• 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

Huh? I suppose Obama will take AZ to court over this one too. :(
I doubt it. If it were California or New York or Florida, a state he could win, possibly; but why bother with a state that's going to vote for the Republican anyway?
 
According to Obamas own website, his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 due to his father being a British National. That made Obama at birth a dual British Citizen and not a natural born citizen despite being born in Hawaii. I believe this is why former democratic party chair Brian Schatz in Hawaii didn't certify Obama as constitutionally eligible on the Hawaii Democratic Party OCON form as it has been revealed lately. The provisional wording was left out. This Arizona bill will make a candidate come up with more proof for verification that they are a NBC that Article 2 Section 1 calls for.
Also according to that website, at the bottom of the same page you linked: "This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

Yet you made the fallacious representation that Obama himself stated that.
 
The Full Faith and Credit clause, for starters. The state of Hawaii released Obama's birth certificate long ago, and certified it as genuine. If that isn't good enough for Arizona, it means that they are not giving full faith and credit to the documents of another state, which is unconstitutional.

And as such, would then most likely be in compliance with Arizona law...
 
:lamo This is OBVIOUSLY about President Obama. Let's not insult one another's intelligence by pretending otherwise.

Hey I've got a great idea for a law! If any ex-governors of Massachusetts want to run for president, they have to prove that they've never been polygamous. Of course, I'm not referring to any SPECIFIC person, this is about all presidents. :roll:

Hmm.. does the Constitution say anything about a president having to be monogamous? Nice try...
 
Since Kenya itself does not recognize dual citizenship, it would never have conferred Kenyan citizenship on someone born in Hawaii who is already an American citizen, even though the father had Kenyan citizenship. Therefore, Obama has only one citizenship - American.

Was Kenya an independent state when Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was brought alive into this crazy earth of ours???
 
The Full Faith and Credit clause, for starters. The state of Hawaii released Obama's birth certificate long ago, and certified it as genuine. If that isn't good enough for Arizona, it means that they are not giving full faith and credit to the documents of another state, which is unconstitutional.
I was thinking along those lines but then I thought of the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to not recognize a marriage certificate from another state if the marriage is between two men or two women.
 
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))

Good point, but it doesn't have the force of law.

The basic premise here is that, while born in the United States, his father was not a citizen. These are points that not even the liberal-est of the liberals will contest.

The logical conclusion that therefore he is not a natural-born citizen might be problematic. George Washington's parents were not citizens of the United States either. You could say that is simply because there was no United States, but the fact is that they were British subjects. Washington himself fought for the crown in the French and Indian War, so he once had loyalties to another power.

It's also based on the opinion of one man who never would have envisioned a world where someone born in Austria who's career was in bodybuilding and action films could become Governor of California, or where a group of islands out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean would be a State. The thought that a person born there, whose parents were a white girl from Kansas and a black man from Africa, could even get within any distance of becoming the Democratic Party's nominee for President would have really blown his mind. Can you give that opinion force of law? Good luck convincing a judge of that.
 
The point is!! It makes perfect sense that any candidate for President of the United States should be formally vetted. What's so damned odd about that? Shouldn't candidates have to prove their eligibility?? Come on, make a case for why it doesn't make sense they should have to do so in a formal manner. I'll wait.
How does a certificate of circumcision prove a person was born in the U.S.? That is just one of the documents Arizona is willing to accept as prove of birth in the U.S.. But they're not willing to accept a certified short form certificate.
 
How does a certificate of circumcision prove a person was born in the U.S.? That is just one of the documents Arizona is willing to accept as prove of birth in the U.S.. But they're not willing to accept a certified short form certificate.

This is pretty ridiculous.

An official government document = unreliable and untrustworthy

A piece of paper that says the tip of his penis was cut off = infallible evidence of birth in the united states
 
Also according to that website, at the bottom of the same page you linked: "This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

Yet you made the fallacious representation that Obama himself stated that.
Fight the Smears in paid for by Organizing For America that supports Obama. Obama apparently hasn't contested the statement or it would be not on their if he did. The website is stating the facts about Obama's birth being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
 
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.

True, but none of those other candidates are the nominee of either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

[/QUOTE]Natural born citizen really only has a single, solitary place where it's relevant. At least afaik.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think it has bearing on the entire citizenship question. I am a citizen of the US based on my birthplace in the state of New York, and did not need to be naturalized. What happens if I go to another state with strict laws concerning showing proof of citizenship when I get pulled over for speeding (like Arizona), and I get hauled off to an prison for being "illegal" because my Birth Certificate isn't up to their standards.

Really, the point is that citizenship clearly is under the auspices of the Federal Government, and should not be left to each state to define on it's own.
 
How does a certificate of circumcision prove a person was born in the U.S.? That is just one of the documents Arizona is willing to accept as prove of birth in the U.S.. But they're not willing to accept a certified short form certificate.
If you read the bill, you'll see that AZ will except the Hawaiian short form COLB as evidence, but Obama will need addition information to get on the ballot.

Check out the Antenori amendment to the bill below:

"The Antenori floor amendment to the Government Reform Committee amendment inserts language regarding a presidential candidate who does not possess a long form birth certificate. A candidate would be able to include two or more of the following:

a) baptismal or circumcision certificate

b) hospital birth record

c) postpartum medical record

d) early census record.

Additionally, a candidate would also be able to submit a notarized affidavit from two or more persons who witnessed the candidates birth."

So Obama can show his alleged short form, And one more of those listed above either a, c, or d. or he can show a long form that Hawaii issues.
 
This is pretty ridiculous.

An official government document = unreliable and untrustworthy

A piece of paper that says the tip of his penis was cut off = infallible evidence of birth in the united states

It does prove that that person is a Christian or Jew, not some mixed blood offspring of an atheist and a Muslim.
 
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.
Now you're misrepresenting the decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. In the decision, it stated there is a doubt about whether or not a person born in the U.S. with only U.S. president is considered a natural born citizen, but for the sake of the case at hand, it was not necessary to address that doubt. That doubt remains to this day as it's never been answered in U.S. law. For you to assert a definition is dishonest in this debate. And given we've now how at least 2 U.S. presidents be born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent, I posit that precedent proves your assertion wrong.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
 
Now you're misrepresenting the decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. In the decision, it stated there is a doubt about whether or not a person born in the U.S. with only U.S. president is considered a natural born citizen, but for the sake of the case at hand, it was not necessary to address that doubt. That doubt remains to this day as it's never been answered in U.S. law. For you to assert a definition is dishonest in this debate. And given we've now how at least 2 U.S. presidents be born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent, I posit that precedent proves your assertion wrong.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Arthur was a mistake and you are using that mistake as a excuse to validate Obama's usurpation of the office of the presidency. That is pathetic. Your heart should be in upholding Article 2 Section 1.
 
Fight the Smears in paid for by Organizing For America that supports Obama. Obama apparently hasn't contested the statement or it would be not on their if he did. The website is stating the facts about Obama's birth being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Nice deflection, but you claimed Obama stated it. Not only did he not, but you're quoting it from a website which quoted it from another website and even worse, provided a disclaimer at the bottom stating that it was not authorized by Obama.

"So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?" ~ Apuzo

Oh, my, that's not true at all.

Speaking of not true, why am I still waiting for you to post the U.S. law which defines a natural born citizen as being a person born to both parents who are U.S. citizens?
 
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
Perhaps you are aware that Duncan v. Louisiana had dick-diddly to do with the question being natural born.
Also the snippet you quote is taken out of context. Perhaps you know that too.

Justice black said that its wiser to rely on what was said as opposed to relying on what was not said.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
"Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress."​

Also, Mr Bingham's quote is taken out of context and is also factually incorrect.
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/071/0300/03331291.tif
"I find no fault with the intriductory clause, which is simply what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born in the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had teh power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is a birthright, and neither the Congress nor teh States can justly or lawfully take it from him."​
As we all know, it is not written in the Constitution, that every human being born in the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a natural born citizen.
 
Arthur was a mistake and you are using that mistake as a excuse to validate Obama's usurpation of the office of the presidency. That is pathetic. Your heart should be in upholding Article 2 Section 1.
Mistake?? Prove that.

Arthur was elected twice, once as president and once as vice president. And in both elections, it was known that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. You're saying the same mistake was made twice with Arthur and once (so far) with Obama ... I say it's precedent.
 
Arthur was a mistake and you are using that mistake as a excuse to validate Obama's usurpation of the office of the presidency. That is pathetic. Your heart should be in upholding Article 2 Section 1.
If you read the post you're responding to, it has no mention of Arthur.
 
Well then Trump need to stop saying we don't know what hospital.

My suggestion would be to start believing state governments, the researches that vet candidates from both major candidates, the various politically motivated groups that weren't able to find hard evidence, and the President over the words of a known publicity hound that is gearing up for a potential run for President if you're not going to try to verify it for yourself first.
 
Mistake?? Prove that.

Arthur was elected twice, once as president and once as vice president. And in both elections, it was known that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. You're saying the same mistake was made twice with Arthur and once (so far) with Obama ... I say it's precedent.

Show me proof it was for sure known that Arthurs father was not a citizen at that time like we know Obama's was for sure today.
 
My suggestion would be to start believing state governments, the researches that vet candidates from both major candidates, the various politically motivated groups that weren't able to find hard evidence, and the President over the words of a known publicity hound that is gearing up for a potential run for President if you're not going to try to verify it for yourself first.
I grew up in Arkansas during the Clinton reign. I feel quite assured that if it was possible, the Clinton's would have had Obama disqualified. It wouldn't've even had to've been 100% above the board, but merely possible.
 
Perhaps you are aware that Duncan v. Louisiana had dick-diddly to do with the question being natural born.
Also the snippet you quote is taken out of context. Perhaps you know that too.

Justice black said that its wiser to rely on what was said as opposed to relying on what was not said.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
"Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress."​

Also, Mr Bingham's quote is taken out of context and is also factually incorrect.
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/071/0300/03331291.tif
"I find no fault with the intriductory clause, which is simply what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born in the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had teh power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is a birthright, and neither the Congress nor teh States can justly or lawfully take it from him."​
As we all know, it is not written in the Constitution, that every human being born in the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a natural born citizen.

Do you think the founders wanted their future presidents to have a born allegiance to England after they fought a war against them for their independence...twice?
 
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.

Nice information, thanks. however, it doesn't point to any real problem that I can see.
 
Back
Top Bottom