No, that's a fact. When I took my daughter with an abstract copy, the California DMV rejected it and I had to go to the hall of records to get a certified original.
I don't know what your "new state" is, but chances are an existing license from a different state was the basis they issued on.
Funny I was unaware Obama was ever a resident of California...
Also, are you saying that if Obama has a driver's license then he must have therefore presented the Illinois DMV a hospital copy of his birth certificate.
Because, if you are, then you've answered your own question...
So, congratulations, you've just argued yourself into a corner.
They aren't requiring anything of other states, the candidate must provide proof of citizenship.
Sorry that you fear this will bar your Messiah®.
Since other states provide said information, and make determinations as to whether said documentation is valid, they are in fact requiring something from another state. In addition, they are attempting to invalidate the citizenship status of anyone from another state that does not meet their documentation requirements.
Personally I'd love to see them try it, and watch every blue state in the country invalidate the citizenship of every single Arizonian. Perhaps they could base their claims on how close one lives to a point on the Mexican border. After all, that would be just as valid.
Oh, and if you are trying to make left-wing types upset with your "Messiah" jibe, your failing horribly, not only is it just moronic, but it reminds people how you all idolize Ronald Reagan to the point of a religion.
You know nothing of the constitution, nor do the hive leaders at the hate sites, who program you to spew what you spew.
The constitution empowers the many states to set the terms of elections.
It does indeed. And every state in the Union adheres to a set of unofficial rules on that point. Mainly because, if they don't, they will be sued for disenfranchisement by their own citizens.
And that still doesn't allow them to create a LAW enforcing an unconstitutional policy, which is what this conversation is about.
One of the features of our republic which ensure liberty is the fact that presidential elections are not, and have never been national. Each state holds independent elections for president. The result of which is used to determine how the electors to the electoral college will vote.
That the states alone decide how to conduct elections is why some states, such as California can have a "winner take all" approach to electors, but others allocate based on the vote.
What angers you authoritarians of the left is that each state DOES have the liberty to conduct elections, which means that California and New York don't get to determine all presidential elections, which is what would happen if there were actually national elections. Smaller states would be completely shut out, which would thrill the fascist democrats but disenfranchise the once free people of those states.
However, if one state were to decide a completely unfair method to decide who wins their elections, there's nothing to stop other states from following suit in the opposite direction.
Nothing that is except the factor that stops all states from doing this in the first place, and that is the threat of a massive class-action suit by every member of the disenfranchised party, which, in Arizona, would be about 1.1 million people.
They issue something.
Many states specifically issue "Certificates of Live Birth." Thus, the AZ law would make it impossible for probably around half of the US citizenry to comply.
Utter nonsense, your hive leaders don't know what they're talking about.
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. I have a certificate of live birth issued by my state sitting in the file cabinet right next to me.
