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

[rdean]

With the success of Health Care. The success of Reining in Wall Street. The success of saving the economy. When it's time for Obama to be running again for president, this will be a minor embarrassment for the state of Arizona. It will go away and they will hope no one brings it up again.

 

[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

Ah so unless you can have the original paper sent to your home and put in your hands, no matter who authenticated it, its fake.

Gotcha.

No, probably not faked, but definitely not official. And I never asked for it to be put into "my" hands. I said given to the Registrar of Elections and that does not mean Arizona's Registrar of Elections but whoever it is that determines who gets on the Federal Ballot.

The reason that is important is that an internet "copy" can be faked.

As I have stated before, I have to provide official copies of my school transcripts in order to get a job with the government. If I provide copies of said transcripts in an opened envelope, who is to say that the documents I present are true and were un-altered by me prior to presenting them? Are you going to take my word for it? You shouldn't. You should be requesting the official documents and so should the Registrar of Elections before putting any candidate on a ballot.

An unofficial document is not sufficient for any cause. And the copy of the COLB that is floating around the internet with Barack Obama's name on it, is by no means official.

Is it faked? I highly doubt it, but it surely is not an official document with the appropriate State Seal embedded in the document.

Immie

 

[Rinata]

then you lied:



you claim it was only in obama's that it was an issue, that is untrue, it was also an issue for mccain

and, it is also untrue that no pres candidate has had their religion question, kennedy did, and romney, there might be others, but those two were huge, kennedy for being catholic and romney for being mormon....

your race baiting is pure meadowmuffins

Why are you responding to me here and also with pm's?? Pick your source to communicate with me and stick to it, would you??? Geez.

Did you even read my post?? I know all about Kennedy and the problem with him being a Catholic. First of all, I said I was talking about the presidents from Nixon to Obama!!! Nixon won the election in 1968. Hello!!!

Secondly, did anyone ever accuse Kennedy of not being a Catholic or accuse Romney of not being a Mormon??? NO!!! The problem was that people did not want a Catholic or a Mormon president. But Obama has said over and over that he is a Christian. Did some people not believe him?? YES!!! What was the response from the right?? He's lying, he's a Muslim. That's very different from Kennedy and Romney.

Obama and McCain's situations regarding birth was also different. Did anybody accuse McCain of not being born in the Panama Canal Zone??? NO!! Was Obama accused of not being born in Hawaii?? YES!!!

Please stop trying to compare these 2 situation because they are not the same at all..

you're the asswipe who started the PM's.....

the issues are the same, it doesn't matter if they accuse them of not being something or being born somewhere, the fact of the matter is religion and birth eligibility was in fact issues for WHITE presidential candidates....you claimed it wasn't....that is false....

trying to say its different because they don't believe somebody is desperation....people don't trust MOST politicians, white or black....again, you're race baiting and that card has been cancelled....why don't YOU stop focusing on people's skin, huh

You can say the issues I described are the same until you're blue in the face. They were NOT the same and I explained it in a way that any idiot would understand. Almost any idiot.

I shouldn't be angry though. When was the last time that any right wing nut agreed that they are mistaken?? Especially when it comes to Obama?? It was a waste of my time to even discuss this with you. Think what you want because I don't really care. Your truth is only what reflects negatively on the president.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, a previous poster brought up a really good point..........

If Obama wasn't born here in the US, Hillary Clinton would have torn him apart.

Y'all need to get a grip. He's a US Citizen who was born here.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You know, a previous poster brought up a really good point..........

If Obama wasn't born here in the US, Hillary Clinton would have torn him apart.

Y'all need to get a grip. He's a US Citizen who was born here.

some of the people out there just need to smoke some good pot and relax ABS.....like you mentioned about Hillery.....im sure other opponents of the Prez would have done likewise.....

 

[SuMar]

You know, a previous poster brought up a really good point..........

If Obama wasn't born here in the US, Hillary Clinton would have torn him apart.

Y'all need to get a grip. He's a US Citizen who was born here.

That is a good point, but the thing is all the mudslinging back and forth during the primaries, which at some points were really getting ugly, Then lo and behold before the primary was all said and done, they were like BFF's. What kind of closed room deals were being made, beside Hilary becoming Secretary Of State? Actually, I think Hilary knew all along about his origins of where Barry was born and kept her mouth shut so the whole party wouldn't implode and McCain would win the election. Clearly Barry was leading in the primaries and the rest of the democrats wanted an extreme lefty in the presidential seat.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Ah so unless you can have the original paper sent to your home and put in your hands, no matter who authenticated it, its fake.

Gotcha.

No, probably not faked, but definitely not official. And I never asked for it to be put into "my" hands. I said given to the Registrar of Elections and that does not mean Arizona's Registrar of Elections but whoever it is that determines who gets on the Federal Ballot.

The reason that is important is that an internet "copy" can be faked.

As I have stated before, I have to provide official copies of my school transcripts in order to get a job with the government. If I provide copies of said transcripts in an opened envelope, who is to say that the documents I present are true and were un-altered by me prior to presenting them? Are you going to take my word for it? You shouldn't. You should be requesting the official documents and so should the Registrar of Elections before putting any candidate on a ballot.

An unofficial document is not sufficient for any cause. And the copy of the COLB that is floating around the internet with Barack Obama's name on it, is by no means official.

Is it faked? I highly doubt it, but it surely is not an official document with the appropriate State Seal embedded in the document.

Immie

Excellent points and this is why the questions remain.

Again when it would be so easy for the President to put all the conspiracy theories re this to rest by simply allowing a few trusted people (on both sides) to examine and confirm the long form, it is a puzzlement why he refuses to do this. It doesn't have to be posted on the internet--just confirmed by a reliable source. Again I think he was born in Hawaii, but I think there must be something so embarrassing to him in that long form that he won't take the risk that anybody find out about it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But see......who is going to determine who is the reliable source?

I mean fuck.......the GOP fringe is stating that those congress people who were spit upon and called ****** are lying because there is no proof (according to Bachman and her cronies), even though the video of the events showed otherwise.

And, with the entrenched crazy that the birthers and tea baggers have, you gotta wonder who they would trust to verify it.

Face it...........the nutjobs are gonna continue to deny, just like the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts keep doing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But see......who is going to determine who is the reliable source?

I mean fuck.......the GOP fringe is stating that those congress people who were spit upon and called ****** are lying because there is no proof (according to Bachman and her cronies), even though the video of the events showed otherwise.

And, with the entrenched crazy that the birthers and tea baggers have, you gotta wonder who they would trust to verify it.

Face it...........the nutjobs are gonna continue to deny, just like the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts keep doing it.

Disregarding your insulting, irrational, and non sequitur assessment of the Tea Partiers and others, both sides agree on somebody to examine the document that they will trust. Sarah Palin or John McCain or Charles Krauthammer, for instance, and many others, would be believed if they affirmed that the document exists. And the Left should send trusted sources not given to wild propaganda also to verify that there is no misrepresentation by the other side.

And yes, the wacko fringe on both sides will continue to say stupid, hateful stuff, but they represent a tiny percentage of the whole and can usually simply be ignored.

 

[Immanuel]

Ah so unless you can have the original paper sent to your home and put in your hands, no matter who authenticated it, its fake.

Gotcha.

No, probably not faked, but definitely not official. And I never asked for it to be put into "my" hands. I said given to the Registrar of Elections and that does not mean Arizona's Registrar of Elections but whoever it is that determines who gets on the Federal Ballot.

The reason that is important is that an internet "copy" can be faked.

As I have stated before, I have to provide official copies of my school transcripts in order to get a job with the government. If I provide copies of said transcripts in an opened envelope, who is to say that the documents I present are true and were un-altered by me prior to presenting them? Are you going to take my word for it? You shouldn't. You should be requesting the official documents and so should the Registrar of Elections before putting any candidate on a ballot.

An unofficial document is not sufficient for any cause. And the copy of the COLB that is floating around the internet with Barack Obama's name on it, is by no means official.

Is it faked? I highly doubt it, but it surely is not an official document with the appropriate State Seal embedded in the document.

Immie

Excellent points and this is why the questions remain.

Again when it would be so easy for the President to put all the conspiracy theories re this to rest by simply allowing a few trusted people (on both sides) to examine and confirm the long form, it is a puzzlement why he refuses to do this. It doesn't have to be posted on the internet--just confirmed by a reliable source. Again I think he was born in Hawaii, but I think there must be something so embarrassing to him in that long form that he won't take the risk that anybody find out about it.

I don't think he should have to provide the long form. It is not necessary to know any of the additional information. The only thing I believe that a candidate should be required to do is provide legal documentation in regards to his or her eligibility to those who are responsible for assuring us that the candidate is eligible.

The statement by the State of Hawaii is sufficient to quell my concerns, but I still believe that a candidate should be required to show official proof.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

But see......who is going to determine who is the reliable source?

I mean fuck.......the GOP fringe is stating that those congress people who were spit upon and called ****** are lying because there is no proof (according to Bachman and her cronies), even though the video of the events showed otherwise.

And, with the entrenched crazy that the birthers and tea baggers have, you gotta wonder who they would trust to verify it.

Face it...........the nutjobs are gonna continue to deny, just like the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts keep doing it.

I completely agree with you. It should not have anything to do with either one of the parties.

I hope this nation has an office set up to take care of this issue in each election. I am trusting that the procedures were followed by both candidates in the last election. I don't believe that there should even be an issue.

It would be great if we did have such an office and the person who was responsible for that office would simply stand up and say, "I am the individual whose responsibility it is to review candidate eligibility. Upon receiving Mr. Obama's application, I reviewed his documentation and found it wholly satisfactory." In my opinion... end of story!

The fact that this hasn't happened bothers me. Is it true that there is no such office? And if not, why the hell isn't there?

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

But see......who is going to determine who is the reliable source?

I mean fuck.......the GOP fringe is stating that those congress people who were spit upon and called ****** are lying because there is no proof (according to Bachman and her cronies), even though the video of the events showed otherwise.

And, with the entrenched crazy that the birthers and tea baggers have, you gotta wonder who they would trust to verify it.

Face it...........the nutjobs are gonna continue to deny, just like the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts keep doing it.

I completely agree with you. It should not have anything to do with either one of the parties.

I hope this nation has an office set up to take care of this issue in each election. I am trusting that the procedures were followed by both candidates in the last election. I don't believe that there should even be an issue.

It would be great if we did have such an office and the person who was responsible for that office would simply stand up and say, "I am the individual whose responsibility it is to review candidate eligibility. Upon receiving Mr. Obama's application, I reviewed his documentation and found it wholly satisfactory." In my opinion... end of story!

The fact that this hasn't happened bothers me. Is it true that there is no such office? And if not, why the hell isn't there?

Immie

Because it would be just another bureaucracy, like the CBO, that can be manipulated with political appointments, would be something else to fund, and wouldn't be trusted any more than any other government agency is trusted. It would not solve the problem.

The states are the ones who set the rules and regs for who gets on their ballot and they should be the ones who verify the candidate's eligibility. For that reason, I don't think Arizona is off base requiring such verification.

And it is unfortunate that Obama is being questioned on this as no other candidate has been, but there have not been the questions about any other candidate as there have been, with reason, for him. I am not saying that he should have to produce the long form. I am saying that if he has nothing to hide, he could show that by producing it at least to a few trusted individuals.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, that was the result of our last conversation on the subject.

The court's reasons for throwing out the case was lack of standing based on the fact that the plaintiff could not prove any damage to himself ever having occurred.

Check it out:

- Google Scholar

interesting....so, basically, anyone, even if ineligible can run for president and be voted into office because berg and others could have chosen other candidates....?

that is a whacky decision. thank you for showing me the decision btw, but don't you find it troubling? it basically says, the constitutional can be violated, so long as voters approve the violation at the ballot box....do you agree with this? i always thought the courts were the defenders of the constitution, as officers of the court, they are all sworn to uphold it.

I believe, and I'm extrapolating here, so I can't say it for absolute fact, but I believe that:

The courts considered the reason for the law's existence, which is to make sure foreign powers don't have undue influence on the office of the President, to be not applicable to the situation at hand.

After all, they must have reasoned, even if all of the plaintiff's evidence was completely correct, and Obama was born in, say, Kenya, but was taken over to Hawaii as a young infant, it would have had no bearing at all on the grown man's mindset, and thus not be applicable to the security of the country.

After all, what could the Kenyan government possibly have done that would affect the later life opinions of a week-old infant?

Thus there was no validity to the claim that harm was somehow inflicted upon anyone due to the birthplace of Mr Obama, even if everything the plaintiff claimed was completely true.

 

[Vast LWC]

Be that as it may, I for one am satisfied that Mr Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, and I believe that if the case had had standing and had gone on to have it's merits reviewed, it would have been thrown out on the merits rather than the standing.

 

[Immanuel]

But see......who is going to determine who is the reliable source?

I mean fuck.......the GOP fringe is stating that those congress people who were spit upon and called ****** are lying because there is no proof (according to Bachman and her cronies), even though the video of the events showed otherwise.

And, with the entrenched crazy that the birthers and tea baggers have, you gotta wonder who they would trust to verify it.

Face it...........the nutjobs are gonna continue to deny, just like the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts keep doing it.

