• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

Kandahar said:
Never heard of him. He probably wasn't even on the federal government's radar because he didn't win and had no chance of winning. The states are in charge of balloting, the federal government is in charge of verifying federal requirements to be president.
Click to expand...

So who in the federal government verified Obama as constitutionally eligible to run?
 
Apuzo said:
Well that means she broke Hawaiian privacy statutes by revealing on a national talk radio show a individuals private information detailing the specific location of the place of birth, Kapi-olani Hospital.
Click to expand...

You really are grasping at straws now.
 
Apuzo said:
So who in the federal government verified Obama as constitutionally eligible to run?
Click to expand...

A joint session of Congress certified the results of the electoral college on January 6, 2009.
 
Apuzo said:
How did they get that information about what Hospital he was born in if his birth records are suppose to be off limits? Also Kapi-olani has never declared Obama was born there in a official statement.
Click to expand...

lol...can i see your offiicial statement from the hospital where you were born?
 
Apuzo said:
Well that means she broke Hawaiian privacy statutes by revealing on a national talk radio show a individuals private information detailing the specific location of the place of birth, Kapi-olani Hospital.
Click to expand...
It very well could mean that. If she violated Obama's right to privacy, I imagine he could sue her if he so chooses.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I find it amazing that they'll accept a certification of baptism or circumcision, neither of which establishes where a person is born, but they won't accept an official document of a person's birth record from a state unless it specifies which hospital they are born in and who the doctor was.

Jerry said:
.....because the certificate of baptism states which church they were baptized in and who the state-recognized clergy member was.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
And exactly how does that prove which country the baby was born in?

Jerry said:
I missed the post where someone said it was supposed to.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Then apparently, you also missed the point I was making about Arizona accepting certificates of baptism and circumcision as proof of being a natural born citizen.
 
Kandahar said:
A joint session of Congress certified the results of the electoral college on January 6, 2009.
Click to expand...

No, I mean who qualified him at the federal level to run to be president?
 
Apuzo said:
No, I mean who qualified him at the federal level to run to be president?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "running for president" in the eyes of the US Constitution. The states pick their electors, and then the electors pick the president; there's no requirement that the person who they pick ever participate in a presidential campaign at all. The federal government doesn't certify the president as legitimate until after the electors have made their decisions.

The joint session of Congress certified that his election was legitimate on January 6, 2009. Prior to that, there was no need to qualify him for anything because he had not been selected by the electoral college to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Then apparently, you also missed the point I was making about Arizona accepting certificates of baptism and circumcision as proof of being a natural born citizen.
Click to expand...

Oh I gotcha. Yeah I see your point.

Free American citizenship with baptism? How would that one go over with the left?
 
MrVicchio said:
Barb, the folks that have a problem with the AZ immigration law,s and anti-illegal immigration laws have this problem because they see illegals as a future voting block and represent power. You, and I for that matter, are a threat to that power.
Click to expand...

... Seriously?

I take issue with it, because it encourages racial profiling, which I view to be ethically wrong. I don't rightly care about voting blocks or power for one party or another. Not everyone is so dedicated to party lines.
 
Apuzo said:
No, I mean who qualified him at the federal level to run to be president?
Click to expand...
Would you mind showing me where in the Constitution it stipulates one has to be a natural born citizen to "run" for president? All I can find is where that's a requirement to be eligible for the job. And no one runs at a "federal level," there's no "federal" election. States elect the president.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
You people are pretending this is about Obama simply because Obama's failure to produce a legitimate birth certificate prompted the law. If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.
Click to expand...

Because it's basically written to exclude him. For example, it specifies that certification of a Baptism or ceremonial circumcision is acceptable. Now if a person's parents are an atheist and a not exactly practicing Muslim, what do you think the chances are that they are baptized as an infant, or circumcised by a Rabbi?

Or a sworn statement from the doctor. 50 years later, there's a fairly decent chance that doctor is dead. So unless someone's parents have the foresight to think that their child might run for President and get that before leaving the hospital, that might not happen so well.

Don't you think that if this was a great conspiracy, that they would have been able to whip up a fake long form certificate? So far, we've heard that the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII is in on this. Including the Republican party. Assuming that were true, don't you think that both major parties and everybody that works for the State government would have been able to whip something up if they worked together on it?
 
Jerry said:
Oh I gotcha. Yeah I see your point.

Free American citizenship with baptism? How would that one go over with the left?
Click to expand...
Not well, I assure you.
 
rocket88 said:
Don't you think that if this was a great conspiracy, that they would have been able to whip up a fake long form certificate?
Click to expand...
If it were a conspiracy, I would imagine Obama would have gotten a fake certification of live birth before announcing he was running for president. Who in their right mind would announce they're running for president, knowing they're ineligible, and without being in firm possession of a fake certificate?
 
Jerry said:
501c3 status requires you to report your employees. In order for a clergyman to, say, officiate a legally binding municipal marriage license, or commission as a chaplain officer, they have to demonstrate that they are an official member of a recognized church; recognized, as in recognized by the state.
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to my question: why does the state recognize a religious group and allow them to perform legal functions for that state? It's off topic, but the question just leaps out at me.
 
Way to go, Apuzo! You made it a whole day in the original forum you posted! Three cheers to free speech! Hip hip hooray!

And you're kicking ass!

Congrats, dear.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with personal attacks and off-topic discussions.
 
Redress said:
Which brings me back to my question: why does the state recognize a religious group and allow them to perform legal functions for that state? It's off topic, but the question just leaps out at me.
Click to expand...

To enable the free exorcise of religion.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've told you the problem. This was already done, and there was no need for further legislation. We were not ahving a problem at all. It's silliness and unneccessary.
Click to expand...

If it's already done, then there's no reason for you to be whining about this law.
 
Boo Radley said:
The same as the do before the law, the same reason Aronald couldn't run, you always had to be a citizen. Your law changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Right.

One has to PROVE one is a citizen.

Now that we have that straight, to be president one has to prove one is a NATURAL BORN citizen, and Arizona apparently did not already have a law stipulating that for applicants to the "President" slot on it's state-wide ballots.

Now it does.

So what's your problem with a state requiring the Constitution be obeyed, given that it's the states that control ballot access?
 
pbrauer said:
The law is unnecessary, I am sure when a candidate files to run for president, the candidate must file the proper documentation at the Federal level. Determining who can legally run for president is not a right states have.
Click to expand...

Well, how about that at the state level, which is where ballot access happens, there was no such protection.

Perhaps you could go back to high school and discover the principle of federalism?
 
disneydude said:
Ever notice that Arizona is becoming more and more ridiculous and nobody is following their lead? Arizona is quickly replacing Texas as the clown-state of the Union.
Click to expand...

Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia are implementing or considering some form of birth certificate check.

Georigia, Florida, Nebraska, Alabama, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, South Carolina, are working to implement Arizona-style Find the Invader laws, because there's nothing wrong with the cops asking suspects for their ID.
 
Kandahar said:
Irrelevant. It's up to the FEDERAL government to determine if candidates meet the FEDERAL requirements for president. If individual STATES want to impose their own requirements in addition to these, they are able to do so (to a certain extent). So if Arizona wants to impose a natural-born citizenship requirement of its own, or a non-polygamy requirement of its own, it would probably be able to do so. Those two requirements would be functionally identical; the fact that the US Constitution requires one and not the other doesn't matter, because in this case it would be an individual state imposing them both.

The problem the state will encounter lies in imposing an undue burden of proof on someone. You can't require a birth certificate if certain classes of eligible people are going to be less able to produce one than others.
Click to expand...

Arizona isn't deciding if a candidate meets federal requirements for president, per se.

Arizona is establishing a ballot access requirement for candidates seeking a slot on the Arizona ballot, one which is no different than the state requiring the candidate have a minimum number of signatures on the petition, or establishing a filing deadline, all of which vary among the states.

Requesting a candidate provide proof of birth in the United States is not by any measure an undue burden on anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom