• 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

Apuzo said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's funny, nowhere in that section of the law you posted does it state what you claimed it states, that being Arizona will accept a short form, but with additional information. What it does say is that 2 or more of the forms they identify can be used as evidence in lieu of a long form certificate. That's what I said it states.

They won't accept a certified short form which states where a person was born but they will accept a certification of circumcision, even though circumcisions that come with certificates occur 8 days after the baby was born. The baby could have been born anywhere.
 
Apuzo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yet the first few they elected were born British subjects.
 
Apuzo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I already showed you that proof on another thread. Here is the document of Arthur's father's naturalization which is public information.


67113907d1302560788-trump-meet-sponsor-arizona-birther-bill-20091220_document.jpg
 
Apuzo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Or, you could ask if the founders meant to prevent people born in the US to an American and a foreigner to be considered eligible for the presidency.
That would be more to the point and less of a red-herring type question than the one you offered.
Why do you have to fall back to loaded questions like that? Why not employ facts?

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 sufficient to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I already showed you that proof on another thread. Here is the document of Arthur's father's naturalization which is public information.
Click to expand...
Didn't Apuzo provide a link to a source that has a link to that exact document? How is it that Apuzo didn't know this information already? Didn't he read his sources?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Didn't Apuzo provide a link to a source that has a link to that exact document? How is it that Apuzo didn't know this information already? Didn't he read his sources?
Click to expand...
Selective reading, I suppose.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Yet the first few they elected were born British subjects.
Click to expand...
That's because they had no choice because it was 'at the time of the adoption of the constitution' and all were citizens with British ties. That is the sole purpose why the founders added natural born citizen to Article 2 Section 1 to basically ensure a national security blanket to prevent a commander in chief from having a allegiance to a foreign sovereignty while occupying the highest office in the land. Now with that being said, 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?
 
Apuzo said:
Now with that being said, 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?
Click to expand...
Or, you could ask if the founders meant to prevent people born in the US to an American and a foreigner to be considered eligible for the presidency.
That would be more to the point and less of a red-herring type question than the one you offered.
Why do you have to fall back to loaded questions like that? Why not employ facts?
 
Redress said:
Maggie is 100 % correct. It is not that Obama is black, it is that some people will look for anything to stop a politician, no matter who they are. Using race just makes it easy for the birthers to defend against the argument and actually score points they don't deserve.
Click to expand...

I really don't know how anyone can tie race to the birthers. Oh, nevermind, since he is black, that must be the reason they are questioning him. Just like the tea partiers must be racist and it has nothing to do with his policies according to race obsessed left.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Or, you could ask if the founders meant to prevent people born in the US to an American and a foreigner to be considered eligible for the presidency.
That would be more to the point and less of a red-herring type question than the one you offered.
Why do you have to fall back to loaded questions like that? Why not employ facts?
Click to expand...
Please answer my question. It's a basic common sense question. 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?
 
Apuzo said:
That's because they had no choice because it was 'at the time of the adoption of the constitution' and all were citizens with British ties. That is the sole purpose why the founders added natural born citizen to Article 2 Section 1 to basically ensure a national security blanket to prevent a commander in chief from having a allegiance to a foreign sovereignty while occupying the highest office in the land. Now with that being said, 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?
Click to expand...
The difference being between naturalized citizens and citizens born in the U.S., that latter being the accepted definition of a "natural born citizen."
 
Whovian said:
Quick quiz.. who was the 1st person to say that about Barack Obama during the election. The answer is in the question.
Click to expand...


I know, I know! raising hand waving wildly.
He was divisive from the start.
 
Apuzo said:
Please answer my question.
Click to expand...
No. I don't think that. Nor do I think that they wanted someone who is an imbecile to be president. Not do i think they wanted someone who was a child to be president. Nor do I think they wanted someone who listened to rock and roll too loud to be president. I do not think they wanted Miley Cyrus to be president.
There's quite a long list of people who I don't think they wanted to be president.
But, that is all totally beside the point.
Apuzo said:
It's a basic common sense question.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. It's an irrelevant and loaded question that has no bearing on the matter at hand.

The relevant question would be:
Did the founders mean to prevent people born in the US to an American and a foreigner to be considered eligible for the presidency?​
 
Boo Radley said:
Sad. Just sad.
Click to expand...

What is sad about each state requiring each candidate registering to run for the office of president to show the state proof that he meets the Constitutional requirements for the office? The Mayor has it on good authority that Obama claims to be a natural born citizen, so what's the problem here?
 
Whovian said:
um... how the **** can a state tell the federal government what they can or cannot do?
Click to expand...

It's easy. The state isn't telling the federal government anything. The state is telling people seeking to be on it's ballot that they need to prove they meet the requirements for the office. Perfectly Constitutional, that.
 
Apuzo said:
It was found out last year that Eisenhower, who was white had to show his birth certificate to be eligible.

Ike needed birth certificate to run for president / September 22, 2010 / Sonoran News

original archived newspaper from the 50s
The Deseret News - Google News Archive Search
Click to expand...

Why on earth would they want Ike's BC? To my knowledge, he wasn't black.;)

Ike needed birth certificate to run for president / September 22, 2010 / Sonoran News
However, the need arose when he became a presidential candidate. Since Eisenhower was the oldest man to be elected president since James Buchanan over 100 years earlier, age was obviously not at issue. Instead, there was protocol in place for presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot.
Elected 34th president of the United States in November 1952, Eisenhower made it through his first 62 years without any need for a birth certificate.
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm sure many Arizonans would find your use of the words anti-immigration laws offensive.
Click to expand...

The motivation behind the laws is to appeal to the xenophobic (anti-immigrant) right wing voters in the state who are scared of non-White (i. e. brown) peoples, who they believe are invading America to destroy it's supposedly "proper" White culture.

That xenophobia is evident in bans like this. . .

Arizona education chief moves to ban ethnic studies in Tucson schools - CNN

Barbbtx said:
Don't you think latinos would like to see immigration laws enforced too? They are being harmed by illegal immigration too.
Click to expand...

True, and many of them, it would seem, aren't savvy enough to recognize it. It's well known that Latino labor organizers like Cesar Chaves opposed open immigration to improve the work conditions for laborers.

If they did recognize it, it would certainly be ironical. The last thing the border bigots in AZ want is for Latinos in the state to benefit from those laws.

Barbbtx said:
Granted, the way the media lied about what the laws actually were would give them pause, but the truth is, the bill would be to their benefit too. Why wouldn't the birther bill be enforced? It sure ought to be. To not be, would seem to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

OK, please explain how it would be enforced (this should be interesting. . .!)
 
MaggieD said:
Read, Jet, read!!! McCain went before a Congressional committee regarding his birthplace. John McCain sounds pretty WASPY to me. This has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. McCain was never really questioned until the Obama silliness. And even then, it was more show than anything else. Remove Obama, and there would be no questioning.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What is sad about each state requiring each candidate registering to run for the office of president to show the state proof that he meets the Constitutional requirements for the office? The Mayor has it on good authority that Obama claims to be a natural born citizen, so what's the problem here?
Click to expand...

It's already done. We have not and do not have a problem here.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is based on the assumption that they are not. The fact is they are. There was no need for this waste of time and money and ink.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. There was no legitmate reason for it to have ever been an issue this time. You can't legislate away stupid. Stupid will always find a way. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Actually, only people worried that their favorite candidate won't be able to register in Arizona would be bothered by a law that does nothing but stipulate a candidate prove his eligibility for an office before being allowed on the ballot.

But just think, this will keep Arnold Schwarzenegger from running in Arizona. Perhaps Arizona saw what Arnold Kennedy Schwarzenegger did to California and don't want him campaigning for president in their state?
 
MaggieD said:
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.



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



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.



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.
Click to expand...

Only Congress can directly remove Obama from office via impeachment/conviction. And Congress would not do even if it were proven that Obama was not a natural born citizen, because Congress' allegiance is not to the Constitution or to any other laws, but rather to PACs and corporations.

Do you not understand the nature of a plutocracy?
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm pretty sure he said that way before the election. It was in that famous speech he made at the DNC convention for Kerry I think. What's your point?
Click to expand...

That is wasn't the American people who were talking about his "funny" name or the color of his skin. He was drawing attention to those things himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom