Arizona will require Obama to provide birth cert if he wants to be on ballot

[US Army Retired]

If it wasn't a problem their heads wouldn't explode...

So true.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I think this is finally getting the legs it needs to get this story going that the media has been silent on. The White House seems to be upset and I think is starting to feel the heat as this is getting publicity everywhere and has people talking and asking questions focusing on the Presidents citizenship. From Lt Col Lakin in the news to now this CNN front page news. This story will not go away. There is nothing wrong with a Presidential Candidate having to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen to be on the ballot. The White House should know this but the question is,............ Why is the Obama Administration upset with the Arizona Legislature for taking a precautionary measure that a candidate, to be on a ballot, meet the constitutional qualifications that you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President just to be on the safe side?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - White House slams latest ‘birther’ move - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) - White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
"This is a question that has been answered exhaustively," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories."
The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.

More in link above and read the liberals comments as their heads are exploding over this.

The only reason why they are making a big deal out of this is because it plays into the "bash the right winger" policy while they are slipping through their fucked up financial Bill.

It's all a distraction and slight of hand....David Copperfield would be proud.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hey, I love to bag on the teabaggers as much as the next man, but even they don't deserve to be lumped in with the birthers.

That's a whole other category of crazy right there.

Yeah, I have to agree here.

Let's not lump the Tea-Baggers with the crazies, it'll just confuse matters.

Though there are a lot of birthers that are Tea baggers, the majority of Tea Baggers are not in fact birthers.

 

[Yurt]

again.........what is the case........and you have changed the story, you claimed the court asked for the information and deemed it appropriate, now you're saying the court said the information already provided is enough

for the 4th time.......what is the case, i'm calling bullshit until you present it, i am near certain the case was only thrown out on the issue of standing, not evidence

Wait, wait, I see the confusion here...

This was the original statement:

He told the people who doubted the validity of the one he already provided that he would not provide additional proof.

Birthers are not "the country".

When asked to provide said documentation by the correct authority (the Supreme Court), he provided them with what was apparently satisfactory evidence.

Plus you do realize that if one is to say that the Supreme Court's decision on this matter is not a valid judgement, thus questioning the validity of the court itself, then the entire Bush Presidency was in fact an illegal usurpation of power.

I was using the word "decision" in the sense that the Supreme Court had decided to do something, in this case throw out the suit due to the countervailing evidence...

Not in the sense that the case had gone to trial and had ended in a "Decision".

Purely semantic misunderstanding. My bad probably for using a word with multiple applications in this situation.

ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?

what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.

 

[Yurt]

It's not just capitulating to the demands of the whack jobs, although once he starts they'll just move the goalposts and we all know it.

It's the entire principle of citizenship and what it stands for, and the danger of setting a precedent that creates a tiered system even in appearance only. Not to mention protecting the principle of full faith and credit, exactly as enumerated and not deviating at the whim of one or another State or a group of sore losers. I'd stick to my guns too.

ah....the slippery slope argument

problem is, beyond the original, there really is no goal post to move

Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.

And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

 

[Care4all]

did i say 'legal standard'? no, i said it is still and issue and its stupid to not simply produce a copy of the original. which, whether in court or not, is the best evidence. period.

But should he be required to? That is after all the point we've been arguing over.

was mccain's original (copy) produced?

No, not that I am aware of.... he had the suits against him dismissed as well, and I believe not having standing was the reason as well for the courts dismissing the law suit(s) against him.

but MCCain's birth certificate was not at issue....

His birth certificate states that he was born in Panama.

At the time that McCain was born, children to two parent American Citizens, were NOT made American citizens automatically....they had to apply for citizenship for him....being born in panama.

This means that he was not a citizen at birth....is what was the supposed argument....and IF he was not an American citizen at birth, then he could not possibly be, a natural born citizen....not because he was not born in the usa, but because the law at the time, dictated such.

A few years after McCain was born, the United States rewrote their citizen, immigration and naturalization laws to state that if you are born in Panama to one American parent with certain criteria or two American parents, then the child would be BORN a citizen, thus a naturalized citizen....and yes, there is no true definition of a natural born citizen, but most believe it means, born a citizen at birth from what I understand of it.... which isn't too too much!

 

[US Army Retired]

I think this is finally getting the legs it needs to get this story going that the media has been silent on. The White House seems to be upset and I think is starting to feel the heat as this is getting publicity everywhere and has people talking and asking questions focusing on the Presidents citizenship. From Lt Col Lakin in the news to now this CNN front page news. This story will not go away. There is nothing wrong with a Presidential Candidate having to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen to be on the ballot. The White House should know this but the question is,............ Why is the Obama Administration upset with the Arizona Legislature for taking a precautionary measure that a candidate, to be on a ballot, meet the constitutional qualifications that you must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President just to be on the safe side?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - White House slams latest ‘birther’ move - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) - White House aides are scoffing at a move in the Arizona legislature to force President Obama to show his birth certificate to get on the state's ballot in 2012 for his likely re-election battle.
"This is a question that has been answered exhaustively," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. "I can't imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories."
The Arizona House voted Monday by a 31-22 margin to require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the United States in order to meet the constitutional requirement. The measure still has to be considered by the Arizona state Senate before it can become law.

More in link above and read the liberals comments as their heads are exploding over this.

The only reason why they are making a big deal out of this is because it plays into the "bash the right winger" policy while they are slipping through their fucked up financial Bill.

It's all a distraction and slight of hand....David Copperfield would be proud.

“The White House seems very testy over a state actually setting up a mechanism that will ask for proof of one of the Constitutional requirements for a president. Although Obama might be the first incumbent president that will be affected it affects all presidential candidate equally and is a fair law...despite their howls of protest.”

 

[HUGGY]

Lol. Go Arizona!
2012 is only 2 years away. Thank goodness.

"The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection."

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

I wonder how many previous presidents going back to Washington provided original birth certificates to anyone. Maybe the whole history of the republic is bogus.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

 

[goldcatt]

again.........what is the case........and you have changed the story, you claimed the court asked for the information and deemed it appropriate, now you're saying the court said the information already provided is enough

for the 4th time.......what is the case, i'm calling bullshit until you present it, i am near certain the case was only thrown out on the issue of standing, not evidence

Wait, wait, I see the confusion here...

This was the original statement:

He told the people who doubted the validity of the one he already provided that he would not provide additional proof.

Birthers are not "the country".

When asked to provide said documentation by the correct authority (the Supreme Court), he provided them with what was apparently satisfactory evidence.

Plus you do realize that if one is to say that the Supreme Court's decision on this matter is not a valid judgement, thus questioning the validity of the court itself, then the entire Bush Presidency was in fact an illegal usurpation of power.

I was using the word "decision" in the sense that the Supreme Court had decided to do something, in this case throw out the suit due to the countervailing evidence...

Not in the sense that the case had gone to trial and had ended in a "Decision".

Purely semantic misunderstanding. My bad probably for using a word with multiple applications in this situation.

ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?

what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.

This is where it gets easy to get confused on the procedure.

First a case goes to trial court, on the Federal level that's the District Court. Normally the trial court is the only one who hears the evidence and makes the determinations of fact. If the defendant challenges the plaintiff's standing to sue, that is heard first before any evidence on the merits of the case. If it is determined by the Court that the plaintiff has no standing, the case is dismissed either with an order to dismiss or a summary judgment, depending on exactly how far they got into the case, and there is never a hearing on the evidence to determine the facts and rule on them. Simple enough.

The next level is a 3-judge panel at the Circuit Court level. If the trial court tossed the case for lack of standing, the petitioner (formerly called the plaintiff - same person) can ONLY have the issue of standing addressed since it was the only issue the trial court ruled on. The Court still does not hear the factual evidence. If they would for some reason that doesn't apply here, a new determination of fact at the appeals court level would be hearing the facts de novo, or as new.

The next level is what's called an en banc hearing before all of the Judges of the Circuit Court (if they agree to hear it), and from there it goes to the Supreme Court (if they agree to hear it). The same rules apply all the way through the appeal process. If the trial court only issued a decision based on standing, the appeals courts will only hear the standing arguments. Appeals courts make determinations of law, NOT fact. There are a few exceptions, but they do not apply here.

So if all of the cases were in fact tossed out on standing to sue, nobody has heard the facts yet. I know it's sort of confusing with all the technical terms flying around, but that's basically a nutshell guide to understanding what's happening with the cases.

 

[Vast LWC]

ok......what is the case....? why can't you simply give me the case name?

what evidence did they have if no evidence was presented? if the case had gone so far as to submit evidence, then it was tossed on a summary judgment and the scotus would not be reviewing the case for evidence, it would be reviewing the case based on a matter of law. i don't believe you are correct about the scotus tossing a case based on a lack of evidence, that is a lower court's duty, not the scotus's duty unless they amazingly decide to hear the case de novo, which i can't recall ever happening.

The case was brought by Philip J. Berg in Berg v. Obama et al.

Mr Berg bypassed the lower courts after an initial ruling against him and took the issue to the Supreme Court.

The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was summarily denied on January 21, 2009.

On November 12, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dismissed the Berg v. Obama et al. case "because there is no case or controversy."

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

Exactly. Obama is a natural born citizen. There is ample proof of this.

 

[Nonelitist]

why would bush allow obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

idiot alert.... Again

 

[del]

Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

have someone read the constitution to you, fuckwit.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why would requesting a BC in order to prove eligibility to run for POTUS put anyone in a snit? What would the reason be for being upset? Inquiring minds want to know . . . .

Besides, they already do that. Are they just requesting a different form (original BC vs a COLB) for verification? If so, so what? Why would that put anyone into a tail spin?

 

[Jarhead]

Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

You have no idea of the powers of the President.

 

[Jarhead]

Why would Bush allow Obama to take office if he was not a citizen??????

have someone read the constitution to you, fuckwit.

As you will see; You beat me to it.
She truly is clueless about how our government works.

 

[goldcatt]

ah....the slippery slope argument

problem is, beyond the original, there really is no goal post to move

Sure there are. The arguments are already out there. First is authenticity. Then it's whether there is a conspiracy within the Hawaiian state government to cover something up. The nutters will enver be satisfied. Let them eat tinfoil. And buy stock in Reynolds.

And you would support a State setting requirements at odds with the Full Faith and Credit clause as enumerated? Seriously, you don't see a problem with that?

i don't see requiring a copy of the original to be at odds with the full faith and credit clause....hawaii does not say you cannot get a copy of the original, the typed, photostatic copy etc....has the same force of law as the original if the original is lost or damaged....

hrs 338-19

§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original


nothing in the statutes precludes a copy of the original from being presented

No, but it also does not require it. Which means a sister State cannot require it.

Think about FF&C and what it says, it is Congress' responsibility to set the guidelines for accepting records under FF&C, not the individual States. That would defeat the entire purpose of having a FF&C clause to begin with. And since a COLB is proof of citizenship for all other purposes in federal law, for a State to require more is violative.

 

[US Army Retired]

Why would requesting a BC in order to prove eligibility to run for POTUS put anyone in a snit? What would the reason be for being upset? Inquiring minds want to know . . . .

Besides, they already do that. Are they just requesting a different form (original BC vs a COLB) for verification? If so, so what? Why would that put anyone into a tail spin?

I think this is the proof why they are upset. Here is part of the bill:

B. 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.

C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.
Format Document

Most likely effect will be a ruling or resolution (as with McCain) to determine once and for all if a person with a father who is not a US citizen qualifies as a natural born citizen.

 

[txlonghorn]

YAWN....it's a big waste of time and taxpayers dollars to keep up this search for the ever elusive BC...

It should be apparent by now that if the machine known as the US Government wants something suppressed, it will FOREVER be suppressed.

I don't care anymore whether he was born in the US or Timbuk-fucking-tu...the damage is done...too much of it.

I can't see him being re-elected, but what the hell do I know??? I didn't think he'd make it through the primaries the first time around.