I completely agree with you. It should not have anything to do with either one of the parties.

I hope this nation has an office set up to take care of this issue in each election. I am trusting that the procedures were followed by both candidates in the last election. I don't believe that there should even be an issue.

It would be great if we did have such an office and the person who was responsible for that office would simply stand up and say, "I am the individual whose responsibility it is to review candidate eligibility. Upon receiving Mr. Obama's application, I reviewed his documentation and found it wholly satisfactory." In my opinion... end of story!

The fact that this hasn't happened bothers me. Is it true that there is no such office? And if not, why the hell isn't there?

Immie

Because it would be just another bureaucracy, like the CBO, that can be manipulated with political appointments, would be something else to fund, and wouldn't be trusted any more than any other government agency is trusted. It would not solve the problem.

The states are the ones who set the rules and regs for who gets on their ballot and they should be the ones who verify the candidate's eligibility. For that reason, I don't think Arizona is off base requiring such verification.

And it is unfortunate that Obama is being questioned on this as no other candidate has been, but there have not been the questions about any other candidate as there have been, with reason, for him. I am not saying that he should have to produce the long form. I am saying that if he has nothing to hide, he could show that by producing it at least to a few trusted individuals.

You mean to tell me that there is not one single bureaucracy set up in this nation who can take on the responsibility of assuring the nation that candidates are actually eligible for the office they seek?

Hell, if they are that over worked then maybe they do deserve raises!

Then again, that can't be true, I saw on the news this morning that some in the SEC are being investigated for downloading porn at work for eight hours a day. Surely we have the capability of verifying eligibility for candidacy. It can't be all that difficult.

I'm unemployed, I will accept the job starting at $150,000/year and I promise not to download porn while at work either.

Now, the trust issue is one of concern and I can understand that, but then we have to place trust in those who are hired to do their jobs.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, that was the result of our last conversation on the subject.

The court's reasons for throwing out the case was lack of standing based on the fact that the plaintiff could not prove any damage to himself ever having occurred.

Check it out:

- Google Scholar

interesting....so, basically, anyone, even if ineligible can run for president and be voted into office because berg and others could have chosen other candidates....?

that is a whacky decision. thank you for showing me the decision btw, but don't you find it troubling? it basically says, the constitutional can be violated, so long as voters approve the violation at the ballot box....do you agree with this? i always thought the courts were the defenders of the constitution, as officers of the court, they are all sworn to uphold it.

I believe, and I'm extrapolating here, so I can't say it for absolute fact, but I believe that:

The courts considered the reason for the law's existence, which is to make sure foreign powers don't have undue influence on the office of the President, to be not applicable to the situation at hand.

After all, they must have reasoned, even if all of the plaintiff's evidence was completely correct, and Obama was born in, say, Kenya, but was taken over to Hawaii as a young infant, it would have had no bearing at all on the grown man's mindset, and thus not be applicable to the security of the country.

After all, what could the Kenyan government possibly have done that would affect the later life opinions of a week-old infant?

Thus there was no validity to the claim that harm was somehow inflicted upon anyone due to the birthplace of Mr Obama, even if everything the plaintiff claimed was completely true.

For the record, I agree. If he were deemed ineligible for the office due to Kenyan birth it would be on a technicality not on any basis of influence over him.

That being said, I am not claiming he was born in Kenya.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

I completely agree with you. It should not have anything to do with either one of the parties.

I hope this nation has an office set up to take care of this issue in each election. I am trusting that the procedures were followed by both candidates in the last election. I don't believe that there should even be an issue.

It would be great if we did have such an office and the person who was responsible for that office would simply stand up and say, "I am the individual whose responsibility it is to review candidate eligibility. Upon receiving Mr. Obama's application, I reviewed his documentation and found it wholly satisfactory." In my opinion... end of story!

The fact that this hasn't happened bothers me. Is it true that there is no such office? And if not, why the hell isn't there?

Immie

Because it would be just another bureaucracy, like the CBO, that can be manipulated with political appointments, would be something else to fund, and wouldn't be trusted any more than any other government agency is trusted. It would not solve the problem.

The states are the ones who set the rules and regs for who gets on their ballot and they should be the ones who verify the candidate's eligibility. For that reason, I don't think Arizona is off base requiring such verification.

And it is unfortunate that Obama is being questioned on this as no other candidate has been, but there have not been the questions about any other candidate as there have been, with reason, for him. I am not saying that he should have to produce the long form. I am saying that if he has nothing to hide, he could show that by producing it at least to a few trusted individuals.

