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

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't recall conservatives yelling unconstitutional when Bush invaded Iraq without congress declaring war.
But seem like they did when Clowntoon sent troops to the Balkans....
hmmm I think you have something there DR.

then there was Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, etc...

The US has declared war five times.

The War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II

There were at least twelve Military engagements authorized by Congress, including the Iraq War. H.J. Res. 114

 

[Vast LWC]

The US has declared war five times.

The War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II

There were at least twelve Military engagements authorized by Congress, including the Iraq War. H.J. Res. 114

Though, that doesn't make it any more constitutional, does it?

 

[007]

so then ahhhhnold can run for presidenete and you guys won't ask for proof??? I see Jose..

Proof has been provided. The state of Hawaii has confirmed Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Twice. Thus, the legal standard has been met.

Bullshit, you ignorant mother fuck. The state of Hawaii can confirm all the fuck they want, but that does NOT satisfy the LEGAL requirement for PROOF OF WHERE YOU WERE BORN. It requires a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" to be SEEN. Get it, dumb fuck? SEEN! Obama has NEVER produced a birth certificate, one with a DOCTORS SIGNATURE, WITNESSES SIGNATURES, NAME OF HOSPITAL, etc., etc., etc..

No matter HOW MUCH you obama ass kissers, nay sayers, band wagon riders and simple minded BIRTHER BASHERS say this issue is dead, or doesn't have any credence, you're all full of SHIT!

THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS, OBAMA HAS NEVER PROVEN WHERE HE WAS BORN, PERIOD, END OF STORY, AND HE HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS KEEPING IT THAT WAY. HIS FIRST ACT AS PRESIDENT WAS TO SIGN A PRESIDENTIAL ORDER TO HIDE, HIDE, HIDE, HIDE... ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT MAY SHED LIGHT ON WHERE HE WAS BORN.

Now all you NON birther GENIUSES ask yourselves.... WHY?

 

[geauxtohell]

Bullshit, you ignorant mother fuck.

No, it's not bullshit:

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

The state of Hawaii can confirm all the fuck they want, but that does NOT satisfy the LEGAL requirement for PROOF OF WHERE YOU WERE BORN. It requires a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" to be SEEN.

LMAO. No, you guys requite the "vault copy". You guys want to make special rules. You guys don't get to throw a hissy fit and get your way. The state of Hawaii doesn't issue the "long form copy" of anyone's birth certificate. They only give out the COLB, which has "This serves as prima facie evidence as proof of birth for legal purposes" on the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

So even if this inane Arizona law passes, and passes legal muster, Hawaii will send Arizona a COLB and they can suck it. If they try to compel the state of Hawaii to break their own policies, well, good luck with that.

It won't go anywhere though. It will be yet another disappoinment for you, Paley boy.

Go win some court cases. Currently you are 0-66, but if you throw shit against a wall enough times, eventually something will stick, right?

I've only been telling you this for about a year now. Whose been right here champ? In fact, you got so pissed off that you ran away from the issue. Good to see you back.

Hawaii confirms Obama is a NBC. Legal standard met. Obama is sworn in as President in January of 2009 by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The only thing that is left are a bunch of crazy fucking birthers who are crying into their fucking beer.

Get it, dumb fuck? SEEN! Obama has NEVER produced a birth certificate, one with a DOCTORS SIGNATURE, WITNESSES SIGNATURES, NAME OF HOSPITAL, etc., etc., etc..

Not a legal standard and has never been one.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER REMAINS, OBAMA HAS NEVER PROVEN WHERE HE WAS BORN, PERIOD, END OF STORY, AND HE HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS KEEPING IT THAT WAY.

An oft repeated lie from the birther party. Prove it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The US has declared war five times.

The War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II

There were at least twelve Military engagements authorized by Congress, including the Iraq War. H.J. Res. 114

Though, that doesn't make it any more constitutional, does it?

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Bush wasn't the first President to go to war without a congressional declaration of war. In fact, every president since Harry Truman, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, has made war without a congressional declaration. That means Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And many presidents before Harry Truman made war without a declaration also, including Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[jillian]

Though, that doesn't make it any more constitutional, does it?

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Bush wasn't the first President to go to war without a congressional declaration of war. In fact, every president since Harry Truman, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, has made war without a congressional declaration. That means Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And many presidents before Harry Truman made war without a declaration also, including Franklin Roosevelt.[/QUOTE]

except that the iraq resolution did, in fact, require Bush to go back to congress before he could send troops.

legal or not, it was still stupid.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Though, that doesn't make it any more constitutional, does it?

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Bush wasn't the first President to go to war without a congressional declaration of war. In fact, every president since Harry Truman, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, has made war without a congressional declaration. That means Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And many presidents before Harry Truman made war without a declaration also, including Franklin Roosevelt.

except that the iraq resolution did, in fact, require Bush to go back to congress before he could send troops.

legal or not, it was still stupid.[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true kool-aid drinker. "Legal or not it was still stupid."

Please point out where it states that "Bush is required to go back to congress before he could send troops" in the resolution.

This is what the resolution says:

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 

[goldcatt]

No we wouldn't...just like we wouldn't have ever heard Texas is actually saying the word secede.

So many First Time things are happening with Obama. I wonder why?

You wouldn't, personally. But I'm long past saying anything is impossible when it comes to idiot wingnuttery.

And yeah, I think part of what's happening with Obama has to do with race. I think just as much of it has to do with other parts of his background, he's an "other". He spent time growing up not on a military base in Europe or Japan or Korea but in an exotic sort of place like Indonesia that most of the US population would struggle to find on a map. His father wasn't an immigrant from a familiar Western nation, but from that Third World heathen mysterious Africa. AND he was at least titularly a Muslim. AND he went back. Obama's isn't the so-called "all-American" story, and that makes him suspicious to a lot of people more than his skin color, IMO.

I think if anything it's a reflection on how insular and parochial American thinking really is when it comes to what we know, understand and accept about the world and its people outside our own little comfort zone. But that's just my two cents fwiw.

Clinton IS 'white' and was treated JUST AS BADLY as Obama when he was President....but Clinton was Stronger, more mature in Politics than Obama and DID not let the republican bullshit get in the way of his presidency or accomplishing what HE WANTED.....he vetoed what he did not accept and made Congress rewrite several things, until acceptable to him.

If Hillary were in Office, the Republicans would be treating her in the same disrespectful of the President manner, imo.

And look at the people who ridiculed Clinton on his background and where he came from, to the point of a few of the really ugly ones calling his mother a drunken whore and his stepfather a drug running murderer. As though even if it were true it mattered one damn bit in judging the policies of the man he was to become. Hacks will always find a reason to be ugly, and I agree with you on both Bill Clinton and Hillary (also their maturity and ability to handle it).

But I stand by my opinion that with Obama some of the uglier personal garbage like the birther crap can be traced back to simply fear of the unknown in his roots and his upbringing. And that's not necessarily because of the color of his skin, although to say there is no racism in America is ludicrous. But he didn't grow up in a stereotypical "Leave it to Beaver" family in a house in the suburbs or a middle class farm town somewhere, he had an unusual for the time and rather convoluted and bumpy path.

So to some people there are questions about his "Americanness" and his loyalty. As though being American means being a sheep indistingushable from other sheep and completely insulated from other influences and experiences.

 

[Immanuel]

I am under the assumption that he provided the required documentation to those who were required to verify his eligibility.

I am also under the assumption that we already require candidates to prove eligibility.

If we don't then damn it, it should not just be one state requiring this, but all fifty states should be requiring such proof for the next election for every candidate who would like to run.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I am under the assumption that he provided the required documentation to those who were required to verify his eligibility.

I am also under the assumption that we already require candidates to prove eligibility.

If we don't then damn it, it should not just be one state requiring this, but all fifty states should be requiring such proof for the next election for every candidate who would like to run.

Immie

Your assumption is correct. The issue here is that the birthers want to require extra legal hurdles to be met by Obama.

They can't get it through their thick skulls that they don't get to make their own set of laws and get really pissed off when people scoff at their imaginary laws (i.e. birth certificates, "citizen's grand juries").

Really, the birthers are an ignorant lot of nit-wits that are too stupid to even know how fucked up they are.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Bush wasn't the first President to go to war without a congressional declaration of war. In fact, every president since Harry Truman, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, has made war without a congressional declaration. That means Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And many presidents before Harry Truman made war without a declaration also, including Franklin Roosevelt.

And all of those presidents were in fact behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

What country did FDR invade without a declaration of war?

 

[Immanuel]

I am under the assumption that he provided the required documentation to those who were required to verify his eligibility.

I am also under the assumption that we already require candidates to prove eligibility.

If we don't then damn it, it should not just be one state requiring this, but all fifty states should be requiring such proof for the next election for every candidate who would like to run.

Immie

Your assumption is correct. The issue here is that the birthers want to require extra legal hurdles to be met by Obama.

They can't get it through their thick skulls that they don't get to make their own set of laws and get really pissed off when people scoff at their imaginary laws (i.e. birth certificates, "citizen's grand juries").

Really, the birthers are an ignorant lot of nit-wits that are too stupid to even know how fucked up they are.

When I first heard of the issue before the election, I will admit to wanting to see his proof and quite frankly, I am not happy that he told Americans to F' off when they asked. I have to provide proof of citizenship for any countless number of things, a candidate for POTUS should as well.

However, I must say, that I don't believe he could have gotten on the ballot without providing evidence of his eligibility. If there was a case for his birth being in Kenya, we would have known about it long before the elections. Also, maybe it is time we review those requirements. Maybe! Should someone who was born in Spain but lived here all of his life and considers himself an American be automatically disqualified from holding the office? I don't know the answer to that, just posing a question.

Immie

 

[Gunny]

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

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

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

So you want Arizona to continue making unconstitutional laws?

That's not unconstitutional. Matter of fact, the US Constitution already requires the President to be born in the US. How else would you go about proving you were born in the US without a birth certificate?

 

[Vast LWC]

When I first heard of the issue before the election, I will admit to wanting to see his proof and quite frankly, I am not happy that he told Americans to F' off when they asked. I have to provide proof of citizenship for any countless number of things, a candidate for POTUS should as well.

Gee, that's odd, I could have sworn he actually provided the proof needed. In fact, there is photographic evidence of this all over the internet. Would you like me to post some?

However, I must say, that I don't believe he could have gotten on the ballot without providing evidence of his eligibility. If there was a case for his birth being in Kenya, we would have known about it long before the elections. Also, maybe it is time we review those requirements. Maybe! Should someone who was born in Spain but lived here all of his life and considers himself an American be automatically disqualified from holding the office? I don't know the answer to that, just posing a question.

Immie

And this is all very reasonable of you. I do think the eligibility requirement for being a US Citizen has good reasons for being in place.

I also think that states need to respect the laws of other states in how they declare the citizenship of their own citizens.

How dare Arizona question the validity of the laws of the State of Hawaii. Especially after they were already approved by the Supreme court.

 

[geauxtohell]

When I first heard of the issue before the election, I will admit to wanting to see his proof and quite frankly, I am not happy that he told Americans to F' off when they asked. I have to provide proof of citizenship for any countless number of things, a candidate for POTUS should as well.

The thing is, Immie, he did provide proof. The Hawaii COLB that he demonstrated is what the everyone who is born in Hawaii gets as proof of birth. They don't issue the long copy. They retain it for their records.

Case in point, my mom was born in Hawaii. If she requested her Birth Certificate from the state of Hawaii, they would give her the COLB. I suppose if she pushed it, she could get the original, but then the state of Hawaii would lose oversite of the document and could not confirm that she was born there. That is the utility of the COLB. That's why it's a prima facia document.

That's why this was never a real legal issue. The very fact that a Hawaii state official had to go on record saying they had seen the actual document is already above and beyond the usual standard.

The waters have been sufficiently muddied by the birther who keep insisting that there is foul play, when there really is none.

They want to demand additional standards that are outside of the legal standards.

However, I must say, that I don't believe he could have gotten on the ballot without providing evidence of his eligibility. If there was a case for his birth being in Kenya, we would have known about it long before the elections. Also, maybe it is time we review those requirements. Maybe! Should someone who was born in Spain but lived here all of his life and considers himself an American be automatically disqualified from holding the office? I don't know the answer to that, just posing a question.

Immie

There is nothing wrong with the current requirements. Which is why this new bill in Arizona is just silly.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's not unconstitutional. Matter of fact, the US Constitution already requires the President to be born in the US. How else would you go about proving you were born in the US without a birth certificate?

It is most certainly unconstitutional to ask for additional proof than that already provided by the State of Hawaii and approved by the Supreme Court.

Arizona would essentially be questioning the citizenship of the entire population of the state of Hawaii, by not accepting Hawaii's documenting procedures.

 

[geauxtohell]

You see the fine print on the bottom? That means this would suffice as proof of birth in any court of law.

 

[goldcatt]

That's not unconstitutional. Matter of fact, the US Constitution already requires the President to be born in the US. How else would you go about proving you were born in the US without a birth certificate?

It is most certainly unconstitutional to ask for additional proof than that already provided by the State of Hawaii and approved by the Supreme Court.

Arizona would essentially be questioning the citizenship of the entire population of the state of Hawaii, by not accepting Hawaii's documenting procedures.

That's assuming that AZ rejects the COLB issued by the State of Hawaii as proof of citizenship.

But yeah, if the "long form" is required and the State-issued, certified COLB is denied, it's a full faith and credit violation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Bush wasn't the first President to go to war without a congressional declaration of war. In fact, every president since Harry Truman, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, has made war without a congressional declaration. That means Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. And many presidents before Harry Truman made war without a declaration also, including Franklin Roosevelt.

And all of those presidents were in fact behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

What country did FDR invade without a declaration of war?

I "misspoke". Fact is FDR is guilty of trampling the constitution when he decided to incarcerate over 100,000 Japanese Americans for no crime other than being Japanese.

 

[Vast LWC]

I "misspoke". Fact is FDR is guilty of trampling the constitution when he decided to incarcerate over 100,000 Japanese Americans for no crime other than being Japanese.

True, true. No argument there.