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

[Yurt]

Full faith and credit clause would nullify this "law" anyway. It is ridiculous that this is still being argued about.

You lost birthers, get over it, we have a President who is half African American.

its clear you have no concept of FF&C, it wouldn't nullify this law

and why is it you have to bring his race up? its not germane to the issue here. and you're the first to bring up his race in this thread.

 

[Modbert]

its clear you have no concept of FF&C, it wouldn't nullify this law

and why is it you have to bring his race up? its not germane to the issue here. and you're the first to bring up his race in this thread.

HI has come out and said several times now that it's all legally okay.

I'm not the first to bring his race in this thread. Race is totally related to this issue though. In the face of all facts and logics, the majority of birthers are birthers because they cannot stand the fact there is a President who has dark skin and is part African American.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Watching and listening with interest here.

Are you sure that states cannot set the terms by which people qualify to be on the ballot in their individual states? And if that can include the number of qualified signatures on a petition to qualify somebody, why couldn't it include other things without challenge? All the Constitution specifies is that the President be 35 years of age, born in America, and not have been convicted of certain crimes.

I claim no expertise or experience with this topic.

I am simply asking.

That's a really good question.

With a few exceptions for issues covered in Federal law or the Constitution, anything strictly related to the election is a State issue. So that includes how many signatures are required, filing fees and deadlines, the type of ballot or machine used to vote, and so on.

The probelm is, this bill touches on an issue covered in the Constitution. That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

So birth certificates being a public record of the state, they fall under this provision. Of course since this is a Constitutional requirement specifically directed at the States, the States have to follow it as it applies to accepting the birth certificate - and it is up to Congress to define the acceptable forms and effect of those records. Not the State. So the clause applies to the record, the birth certificate itself, not the election.

It's a fine distinction, but important if you're talking about the difference between requiring a standard short form or COLB, which is acceptable for all Federal purposes as proof of place of birth, or if you want to up the ante and require something more than Congress requires, which would be the so-called long form. AZ or HI or any state doesn't get to decide what to accept as far as a public record from another state or what its effect is, only Congress can under the Constitution. So if Congress says a COLB from any state is effective to prove citizenship, it's effective to prove citizenship no matter what AZ or any other State says. They have to accept it.

Hope that makes more sense?

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Full faith and credit clause would nullify this "law" anyway. It is ridiculous that this is still being argued about.

You lost birthers, get over it, we have a President who is half African American.

You mean half African, half American?

 

[Zona]

Burfers, explain the announcement of Barrack Husein Obama in that Hawaii paper. How did they fake that?

Seriously.

 

[goldcatt]

Watching and listening with interest here.

Are you sure that states cannot set the terms by which people qualify to be on the ballot in their individual states? And if that can include the number of qualified signatures on a petition to qualify somebody, why couldn't it include other things without challenge? All the Constitution specifies is that the President be 35 years of age, born in America, and not have been convicted of certain crimes.

I claim no expertise or experience with this topic.

I am simply asking.

That's a really good question.

With a few exceptions for issues covered in Federal law or the Constitution, anything strictly related to the election is a State issue. So that includes how many signatures are required, filing fees and deadlines, the type of ballot or machine used to vote, and so on.

The probelm is, this bill touches on an issue covered in the Constitution. That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

So birth certificates being a public record of the state, they fall under this provision. Of course since this is a Constitutional requirement specifically directed at the States, the States have to follow it as it applies to accepting the birth certificate - and it is up to Congress to define the acceptable forms and effect of those records. Not the State. So the clause applies to the record, the birth certificate itself, not the election.

It's a fine distinction, but important if you're talking about the difference between requiring a standard short form or COLB, which is acceptable for all Federal purposes as proof of place of birth, or if you want to up the ante and require something more than Congress requires, which would be the so-called long form. AZ or HI or any state doesn't get to decide what to accept as far as a public record from another state or what its effect is, only Congress can under the Constitution. So if Congress says a COLB from any state is effective to prove citizenship, it's effective to prove citizenship no matter what AZ or any other State says. They have to accept it.

Hope that makes more sense?

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

 

[Zona]

AGain, explain the announcement of Obama in that paper...how did they fake that?

Oh and this is such a non issue. It will be shut down soon enough.

 

[Immanuel]

AGain, explain the announcement of Obama in that paper...how did they fake that?

Oh and this is such a non issue. It will be shut down soon enough.

I'm not going to explain it because I don't believe it was faked, but I didn't see the original paper. I saw an internet reproduction of such. So, whether or not the original actually exists is still up in the air. In other words, it has not in my humble opinion, been proven that such paper actually exists although I suspect it does.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

That's a really good question.

With a few exceptions for issues covered in Federal law or the Constitution, anything strictly related to the election is a State issue. So that includes how many signatures are required, filing fees and deadlines, the type of ballot or machine used to vote, and so on.

The probelm is, this bill touches on an issue covered in the Constitution. That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4:



Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

So birth certificates being a public record of the state, they fall under this provision. Of course since this is a Constitutional requirement specifically directed at the States, the States have to follow it as it applies to accepting the birth certificate - and it is up to Congress to define the acceptable forms and effect of those records. Not the State. So the clause applies to the record, the birth certificate itself, not the election.

It's a fine distinction, but important if you're talking about the difference between requiring a standard short form or COLB, which is acceptable for all Federal purposes as proof of place of birth, or if you want to up the ante and require something more than Congress requires, which would be the so-called long form. AZ or HI or any state doesn't get to decide what to accept as far as a public record from another state or what its effect is, only Congress can under the Constitution. So if Congress says a COLB from any state is effective to prove citizenship, it's effective to prove citizenship no matter what AZ or any other State says. They have to accept it.

Hope that makes more sense?

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

 

[bodecea]

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

Well, several southern states refused to put Lincoln on the ballot in 1860. Look where that got them.

 

[goldcatt]

Full faith and credit clause would nullify this "law" anyway. It is ridiculous that this is still being argued about.

You lost birthers, get over it, we have a President who is half African American.

What would nullify this law (assuming it passes) is a Federal election law or constitutional provision against the individual States requiring proof of citizenship. The constitutional argument was posted earlier in this thread, from the time I spent looking it over I'm not sure it would be a winner but it's a reasonable argument anyway. And frankly I'm too lazy to go digging through the thousands of pages of Federal election statutes.

Full faith and credit would only come into the picture if the BC met Congressional standards but was rejected, or if the state demanded a higher standard than required to be effective according to Congress, in other words, the so-called "long form".

 

[Immanuel]

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

Well, several southern states refused to put Lincoln on the ballot in 1860. Look where that got them.

But the point is that it could be done right? COULD NOT SHOULD!!!!

Immie

 

[goldcatt]

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

I have no idea if there are any plans to reject a BC. My point at the time was, what do the people promoting this bill get to advance their agenda by accepting it and putting the matter to bed? If they wanted to let it rest they wouldn't be putting the time and effort into it.

And as long as the State asks the same requirements of all candidates, they can (within constitutional bounds) set their own requirements for getting on the ballot. If that means everybody who wants to run doesn't get on, well, what happens now if they can't get the signatures or pay the filing fees?

ETA: But the States can't arbitrarily keep candidates they don't like off, they have to apply the requirements evenly. Also and this is just my opinion, rather than each State ask for proof of citizenship there should be one central Federal agency charged with collecting and verifying the BC or other records, with the States getting a certified copy from them if they want it. It's a Federal election and a Federal requirement, why not?

 

[Immanuel]

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

I have no idea if there are any plans to reject a BC. My point at the time was, what do the people promoting this bill get to advance their agenda by accepting it and putting the matter to bed? If they wanted to let it rest they wouldn't be putting the time and effort into it.

And as long as the State asks the same requirements of all candidates, they can (within constitutional bounds) set their own requirements for getting on the ballot. If that means everybody who wants to run doesn't get on, well, what happens now if they can't get the signatures or pay the filing fees?

Not meeting the requirements of number of signatures or paying the filing fees is not the same as multiple states banding together and not allowing a federal candidate on their ballots in order to affect the outcome of a Presidential election.

Hypothetically, suppose Obama had been predicted to win the 2008 election by some 40 electoral votes and lets say a McCain supporter had the final say as to whether or not President Obama got on the California ballot. With 55 electoral votes, that one person could have affected the outcome of the 2008 election. Right?

And despite the fact that he would lose his job in California, I can guarantee you that he would find a job in the McCain Administration.

Immie

 

[goldcatt]

Is there any indication though that AZ would reject it. From my understanding they simply want the documentation which seems reasonable to me.

On the other hand, it is a federal election. What gives Arizona's legislature the right to deny a candidate for a federal office from their ballots?

If that were allowed to become precedent, then isn't it true that a dozen or so red states (or blue for that matter) could deny a Presidential candidate a spot on the ballot and thus affect the outcome of an election in a manner that the founding fathers clearly would not approve of?

Immie

I have no idea if there are any plans to reject a BC. My point at the time was, what do the people promoting this bill get to advance their agenda by accepting it and putting the matter to bed? If they wanted to let it rest they wouldn't be putting the time and effort into it.

And as long as the State asks the same requirements of all candidates, they can (within constitutional bounds) set their own requirements for getting on the ballot. If that means everybody who wants to run doesn't get on, well, what happens now if they can't get the signatures or pay the filing fees?

Not meeting the requirements of number of signatures or paying the filing fees is not the same as multiple states banding together and not allowing a federal candidate on their ballots in order to affect the outcome of a Presidential election.

Hypothetically, suppose Obama had been predicted to win the 2008 election by some 40 electoral votes and lets say a McCain supporter had the final say as to whether or not President Obama got on the California ballot. With 55 electoral votes, that one person could have affected the outcome of the 2008 election. Right?

And despite the fact that he would lose his job in California, I can guarantee you that he would find a job in the McCain Administration.

Immie

I think you replied before my edit. States have to apply their requirements evenly, they can't just decide they don't like somebody and block that person from the ballot. That's getting back into a 14th Amendment issue.

 

[Rinata]

See post # 2 on page 1. She thanked the poster.

 

[Immanuel]

I have no idea if there are any plans to reject a BC. My point at the time was, what do the people promoting this bill get to advance their agenda by accepting it and putting the matter to bed? If they wanted to let it rest they wouldn't be putting the time and effort into it.

And as long as the State asks the same requirements of all candidates, they can (within constitutional bounds) set their own requirements for getting on the ballot. If that means everybody who wants to run doesn't get on, well, what happens now if they can't get the signatures or pay the filing fees?

Not meeting the requirements of number of signatures or paying the filing fees is not the same as multiple states banding together and not allowing a federal candidate on their ballots in order to affect the outcome of a Presidential election.

Hypothetically, suppose Obama had been predicted to win the 2008 election by some 40 electoral votes and lets say a McCain supporter had the final say as to whether or not President Obama got on the California ballot. With 55 electoral votes, that one person could have affected the outcome of the 2008 election. Right?

And despite the fact that he would lose his job in California, I can guarantee you that he would find a job in the McCain Administration.

Immie

I think you replied before my edit. States have to apply their requirements evenly, they can't just decide they don't like somebody and block that person from the ballot. That's getting back into a 14th Amendment issue.

I did and I agree with you there should be one central office that the candidate should have to provide the proof. I had always thought there was such a place.

Who says States have to apply their requirements evenly and that they can't just decide they don't like someone and block them from the ballot? It seems to me that Arizona could be setting themselves up for just such an event.

Immie

 

[Harry Dresden]

Don't you know? Laws are only unconstitutional to many conservatives when its something they don't like.

if you weren't such a hack for the left Greg you would see that it goes that way with many in that other party also....

 

[goldcatt]

Not meeting the requirements of number of signatures or paying the filing fees is not the same as multiple states banding together and not allowing a federal candidate on their ballots in order to affect the outcome of a Presidential election.

Hypothetically, suppose Obama had been predicted to win the 2008 election by some 40 electoral votes and lets say a McCain supporter had the final say as to whether or not President Obama got on the California ballot. With 55 electoral votes, that one person could have affected the outcome of the 2008 election. Right?

And despite the fact that he would lose his job in California, I can guarantee you that he would find a job in the McCain Administration.

Immie

I think you replied before my edit. States have to apply their requirements evenly, they can't just decide they don't like somebody and block that person from the ballot. That's getting back into a 14th Amendment issue.

I did and I agree with you there should be one central office that the candidate should have to provide the proof. I had always thought there was such a place.

Who says States have to apply their requirements evenly and that they can't just decide they don't like someone and block them from the ballot? It seems to me that Arizona could be setting themselves up for just such an event.

Immie

Then you're getting into another constitutional issue, with 14th Amendment due process and equal protection. The States can set their own requirements, but if they don't apply those laws equally they're violating the Constitution again. Which is another reason to have a central office for validating qualifications, the States and their partisans have less room for shenanigans and years-long court battles.

 

[Yurt]

That's a really good question.

With a few exceptions for issues covered in Federal law or the Constitution, anything strictly related to the election is a State issue. So that includes how many signatures are required, filing fees and deadlines, the type of ballot or machine used to vote, and so on.

The probelm is, this bill touches on an issue covered in the Constitution. That's the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4:



Article IV | LII / Legal Information Institute

So birth certificates being a public record of the state, they fall under this provision. Of course since this is a Constitutional requirement specifically directed at the States, the States have to follow it as it applies to accepting the birth certificate - and it is up to Congress to define the acceptable forms and effect of those records. Not the State. So the clause applies to the record, the birth certificate itself, not the election.

It's a fine distinction, but important if you're talking about the difference between requiring a standard short form or COLB, which is acceptable for all Federal purposes as proof of place of birth, or if you want to up the ante and require something more than Congress requires, which would be the so-called long form. AZ or HI or any state doesn't get to decide what to accept as far as a public record from another state or what its effect is, only Congress can under the Constitution. So if Congress says a COLB from any state is effective to prove citizenship, it's effective to prove citizenship no matter what AZ or any other State says. They have to accept it.

Hope that makes more sense?

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't think I am getting is this... it does not seem to me like Arizona is saying that Hawaii's COLB is not sufficient, but rather they want to see it as a legal document meaning a certified copy not an internet version of it.

And for the record, I will reiterate the fact that I believe President Obama was required to submit those documents before he ran in '08.

Immie

What we were arguing when full faith and credit came into the picture (I think, Yurt help me out here if I didn't look back far enough) is first, if AZ does in fact require a BC and then rejects it Obama would appeal under full faith and credit, and second whether AZ or any state for that matter has the right to demand a "long form" as opposed to the standard short form or COLB. Under FF&C whether a long form is available is frankly irrelevant if Congress has decided the COLB is effective.

Subject to whether it has the required information, appropriate seal and all that stuff, of course.

yeah, that is where it came into the picture iirc....

my understanding is the FF&C relates to judgments, records etc...as to states, not congress. if congress makes a law, isn't the supremacy clause invoked? FF&C per my recollection is congress' attempt to create uniformity throughout the states and ensure if you had contracts or judgments from one state, then if you moved to another state you couldn't claim it was void or you had to get a marriage license in every state....see e.g, divorce, custody, contracts, marriage etc....

i guess in this case, if the manner proved was a law by congress, then it would the FF&C