You mean to tell me that there is not one single bureaucracy set up in this nation who can take on the responsibility of assuring the nation that candidates are actually eligible for the office they seek?

Hell, if they are that over worked then maybe they do deserve raises!

Then again, that can't be true, I saw on the news this morning that some in the SEC are being investigated for downloading porn at work for eight hours a day. Surely we have the capability of verifying eligibility for candidacy. It can't be all that difficult.

I'm unemployed, I will accept the job starting at $150,000/year and I promise not to download porn while at work either.

Now, the trust issue is one of concern and I can understand that, but then we have to place trust in those who are hired to do their jobs.

Immie

We don't need another bureaucracy for that. The Congress is supposed to be the Constitutional watchdog over graft, corruption, malfeasance, and misconduct in government and we simply need to elect people who will take that responsibility seriously.

The states are responsible to determine the eligibility of those they place on their individual ballots and the Congress is responsible to not seat anybody who is ineligible for their office.

I'm not sure who would have standing to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate or President in office, but I would presume that the states themselves would have standing to do so.

"The Constitution specifies no details for the oath of office for the Supreme Court:
Constitution, Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Every president, every member of Congress, and every Supreme Court justice swears an oath upholding the principle in Article 6. The Supreme take it even further:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

 

[Yurt]

Be that as it may, I for one am satisfied that Mr Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, and I believe that if the case had had standing and had gone on to have it's merits reviewed, it would have been thrown out on the merits rather than the standing.

i too believe that, its just a shame that we are powerless to ensure our leaders are constitutionally eligible

 

[Yurt]

Actually, that was the result of our last conversation on the subject.

The court's reasons for throwing out the case was lack of standing based on the fact that the plaintiff could not prove any damage to himself ever having occurred.

Check it out:

- Google Scholar

interesting....so, basically, anyone, even if ineligible can run for president and be voted into office because berg and others could have chosen other candidates....?

that is a whacky decision. thank you for showing me the decision btw, but don't you find it troubling? it basically says, the constitutional can be violated, so long as voters approve the violation at the ballot box....do you agree with this? i always thought the courts were the defenders of the constitution, as officers of the court, they are all sworn to uphold it.

I believe, and I'm extrapolating here, so I can't say it for absolute fact, but I believe that:

The courts considered the reason for the law's existence, which is to make sure foreign powers don't have undue influence on the office of the President, to be not applicable to the situation at hand.

After all, they must have reasoned, even if all of the plaintiff's evidence was completely correct, and Obama was born in, say, Kenya, but was taken over to Hawaii as a young infant, it would have had no bearing at all on the grown man's mindset, and thus not be applicable to the security of the country.

After all, what could the Kenyan government possibly have done that would affect the later life opinions of a week-old infant?

Thus there was no validity to the claim that harm was somehow inflicted upon anyone due to the birthplace of Mr Obama, even if everything the plaintiff claimed was completely true.

i see........so constitutional violations are no big deal, not harmful....

why even have the constitution then, i mean if we're just going to ignore it when we see fit?

 

[Immanuel]

interesting....so, basically, anyone, even if ineligible can run for president and be voted into office because berg and others could have chosen other candidates....?

that is a whacky decision. thank you for showing me the decision btw, but don't you find it troubling? it basically says, the constitutional can be violated, so long as voters approve the violation at the ballot box....do you agree with this? i always thought the courts were the defenders of the constitution, as officers of the court, they are all sworn to uphold it.

I believe, and I'm extrapolating here, so I can't say it for absolute fact, but I believe that:

The courts considered the reason for the law's existence, which is to make sure foreign powers don't have undue influence on the office of the President, to be not applicable to the situation at hand.

After all, they must have reasoned, even if all of the plaintiff's evidence was completely correct, and Obama was born in, say, Kenya, but was taken over to Hawaii as a young infant, it would have had no bearing at all on the grown man's mindset, and thus not be applicable to the security of the country.

After all, what could the Kenyan government possibly have done that would affect the later life opinions of a week-old infant?

Thus there was no validity to the claim that harm was somehow inflicted upon anyone due to the birthplace of Mr Obama, even if everything the plaintiff claimed was completely true.

i see........so constitutional violations are no big deal, not harmful....

why even have the constitution then, i mean if we're just going to ignore it when we see fit?

I realize you are not addressing my comments, but since I agreed with LWC let me put my two cents in here.

I don't see the constitutional violations as no big deal. They were put there for a reason and rightly so, but not every instance that such a requirement might block is a risk to National Security.

Immie