


Because you say so...
Sure mate, no one ever breaks the law..




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join