Breaking News and Confirmed: Arizona Senate Passes Presidential Eligibility Bill 21-9

[Article 15]

From your own article, YOU DUMB FUCK-

Specifically, the payments by Obama for America to Perkins Coie covered all sorts of legal expenses -- not just expenses related to birth certificate issues.

The FEC forms do not specify what each payment specifically went for, since that degree of detail is not required by law. We also couldn't get additional details from Perkins Coie or the Democratic National Committee about how the legal fees were spent.


That's your proof?? "NOT ALL WERE LEGAL FEES GOING TO THE BIRTHER ISSUE??!!! ROFLMAO!! You're a fucking joke!!!!!!

Oh? It really says that? Yeah, no shit, dumbass. That's exactly what I told you. What a fucking moron. Here's what I wrote:

Bullshit. Politifact debunked that 2 million claim. 2 million was the total spent on legal fees. That total includes services not related the birth certificate issue. Try again. You fail.

See the bold text? "That total includes services not related the birth certificate issue." In other words, the 2 million was not spent on birther lawsuits alone; it also includes other legal services. And that's exactly what the Politifact article says. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it? Stick with what you do best: making a complete ass out of yourself. Now sit down and shut the fuck up, you dumb ****.

BTW- All girls know it takes a special kind of trash to call a woman a c___t. Bravo~

Well if the shoe fits......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lincoln's election has nothing to do with the constitutionality of this bill. Depending on how the bill is written, it could very well end up being unconstitutional, for violating the full faith and credit clause. The state of Arizona does not have the constitutional power to dictate how another state, like Hawaii, must render its own records. Only the Congress can prescribe such rules.

And Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC. Case closed

Correct. Florida can not mandate what Virginia must have on their drivers license. That is for the Commonwealth of Virginia to decide.

Should Arizona Gun laws be the law of the land because of the full faith and credit clause?

Absolutely not, yet that is what you are arguing for, hat Arizona gets to tell other States how they have to structure their birth certificates. Arizona gun laws determine how guns are purchased in Arizona, Arizona has no right to tell other States what their gun laws have to be.

Some states do not allow conceal carry some states don't require any permits to conceal carry. Should another state invoke it's laws against another state because of the full faith and credit clause?

Again correct, Arizona does not have the power or authority to tell another State how to manage their gun laws.


***************************

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.



>>>>>

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.[/QUOTE]

You just made it for me thanks

Absolutely not, yet that is what you are arguing for, hat Arizona gets to tell other States how they have to structure their birth certificates. Arizona gun laws determine how guns are purchased in Arizona, ,Arizona has no right to tell other States what their gun laws have to be. .

Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

recognize legislative acts would also mean gun laws

 

[Article 15]

Do not get me started on that piece of toilet paper in this thread. It wasn't accepted by the state registrar back in 1961. It's worthless unless you can resurrect the dead and ask the state registrar why he did not accept it in 1961.

I love burfers. I really do. Are you a troofer as well?

I'm a burfer? You're an idiot so were even

Thank you for admitting birfers (and therefor you too) are idiots.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah well, these birfer fruitcakes will have until 2016 to babble on.

 

[Synthaholic]

Good for them. You realize that this isnt going to keep Obama off the ballot because he was born in Hawaii right?

He will NOT be on the Arizona ballot if he doesn't cough up a LEGAL BC. End of story.

You're a fucking idiot. End of story.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the bill, the only precedence SCOTUS will have to decide with if they choose to make a decision is, Lincoln 1860

1. Lincoln not being on the ballot was not a Supreme Court case so, no it doesn't establish precedent in terms of a violation of the Constitution.

2. Of course you don't "see" the Constitutional issues involved because (it appears) that all you see is something that is anti-Obama and of course that's all you appear to care about.

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).


>>>>

Careful when you question who cares and who doesn't. If you cared and could get past your partisanship and ask why he does not produce the long form you might actually see something wrong with the wholke issue. But you will not allow that to happen.

If I strictly reacted on partisanship, I'd ignore the Constitutional issues and support the law like you appear to do. However I'm a Republican and hate Obama as President and disagree totally with how he's fucked up the economy. I disagree with ObamaCare as the federal government does not have the power, nor should it have, to mandate individuals buy insurance. I disagree with TARP and the Ballouts.

However because I can separate my personal desires from my opinion of the law, I can say it definitely has Constitutional issues such that (IMHO) the law is likely to be struck down in Federal court which means it was a waste of time.

There is nothing on the long form that is valid to Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President that is not contained on the short form. Under the 14th Amendment the only requirements (as the laws exists today) is birth location being within the territory owned by the United States. The name of the hospital and who or who wasn't in the delivery room are irrelevant to that question.

If you are of the persuasion to believe in Jus soli, then the birth location on the short form is all that is needed.

If you are of the persuasion that it is jus sanguinis then what you need it the short form showing the parents. Then you have birth location and the names of the parents, at that point you also require the submission of the PARENTS proof of citizenship at the time of birth (either their birth certificate or naturalization papers).

This mandating that another state include irrelevant information on their public records is in fact Constitutionally troubling.

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).

Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC so there's nothiung unconstitutional about this bill.

So what? Hawaii issues the short form as it's official birth record. If that is a document that they provide to show birth location, then under Full Faith and Credit Arizona must except that document for proving birth location. It would literally take an act of Congress to provide an exception under Full Faith and Credit under Congress's authority to define the "effect thereof".

You (I'm using the royal "you" here and not you personally) respect the Constitution or you don't. If you do, you recognize that Arizona does not have the authority to tell Hawaii what must be on the documents it issues to document births that occur in Hawaii.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Lincoln not being on the ballot was not a Supreme Court case so, no it doesn't establish precedent in terms of a violation of the Constitution.

2. Of course you don't "see" the Constitutional issues involved because (it appears) that all you see is something that is anti-Obama and of course that's all you appear to care about.

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).


>>>>

Careful when you question who cares and who doesn't. If you cared and could get past your partisanship and ask why he does not produce the long form you might actually see something wrong with the wholke issue. But you will not allow that to happen.

If I strictly reacted on partisanship, I'd ignore the Constitutional issues and support the law like you appear to do. However I'm a Republican and hate Obama as President and disagree totally with how he's fucked up the economy. I disagree with ObamaCare as the federal government does not have the power, nor should it have, to mandate individuals buy insurance. I disagree with TARP and the Ballouts.

However because I can separate my personal desires from my opinion of the law, I can say it definitely has Constitutional issues such that (IMHO) the law is likely to be struck down in Federal court which means it was a waste of time.

There is nothing on the long form that is valid to Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President that is not contained on the short form. Under the 14th Amendment the only requirements (as the laws exist today) is birth location being within the territory owned by the United States. The name of the hospital and who or who wasn't in the delivery room are irrelevant to that question.

If you are of the persuasion to believe in Jus soli, then the birth location on the short for is all that is needed.

If you are of the persuasion that it is jus sanguinis then what you need it the short form showing the parents. Then you have birth location and the names of the parents, at that point you also require the submission of the PARENTS proof of citizenship at the time of birth (either their birth certificate or naturalization papers).

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).

Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC so there's nothiung unconstitutional about this bill.

So what? Hawaii issues the short form as it's official birth record. If that is a document that they provide to show birth location, then under Full Faith and Credit Arizona must except that document for proving birth location. It would literally take an act of Congress to provide an exception under Full Faith and Credit under Congress's authority to define the "effect thereof".

You (I'm using the royal "you" here and not you personally) respect the Constitution or you don't. If you do, you recognize that Arizona does not have the authority to tell Hawaii what must be on the documents it issues to document births that occur in Hawaii.


>>>>

If I strictly reacted on partisanship, I'd ignore the Constitutional issues and support the law like you appear to do.

There is no Constitutional issue Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC

So what? Hawaii issues the short form as it's official birth record. If that is a document that they provide to show birth location, then under Full Faith and Credit Arizona must except that document for proving birth location. It would literally take an act of Congress to provide an exception under Full Faith and Credit under Congress's authority to define the "effect thereof".

Your partisanship is showing again. You are as much a republican as I am a democrat you hate obama just about as much as I think the the greatest thing next to the invention of the wheel. I ain't buying your BS.

 

[gautama]

gaytardma

Correction: ".........phoney uproarious laughing jag with a boot up his money-making arse !!!!!

gaytardma, you scatalogically-obsessed weirdo, you're late for your meeting.

Toroshit, Ill get there as soon as you yank the boot outa your money-making arse !!!

Hmmmmmm.....on the other hand, that might take forever 'cause "fellows" like you loooooooovvvvve to have a large object where "da sun don't shine."

 

[Liability]

About Lincoln? Soooo?


You said that one of tow possibilities would happen, so i showed you that there were more than that. If you are going to discuss a subject, you should expand you point of view to think outside you preconceived desires.


>>>>

I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the bill, the only precedence SCOTUS will have to decide with if they choose to make a decision is, Lincoln 1860

1. Lincoln not being on the ballot was not a Supreme Court case so, no it doesn't establish precedent in terms of a violation of the Constitution.

2. Of course you don't "see" the Constitutional issues involved because (it appears) that all you see is something that is anti-Obama and of course that's all you appear to care about.

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).


>>>>

1. Presidential actions do not set judicial precedent. I agree, generally speaking that is.

2. A pointless ad hominem which you could not support if your life depended on it.

3. The Az law would not mandate diddly dog about what NY or HI or FL or any other State must have on their birth records. But as for "not accepting" the public records of another State, your argument is hooey. HI cannot impose ITS standards on any other State. Az may accept the HI records for all manner of things contained in a COLB without being bound by the HAWAIIAN law that says it is to be accepted in Court. Fine. It can be accepted in Hawaiian Courts. But Hawaii cannot impose that same condition on the Courts of ANY other State. So, no. It is not a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

 

[gekaap]

And Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC. Case closed

That's the point. Arizona does not have the constitutional authority to demand that Hawaii provide any specific form for verifying a person's birth records. AZ can ask for a birth certificate. But if Hawaii decides that it's going to start issuing birth certificates that are hand written on the back of a stained napkin, then AZ will have to accept them. Only Congress has the power to set rules about how the state of Hawaii can be forced to prove their records to another state.

But full faith and credit clause doesn't work that way motor vehicle laws gun laws are differant in every state. Should Arizona Gun laws be the law of the land because of the full faith and credit clause? Some states do not allow conceal carry some states don't require any permits to conceal carry. Should another state invoke it's laws against another state because of the full faith and credit clause?

You haven't the first bit of comprehension. The full faith and credit clause has to do with the records and proceedings of the several states. It has nothing to do with gun laws in one state transferring to another state. The state of Hawaii keeps its own vital records. If the state of Hawaii says that Obama was born there, then AZ is constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to that. Congress has the power to, if it so chooses, establish rules by which Hawaii will prove those records exist. But that power belongs to Congress alone. Thus, any AZ law that, for example, places demands on what kind of documents will be used to prove matters of Hawaiian records would violate the constitution.

It's very clear that you have virtually no familiarity or understanding of the constitution. That's not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when you chime in on these subjects with off the wall arguments and suggestions. You need to start educating yourself so that you can understand what you're talking about, before you make yourself look silly like you have done here. The fact that you thought that full faith and credit clause could have anything to do with differences in gun laws between different states is......well it's like going to chemistry class and citing Mozart.

 

[assbeef]

Good for them. You realize that this isnt going to keep Obama off the ballot because he was born in Hawaii right?

got proof?
barry doesn't.

 

[assbeef]

LOL a new birther state.

Can the state of AZ prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen?

There is no birth certificate requirement to be a natural born citizen in the Constitution.

i can-barry's father was a british citizen.
you lose.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And Arizona will recognize Hawaii's long form BC. Case closed

Correct. Florida can not mandate what Virginia must have on their drivers license. That is for the Commonwealth of Virginia to decide.



Absolutely not, yet that is what you are arguing for, hat Arizona gets to tell other States how they have to structure their birth certificates. Arizona gun laws determine how guns are purchased in Arizona, Arizona has no right to tell other States what their gun laws have to be.



Again correct, Arizona does not have the power or authority to tell another State how to manage their gun laws.


***************************

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.



>>>>>

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.[/QUOTE]

You just made it for me thanks

Absolutely not, yet that is what you are arguing for, hat Arizona gets to tell other States how they have to structure their birth certificates. Arizona gun laws determine how guns are purchased in Arizona, ,Arizona has no right to tell other States what their gun laws have to be. .

Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

recognize legislative acts would also mean gun laws

Arizona doesn't get to mandate gun laws within another state. Arizona does not have the authority to mandate that Vermont must do that, that and the other to issue a weapons permit to carry a gun in Vermont. Arizona does have the authority to define the requirements for carrying a gun in Arizona.

The act is controlled by the State in which the action occurs. If you are in Vermont, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws and Vermont determines the records required. If you are in Arizona, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws.

The act is birth of a child and Hawaii gets to determine how to handle that act within their own State. If the child birth is in Arizona, then Arizona gets to determine how that act is handled in their jurisdiction.

What you are arguing for is that Arizona should mandate on Hawaii how Hawaii documents an act. The jurisdiction is Hawaii, they are controlling authority. The birth (if it occurred in Hawaii) is outside the jurisdiction of Arizona.

When you carry a gun in Arizona, you committing an act under their jurisdiction. When you carry a gun in Vermont, you are committing an act under their jurisdiction. It's kind of hard to be carrying a gun in Vermont when you are standing in Phoenix.

10 USC § 1738.
State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

"The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."​

The action that occurred is the birth of a child. The State of Hawaii gets to determine the manner and process by which that action exists in it's records and the structure of the documents that report that event occurring within their jurisdiction. Not another State, especially when that other State is mandating that the documents produced by Hawaii must contain irrelevant information as to the issue at hand. The name of the hospital and who or who wasn't in the delivery room is irrelevant to the central question - did the birth occur in the United States. How that action is documented in Hawaii, is up to Hawaii - not Arizona.


>>>>

 

[assbeef]

Good for them. You realize that this isnt going to keep Obama off the ballot because he was born in Hawaii right?

He will NOT be on the Arizona ballot if he doesn't cough up a LEGAL BC. End of story.

1. the Birth Certificate he has already produced meets the requirements of this legislation.

Duh.

bullshit-you can not enroll in a public school with that-ask me how i know.
you libtards are retards.cant wait till shtf-i will be comming for ya.

 

[gekaap]

3. The Az law would not mandate diddly dog about what NY or HI or FL or any other State must have on their birth records. But as for "not accepting" the public records of another State, your argument is hooey. HI cannot impose ITS standards on any other State. Az may accept the HI records for all manner of things contained in a COLB without being bound by the HAWAIIAN law that says it is to be accepted in Court. Fine. It can be accepted in Hawaiian Courts. But Hawaii cannot impose that same condition on the Courts of ANY other State. So, no. It is not a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Only Congress has the power to set any rules about how one state will prove its what is contained in its records to another. If AZ wants proof of what HI records contain, it must accept whatever HI gives them, unless the Congress has established special rules for the matter. If the AZ law puts requirements on the state of HI, then the law is violating the full faith and credit clause, which explicitly reserves to Congress the power to establish such requirements.

 

[gekaap]

bullshit-you can not enroll in a public school with that-ask me how i know.

This is an outright lie. When I was a kid I was able to enroll in school with LESS than what Obama has made available to the public.

 

[WorldWatcher]

3. The Az law would not mandate diddly dog about what NY or HI or FL or any other State must have on their birth records.

Format Document

"1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. "
​

It requires that the long form contain the Date and Place of Birth (both relevant to establishing citizenship at birth), but also requires it to contain the name of the hospital, the physician, and the signatures of witnesses that may have been present. (All irrelevant once the State has attested to the Date and Place of Birth in establishing citizenship by birth.)



>>>>

 

[Ravi]

3. The Az law would not mandate diddly dog about what NY or HI or FL or any other State must have on their birth records.

Format Document

"1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. "
​

It requires that the long form contain the Date and Place of Birth (both relevant to establishing citizenship at birth), but also requires it to contain the name of the hospital, the physician, and the signatures of witnesses that may have been present. (All irrelevant once the State has attested to the Date and Place of Birth in establishing citizenship by birth.)



>>>>

The only endgame here would be to federalize birth certificates. Adding yet another big government agency. The birfers are big government stooges.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Correct. Florida can not mandate what Virginia must have on their drivers license. That is for the Commonwealth of Virginia to decide.



Absolutely not, yet that is what you are arguing for, hat Arizona gets to tell other States how they have to structure their birth certificates. Arizona gun laws determine how guns are purchased in Arizona, Arizona has no right to tell other States what their gun laws have to be.



Again correct, Arizona does not have the power or authority to tell another State how to manage their gun laws.


***************************

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.



>>>>>

Yet somehow I don't think you were trying to make such good arguments about why Arizona does not have the power to tell another State how they manage their public acts and records.[/QUOTE]

You just made it for me thanks



Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a state's preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.

recognize legislative acts would also mean gun laws

Arizona doesn't get to mandate gun laws within another state. Arizona does not have the authority to mandate that Vermont must do that, that and the other to issue a weapons permit to carry a gun in Vermont. Arizona does have the authority to define the requirements for carrying a gun in Arizona.

The act is controlled by the State in which the action occurs. If you are in Vermont, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws and Vermont determines the records required. If you are in Arizona, you are under their jurisdiction and follow their laws.

The act is birth of a child and Hawaii gets to determine how to handle that act within their own State. If the child birth is in Arizona, then Arizona gets to determine how that act is handled in their jurisdiction.

What you are arguing for is that Arizona should mandate on Hawaii how Hawaii documents an act. The jurisdiction is Hawaii, they are controlling authority. The birth (if it occurred in Hawaii) is outside the jurisdiction of Arizona.

When you carry a gun in Arizona, you committing an act under their jurisdiction. When you carry a gun in Vermont, you are committing an act under their jurisdiction. It's kind of hard to be carrying a gun in Vermont when you are standing in Phoenix.

10 USC § 1738.
State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

"The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."​

The action that occurred is the birth of a child. The State of Hawaii gets to determine the manner and process by which that action exists in it's records and the structure of the documents that report that event occurring within their jurisdiction. Not another State, especially when that other State is mandating that the documents produced by Hawaii must contain irrelevant information as to the issue at hand. The name of the hospital and who or who wasn't in the delivery room is irrelevant to the central question - did the birth occur in the United States. How that action is documented in Hawaii, is up to Hawaii - not Arizona.


>>>>

Aren't you the one that mentioned the Full Faith and Credit Clause?.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

Aren't gun laws legislative acts?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the bill, the only precedence SCOTUS will have to decide with if they choose to make a decision is, Lincoln 1860

1. Lincoln not being on the ballot was not a Supreme Court case so, no it doesn't establish precedent in terms of a violation of the Constitution.

2. Of course you don't "see" the Constitutional issues involved because (it appears) that all you see is something that is anti-Obama and of course that's all you appear to care about.

3. One State mandating what another State has on their records of birth is a Constitutional issue as well as Arizona not accepting the public records of another state (which is a violation of Full Faith and Credit).


>>>>

1. Presidential actions do not set judicial precedent. I agree, generally speaking that is.

2. A pointless ad hominem which you could not support if your life depended on it.

3. The Az law would not mandate diddly dog about what NY or HI or FL or any other State must have on their birth records. But as for "not accepting" the public records of another State, your argument is hooey. HI cannot impose ITS standards on any other State. Az may accept the HI records for all manner of things contained in a COLB without being bound by the HAWAIIAN law that says it is to be accepted in Court. Fine. It can be accepted in Hawaiian Courts. But Hawaii cannot impose that same condition on the Courts of ANY other State. So, no. It is not a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

The burden of proof for presidential eligibility would be on the State of Arizona to prove that they need more than the name, date of birth, place of birth, parents and official seal provided on the COLB.
What justification do they need to see the physicians name, weight, hospital or any other information available on the long form?

Constitutional eligibility is 35 years old and born in the US. What info is not included in the COLB?