• 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

Simon W. Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read this link:

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH « Natural Born Citizen
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Kandahar said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.

Kandahar said:
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...
What I think about a law is a different matter than whether or not it can pass a Constitutional test.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you admit Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen?
 
Apuzo said:
So you admit Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen?
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
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.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read the bill
 
Simon W. Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Apuzo said:
I can comprehend fine. I am asking you if you think Arthur was eligible?
Click to expand...

Yes. A person who is a dual citizen of the United States and any other country at the time of their birth, is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth, and therefore is a natural-born citizen.
 
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...

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?
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

They same way they are going to make sure that the police aren't racial profiling... they aren't. Arizona is seeming pretty fringe, right-wing lately.
 
Kandahar said:
OK, so if we're referring specifically to the law itself...
Click to expand...
What else would we be referring to in regards to constitutionality?
Kandahar said:
rather than the specific outcome of Arizona claiming Obama's birth certificate is invalid
Click to expand...
Cite please.
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that running for president falls into the same category of rights as voting.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. A person who is a dual citizen of the United States and any other country at the time of their birth, is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth, and therefore is a natural-born citizen.
Click to expand...

Show me a link to verify this.
 
whysoserious said:
They same way they are going to make sure that the police aren't racial profiling... they aren't. Arizona is seeming pretty fringe, right-wing lately.
Click to expand...
Sheeesh. What would happen if you read the bill? It really doesn't hurt and it answers CriticalThought's question.
 
Apuzo said:
The newspaper birth announcements only say that a baby was born, not where. Back in 1961 you could have foreign births and the state would issue a 3rd kind of birth certificate for that purpose. Once the dept of health was notified of the birth via a office visit by the relative or mail in form, a vital record was created thus triggering the birth announcements.
Click to expand...

I see. So a baby was born, and the parents, in a voodoo ceremony, of course, offered it as a sacrifice to Satan, before putting Barack in it's place. Makes a lot of sense.... Actually, no it doesn't, but neither did what you posted. Explain to me what kind of conspiracy exists that would account for a baby being born to Obama's parents, but it wasn't Barack. I was going to type some more, but I can't stop laughing right now. What I am hearing from birthers is totally bat**** crazy. How about peddling it to Monty Python? I bet they could have a lot of fun with it.

This week on Barack, King of the Muslims:
Barack, King of the Muslims, learns the holy hand grenade, but accidentally blows himself up. Muslims learn from it the art of suicide bombing. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
What else would we be referring to in regards to constitutionality?
Click to expand...

We could talk about the constitutionality of a law demanding birth certificates from presidential candidates, or the constitutionality of a state not offering the full faith and credit of another state's documents. I assume you want to talk about the former?

Simon W. Moon said:
I am not sure that running for president falls into the same category of rights as voting.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it?
 
Apuzo said:
Back in 1961 you could have foreign births and the state would issue a 3rd kind of birth certificate for that purpose.
Click to expand...
and on these birth certificates, under place of birth, did it list Honolulu? Or did it list the actual place of birth?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Read the bill
Click to expand...

I'm asking a simple question not asserting anything.

How are they going to regulate this so that one candidate isn't held to a higher burden of proof than another candidate? As I said before, 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.

Do you have any knowledge of how they are going to keep this from occurring? If you are telling me to read the bill, then that kind of indicates that you haven't read the bill and have absolutely no idea yourself.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
Sheeesh. What would happen if you read the bill? It really doesn't hurt and it answers CriticalThought's question.
Click to expand...

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? Unless the bill says, "We did not create this because of Obama but have been thinking about doing this since before giant groups of fringe conservatives attacked him", then I don't see your point. Between this and their "immigration reform", I don't see how anyone can take Arizona's legislature serious...
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. A person who is a dual citizen of the United States and any other country at the time of their birth, is a citizen of the United States at the time of their birth, and therefore is a natural-born citizen.
Click to expand...

Apuzo said:
Show me a link to verify this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
They same way they are going to make sure that the police aren't racial profiling... they aren't. Arizona is seeming pretty fringe, right-wing lately.
Click to expand...

Do you know for a fact whether or not it is going to be based solely on the discretion of state officials or what state officials get to decide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom