• 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

whysoserious said:
No idea. Not sure it really matters at this point.
Click to expand...

It's a major point to me. Neither you nor Simon can provide me any details on how this law would actually be carried out and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent abuse. It doesn't sound like anyone is very knowledgeable about this law.
 
whysoserious said:
Sheeesh what? Why do I need to read a bill that was based on the outlandish assumption that our president may not be a citizen?
Click to expand...
Because your in a debate forum having a discussion about it. Just saying
 
Kandahar said:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Afroyim v. Rusk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vance v. Terrazas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And from the 14th amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...

Wong Kim Ark was never declared a natural born citizen as Article 2 Section 1 calls for. He was declared just a citizen. A question. How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
 
Last edited:
Apuzo said:
Wong Kim Ark was never declared a natural born citizen as Article 2 Section 1 calls for. He was declared just a citizen.
Click to expand...
Okay, your turn.

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
It's a major point to me. Neither you nor Simon can provide me any details on how this law would actually be carried out and what mechanisms would be in place to prevent abuse. It doesn't sound like anyone is very knowledgeable about this law.
Click to expand...

All I can see is that they will require every person to provide documentation. I don't see where it discusses how they will examine the documentation and determine its authenticity.

Simon W. Moon said:
You have mistaken won't for can't.

here
Let me google that for you
Click to expand...

I don't think reading the bill answers his question.
 
Apuzo said:
Wong Kim Ark was never declared a natural born citizen as Article 2 Section 1 calls for. He was declared just a citizen.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what "natural-born citizen" means? It means that someone was a US citizen at the time of their birth, and has never had to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. If you acknowledge that Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the US and the UK at the time of his birth, then that means he was a US citizen at the time of his birth.

Apuzo said:
How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
Click to expand...

Because he was born in the United States and therefore was a US citizen at the time of his birth, as per the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Any other dual citizenships do not change this fact.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Do you understand what "natural-born citizen" means? It means that someone was a US citizen at the time of their birth, and has never had to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. If you acknowledge that Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the US and the UK at the time of his birth, then that means he was a US citizen at the time of his birth.



Because he was born in the United States and therefore was a US citizen at the time of his birth, as per the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Any other dual citizenships do not change this fact.
Click to expand...
If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. Nothing has changed.

Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother. Your post contains a clear falsehood. Nowhere in the US Code is “natural born citizen” defined. The code does not include the words “natural born” in any section. It simply defines those who would be nationals and “citizens” of the US. There is no statute defining nbc. Furthermore, every other route to citizenship is defined in the US Code except nbc. For example, the US Code says nothing about persons born in the US to parents who are citizens because such persons do not need the code or the 14th Amendment to define their route to citizenship… it is natural born and therefore self evident. The Constitution makes a distinction between those eligible for Senator and Representative – citizens – and those eligible for President – natural born citizens. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation. Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama is not eligible to the office of President. Now I am headed to bed. Will post later tommorrow on this constitutional crisis we are having.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
You have mistaken won't for can't.

here
Let me google that for you
Click to expand...

Are you trying to prove to me that you have no knowledge of what it says in the bill? Because you are doing a great job. If you can't answer the questions then don't respond to my post, or even better, admit that you have no idea. Don't continually tell me to go read the bill myself when I'm simply inquiring of the people in this thread who appear to know what they are talking about, but apparantly don't.
 
So this is what the bill says, since nobody actually wants to answer my simple question.

A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
37 SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE
38 CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS
39 THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE
40 CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
41 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1,
42 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Now notice it doesn't say what documents are needed to prove citizenship and it doesn't set any mechanism in place to prevent abuse. If I'm the filing clerk in Arizona and I don't like Obama, what is keep me from saying that the state issued birth certificate for the Republican candidate is fine but Obama needs to provide a signed affidavit from the doctor who delivered him in order to prove his citizenship?
 
CriticalThought said:
So this is what the bill says, since nobody actually wants to answer my simple question.

A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
37 SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE
38 CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS
39 THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE
40 CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
41 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1,
42 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Now notice it doesn't say what documents are needed to prove citizenship and it doesn't set any mechanism in place to prevent abuse. If I'm the filing clerk in Arizona and I don't like Obama, what is keep me from saying that the state issued birth certificate for the Republican candidate is fine but Obama needs to provide a signed affidavit from the doctor who delivered him in order to prove his citizenship?
Click to expand...


It won't be the filing clerk making that call.
 
Okay, I was wrong. I apologize. You guys really did need my help. Good thing I was here. ;)

HB2177 - 501R - S Ver

A. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT POLITICAL PARTY'S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE‑PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
B. THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A SHALL INCLUDE REFERENCES TO AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE SWORN TO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY:
1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE. IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:​
(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.
(b) HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.
(c) POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD SIGNED BY THE DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER BIRTH.
(d) EARLY CENSUS RECORD.​
​
2. A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.​

C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S BIRTH.

D. IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECEIVES ANY DOCUMENTS IN PLACE OF A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1 AND CANNOT DETERMINE IF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OR HOLD HEARINGS AND SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

E. IF BOTH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT CANDIDATE FAIL TO SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE. IF THE CANDIDATE AND NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT COMMITTEE SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, BUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE BELIEVES THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE.

F. A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THIS STATE HAS STANDING TO INITIATE AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THIS SECTION.​
 
Apuzo said:
All post grandfather clause presidents were natural born citizens. Several (Buchanan, Hoover and Wilson) had a parent that was foreign born but they became naturalized U.S. citizens before they were born. With them now having two parents (plural) who were U.S. citizens at their births, they were born natural born citizens. Now one exception that has been rumoured who slipped through possibly was Chester Arthur in 1885 when Garfield was shot. He was said to have been born in Vermont or Canada but his dad was born in Ireland. Arthur wouldn't show his records and there issues of his eligibility back then. It was later that it was rumored that Arthurs dad was naturalized when Chester was 14 thus if that was the case then Chester was never eligible and was a British dual citizen but that is no excuse today for Obama because of Athur. The founders would have never let Arthur take office.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers were long dead before Chet Arthur came along. They neither allowed nor prevented him from taking office.

At any rate, the birthplace of the parents is immaterial. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all people born in the United States. No law has ever been passed stating that this is not "natural born" citizenship. In fact, I'm not aware of a law that has been passed defining what a "natural born citizen" is. It's largely been assumed to mean "citizen since birth," which would apply to a person born in the US regardless of their parents' respective citizenships.

The question then is, does Arizona have the right to decide this? Legally, the States regulate the elections and the rules around it. But could you imagine the chaos surrounding a Presidential election if every State had different candidates? And what happens if a person is considered a "natural born citizen" by say, Hawaii, but not by Arizona? Not just in terms of who can be President, but in any legal case where a person's citizenship applies? Would that person need a passport to change planes in Phoenix?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S BIRTH.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Because I'm sure all the birthers would shut up if two people said that Obama was born in the US.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.
​
Click to expand...


This one also bothers me. Who is baptized or circumcised? Christians and Jews. So if your parents were say, atheist and muslim...

It just seems like the law is written to say "not Barack Obama" without saying that.​
 
rocket88 said:
This is interesting. Because I'm sure all the birthers would shut up if two people said that Obama was born in the US.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The JFK conspiracy people shut up when... oh wait. How long ha sit been? 5 decades?
The Elders of Zion people shut up when...oh wait.

Hey! I see what you did there. That was sarcasm in your post.
 
Apuzo said:
Yes I do have a link. It's called Fight The Smears:

Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

The last sentence confirms he was born a dual citizen.
Click to expand...

Except for the little problem that the USA does not allow dual citizenship. Plus that other little thing about being born in the USA automatically guarantees citizenship. So in effect, the US simply doesn't recognize Obama's British citizenship.

Care to start over?
 
rocket88 said:
In fact, I'm not aware of a law that has been passed defining what a "natural born citizen" is.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been. That's why Apuzo won't provide a real one--he can't. Instead he uses some quotes pulled from here an there as if they were authoritative or definitive.
It's a pretty big hole in his case. But, give credit where credit is due. At least he knows that his argument has holes in it. That's a step above, (or below depending on your perspective), many birthers who don't realize that their case is sieve-like.
rocket88 said:
Legally, the States regulate the elections and the rules around it. But could you imagine the chaos surrounding a Presidential election if every State had different candidates?
Click to expand...
Already some candidates are on the ballot in some states and not others. Already there are different requirements from state to state pertaining to how to get on the ballot in that state.
rocket88 said:
And what happens if a person is considered a "natural born citizen" by say, Hawaii, but not by Arizona? Not just in terms of who can be President, but in any legal case where a person's citizenship applies? Would that person need a passport to change planes in Phoenix?
Click to expand...
Natural born citizen really only has a single, solitary place where it's relevant. At least afaik.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Except for the little problem that the USA does not allow dual citizenship.
Click to expand...
This is not true.
US State Department Services Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.​
 
American said:
I think it's kind of funny. This is what Obama gets for being secretive.
Click to expand...

Secretive?

You have proof in a court of law about his place of birth, available for all to see. That documentation has been authenticated by the appropriate state health department officials.

Can I say the same about you?
 
rocket88 said:
At any rate, the birthplace of the parents is immaterial
Click to expand...
So why did the 'Father of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham define Natural Born Citizen as this if parents were immaterial?


“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.
 
pbrauer said:
Gee, another stupid bill from Arizona. What will President Obama need to do that he hasn't already done? Stupid Republicans.
Click to expand...
I like how the bill states if a candidate doesn't have a long form certificate, they can submit 2 or more of the following: early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record, or early census record. Apparently the state of Arizona thinks a circumcision record can more accurately prove a person was born in the U.S. than a short form birth certificate. :roll:
 
Apuzo said:
That made Obama at birth a dual British Citizen and not a natural born citizen despite being born in Hawaii.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for the U.S. that states that. I think that is your opinion and not U.S. law. Especially since we've now had at least two presidents with only one parent being a U.S. citizen.
 
Deuce said:
Does anybody honestly think even this law would make the birthers shut the **** up? Or avoid a similar situation in the future? Tinfoil hatters who aren't satisfied by proof in a court of law aren't going to be satisfied by anything. Current law is more than sufficient to settle the question for any candidate to the satisfaction of a reasonable person. Why bother pandering to the unreasonable crowd?
Click to expand...

Tell us what exactly is wrong with a law that requests documentation that a presidential candidate meet the requirements of office. Then give us a link to this "current law" that is more than sufficient to settle the question. I'll check back in July.

hazlnut said:
And besides all that, he's black... right? That's all this is really about.
Click to expand...

Tinfoil hats/racial prejudice...whatever it takes to discredit yes?

Kandahar said:
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? 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. Driving is something you DO; being born in a state is something that you already ARE. 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. :roll:
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.
Click to expand...

1st Bold: One state does not have to recognize a License to Carry from another state, nor a plain old gun permit. 2nd Bold: The absolutely amazing thing is that we don't have something like this on the national level. 3rd Bold: Get 2/3 of the states to approve an amendment to the constitution, and we'll talk.

whysoserious said:
Right, but McCain was not born in the U.S. but on a military base so there was a quetion of eligibility. Obama was born on U.S. soil and has provided documentation to prove it. See the difference?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. There was some question about his citizenship and he went before a congressional committee to prove his eligibility. I don't believe that Obama is ineligible. My own personal opinion. However, I see nothing wrong with Arizona setting out steps that must be taken to prove a candidate's eligibility to be President of the United States. The amazing thing is that it's never been done on the national level. Never. In over 200 years. How absolutely weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom