WorldWatcher
Gold Member
And there isn't a THING the Federal Gubmint can do about it except try to sue...but par for the course? They will ask a Federal Judge to make it null and void...Just sit back and watch it happen...
First of all, that's not quite true Thomas, the requirement to be President is to be a Natural Born Citizen. To date there has been no law (except the 1790 Immigration and Naturalization Act) which has defined "Natural Born Citizen" and there has been no Supreme Court decision based on a case dealing with Presidential eligibility.
Secondly, the law requires that the birth certificate contain irrelevant information - such as the hospital born in and attending witnesses. The ONLY factor of relevance is the birth location under the 14th Amendment, requiring the hospital and witness statements is not a Constitutional requirement for President. Bascically Arizona is attempting to define in their laws what other States must include in their birth documents.
Third, Article IV Section 1 of the United States Costitution requires that one State recognize the public acts of other States (such as birth certificates, marriages, divorces, etc...) unless the United States Congress decrees otherwise under their Constitutional authority to define the "effect thereof" of such acts.
The result will be that if an individual presents a COLB which (IIRC) most State now issue, there will be a challenge to the law and (IMHO) it is likely to be successful on Constitutional grounds (mandating the actions of another state and lack of Full Faith and Credit).
Now personally I think we've screwed the pooch for hundreds of years. It should have ALWAYS been part of election law for ANY elected position (from Dog Catcher to President) that candidates should have to submit documented evidence they meet the qualifications of office and not just submit a signed affidavit that they do.
>>>>
I was referring to what the State of Arizona did...Watch a Judge make their legislation Null and Void...
If the Arizona law violates the Constitution, it is null and void.
I'm not saying it does, I'm saying there are solid Constitutional arguments which should lead one to think it does.
Now if it was me writing the law, and if I was of the opinion that it required birth on soil and two citizen parents at the time of birth, I would have written it like this.
1. The candidate will submit their official record of birth issued by a State, county, or municipal authority bearing an official seal.
2. In addition the candidate will submit either the birth documents for each parent or documents showing they held United States citizenship at the time of the candidates birth.
2. In addition the candidate will submit either the birth documents for each parent or documents showing they held United States citizenship at the time of the candidates birth.
Two separate requirements, one showing birth location, meaning they accept all State documents and the second proving the citizenship of the parents. IMHO opinion that would withstand a Constitutional challenge based on Full Faith & Credit.
>>>>
Last edited: