Page 11 of 36 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 351

Thread: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

  1. #101
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    This does not appear to say that Arthur hid anything. Further, it's not clear that the Secretary of State or the State Department has the power to interpret the Constitution authoritatively. Generally that power is thought to reside in the judicial branch, not the executive.

    Also, it would be nice if you admitted that the Cong Globe was the documentation of Congressional debates where people said all sorts of things. These debate are also not often considered to be authoritative interpretations of the Constitution. So, you quote from the Congressional Globe doesn't really resolve a thing.

    The Eisenhower case proves that a simple birth certificate is ample to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.
    Read this link:

    HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH « Natural Born Citizen

  2. #102
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    1. Arizona requests proper documentation.
    2. Hawaii provides them with the same documentation that has been public knowledge for many years now.
    3. Arizona either accepts it and shuts up about it, or they argue that it's illegitimate. If they choose the latter, they are saying that Hawaii's records are not valid. That seems to be a pretty clear-cut violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause. What makes you think it would be a "stretch" to show that? What about this situation is the slightest bit unclear from a constitutional perspective?
    I don't think you know what this law says. You seem to be arguing against something else.

    The law does not say that it will not accept Hawaiian records as valid. Doesn't say that at all, afaict. It says that people who want to register as a presidential candidate in AZ have to provide certain documents. Hawaiian documents are perfectly valid and acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Every state has to accept the reality that you have a legitimate driver's license from your home state; that doesn't mean that every state has to allow you to drive when you're there if you don't mean their own requirements.
    This, I think may be backward. I think the FF&C clause would require states to recognize each others DLs, However, it doesn't require that states be uniform in their requirements for providing the proper documents to establish your identity to acquire a DL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this suddenly came up in the midst of the "birther" movement, when conspiracy nuts have accused the black president with a Muslim-sounding name of being born elsewhere.
    If you think that the bill says otherwise, please provide the language of it. When it comes to determining the constitutionality of a law, I am pretty sure they go by the actual language of the law, not the environment in which it was authored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What do you think of my proposed law? If any ex-governors of Massachusetts want to run for president, they have to prove that they have never been involved in polygamous marriages. I'm not referring to any specific person, just anyone who happens to meet that criteria.
    What I think about a law is a different matter than whether or not it can pass a Constitutional test.
    I may be wrong.

  3. #103
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Wrong. "Natural-born citizen" has (and always has) meant a person who was a US citizen at the time of their birth. The quote about "not owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty" does not refer to dual citizenship, it refers to special exceptions where a person can be born in the US and still not be entitled to US citizenship: If they are the child of a foreign diplomat, if they are the child of an invading/occupying military, or if they are the child of a Native American (prior to the Indian Citizenship Act). Such people were not considered US citizens because their first allegiance was to another sovereignty.

    This does NOT apply to dual citizenship. We have already HAD a president who was a dual citizen of the United States and United Kingdom. His name was Chester Arthur.
    So you admit Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen?

  4. #104
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post
    So you admit Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen?
    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #105
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post
    So you admit Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen?
    Would you please provide an authoritative interpretation of natural born citizen in re the US Constitution?

    It's not clear that the Secretary of State or the State Department has the power to interpret the Constitution authoritatively. Generally that power is thought to reside in the judicial branch, not the executive. So your previous citations don't qualify as authoritative

    Also, it would be nice if you admitted that the Cong Globe was the documentation of Congressional debates where people said all sorts of things. These debate are also not often considered to be authoritative interpretations of the Constitution. So, you quote from the Congressional Globe doesn't really resolve a thing. So your previous citations don't qualify as authoritative

    The Eisenhower case proves that a simple birth certificate is ample to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.
    I may be wrong.

  6. #106
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
    I can comprehend fine. I am asking you if you think Arthur was eligible?

  7. #107
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    I think this thread pretty much proves that this bill is not worth the time required to vote on it.

    Why is this bill "bad?" Because the existing law already covers this and this new law wont accomplish anything nor will it satisfy tinfoil hatters.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #108
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    So how are they going to regulate this so that one candidate isn't held to a higher burden of proof than another candidate? I could see how this could be abused if state officials let Joe Republican just provide his state issued birth certificate but they demand that Henry Democrat provides a signed affidavit from the doctor who delivered him.

  9. #109
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    So how are they going to regulate this so that one candidate isn't held to a higher burden of proof than another candidate? I could see how this could be abused if state officials let Joe Republican just provide his state issued birth certificate but they demand that Henry Democrat provides a signed affidavit from the doctor who delivered him.
    Read the bill
    I may be wrong.

  10. #110
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    I don't think you know what this law says. You seem to be arguing against something else.

    The law does not say that it will not accept Hawaiian records as valid. Doesn't say that at all, afaict. It says that people who want to register as a presidential candidate in AZ have to provide certain documents. Hawaiian documents are perfectly valid and acceptable.
    OK, so if we're referring specifically to the law itself, rather than the specific outcome of Arizona claiming Obama's birth certificate is invalid: There would still be a 14th Amendment violation. If states began requiring people to produce a birth certificate in order to run for president, this would place an undue burden on the poor, the old, and the foreign-born (which is not mutually exclusive with natural-born citizenship), who might be less likely to have such documents. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

    If there is any dispute over whether a presidential candidate meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the Constitution, it will be up to the courts to decide if they do. Requiring them to produce a birth certificate is not constitutional and serves no purpose.

    But then, the creators of the law know that it serves no purpose. They don't care. This law is absolutely 100% about Barack Obama being a scary black Muslim Kenyan, not about presidential candidates proving their citizenship.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 11 of 36 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •