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

[WorldWatcher]

You can say horse shit all you want thats what this new law states.

And what does paragraph (b) of §338-18 say? Which has been the law in Hawaii for years.


>>>>

and this law had nothing to do with obama? bullshit.

And what does that comment have to do with the question that was raised.

You said the Senate Bill was about "sealling" Obama's records. Wrong.

ALL PERSONAL records held by the State of Hawaii are not releasable to the general public because of existing law that has been on the books for years.

Your claim was false.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And what does paragraph (b) of §338-18 say? Which has been the law in Hawaii for years.


>>>>

and this law had nothing to do with obama? bullshit.

And what does that comment have to do with the question that was raised.

You said the Senate Bill was about "sealling" Obama's records. Wrong.

ALL PERSONAL records held by the State of Hawaii are not releasable to the general public because of existing law that has been on the books for years.

Your claim was false.



>>>>

and what does anything you have to say, have to do with this discussion? See I can play the same game you do.

 

[gekaap]

Every state already has their own requirements for vetting a presidential candidate, Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Opinions aren't above the law.

What makes it unconstitutional is the fact that the constitution does not allow states the power to vet candidates for federal office. If you don't want to believe me, you can believe the US Supreme Court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every state already has their own requirements for vetting a presidential candidate, Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Opinions aren't above the law.

What makes it unconstitutional is the fact that the constitution does not allow states the power to vet candidates for federal office. If you don't want to believe me, you can believe the US Supreme Court.

holy shit we have been doing it all these years and now because of obama it's deemed unconstitutional? I suggest you go find a better argument than that.

 

[gekaap]

holy shit we have been doing it all these years

Evidence needed.

I suggest you go find a better argument than that.

What's better than the words of the US Supreme Court?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

holy shit we have been doing it all these years

Evidence needed.

I suggest you go find a better argument than that.

What's better than the words of the US Supreme Court?

I'm still waiting on your evidence. fruad is not a valid vetting system.

 

[gekaap]

I'm still waiting on your evidence. fruad is not a valid vetting system.

First of all, YOU need to provide evidence that states have been vetting Presidential candidates for years. After you do that, then you can tell me what point it is that you want evidence for.

 

[Flopper]

Confirmation bias.



Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This will be a long reply

Politicians have been proven to be dishonest do we agree?
Democrats have proven to be very dishonest
Hawaii is democratic controlled state ever since it became a state
Voted once for a republican president and elected once a republican Governor, so anyone that calls them self a republican in that kind of environment with be leaning democratic, or RINO.
Hawaii sealed obama's and all birth records from public view, last year which birth records were a public document.
SB2937 SD1.DOC

The state of Hawaii 2007 tried to pass off a document that was never accepted by the state registrar of 1961
obamas certificate numbers are out of sequence with two twins born a day later, in the same county. It has been said that Hawaii does not issue the long form anymore, that is a lie, because hawaii does issue them at least they did on March 15 2011

The newspaper clipping is no proof because anyone in Hawaii, including obama's grand mother who lived there at the time could have submitted it to the newspaper, while obama was being born aboard, all it says is that obama was born, and his parents lived at such and such location. Do you think people don't travel? If obama was born outside the U.S. his mother would have had to contact the U.S. Embassy to do the proper paper work for citizenship.

The only two people other than what Hawaii claims were two from fact check. org neither of the two had credentials for verifying authentic or forged documents. Fact check is controlled by the Annenberg foundation, which obama was a board member.

If you weren't so biased you would also question the BC. You would welcome the openess of obama producing the long form, because it would hurt nothing and would stop the argument.

Come on make your case anyone?

You can't trust the State of Hawaii. You can't trust the newspapers. You can't trust the family. You can't trust those that examined the certificate for authenticity. Just can't trust anybody?

No matter what evidence is offered, it's not sufficient. If the birth certificate is authentic, then obviously there is a conspiracy within the state government. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then it will be claimed he is not a natural born citizen because his parents weren't citizens or he lost his citizenship because he was a citizen of Indonesia, or he cannot be a US citizen because is not of this planet. Or could it be that the simplest explanation is the correct one, Obama is a natural born US citizen, an explanation the Birthers will never accept?

The best thing to do with conspiracy theories is to enjoy them or ignore them, but never take them seriously.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This will be a long reply

Politicians have been proven to be dishonest do we agree?
Democrats have proven to be very dishonest
Hawaii is democratic controlled state ever since it became a state
Voted once for a republican president and elected once a republican Governor, so anyone that calls them self a republican in that kind of environment with be leaning democratic, or RINO.
Hawaii sealed obama's and all birth records from public view, last year which birth records were a public document.
SB2937 SD1.DOC

The state of Hawaii 2007 tried to pass off a document that was never accepted by the state registrar of 1961
obamas certificate numbers are out of sequence with two twins born a day later, in the same county. It has been said that Hawaii does not issue the long form anymore, that is a lie, because hawaii does issue them at least they did on March 15 2011

The newspaper clipping is no proof because anyone in Hawaii, including obama's grand mother who lived there at the time could have submitted it to the newspaper, while obama was being born aboard, all it says is that obama was born, and his parents lived at such and such location. Do you think people don't travel? If obama was born outside the U.S. his mother would have had to contact the U.S. Embassy to do the proper paper work for citizenship.

The only two people other than what Hawaii claims were two from fact check. org neither of the two had credentials for verifying authentic or forged documents. Fact check is controlled by the Annenberg foundation, which obama was a board member.

If you weren't so biased you would also question the BC. You would welcome the openess of obama producing the long form, because it would hurt nothing and would stop the argument.

Come on make your case anyone?

You can't trust the State of Hawaii. You can't trust the newspapers. You can't trust the family. You can't trust those that examined the certificate for authenticity. Just can't trust anybody?

No matter what evidence is offered, it's not sufficient. If the birth certificate is authentic, then obviously there is a conspiracy within the state government. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then it will be claimed he is not a natural born citizen because his parents weren't citizens or he lost his citizenship because he was a citizen of Indonesia, or he cannot be a US citizen because is not of this planet. Or could it be that the simplest explanation is the correct one, Obama is a natural born US citizen, an explanation the Birthers will never accept?

The best thing to do with conspiracy theories is to enjoy them or ignore them, but never take them seriously.

If it's a conspiracy it started in 2007 obama's family had nothing to do with it.

No matter what evidence is offered, it's not sufficient.

it's not sufficient because nothing produced will hold water. Two many holes in that glass

If Obama was born in Hawaii, then it will be claimed he is not a natural born citizen because his parents weren't citizens or he lost his citizenship because he was a citizen of Indonesia, or he cannot be a US citizen because is not of this planet. Or could it be that the simplest explanation is the correct one, Obama is a natural born US citizen, an explanation the Birthers will never accept?

I take it you were trying to say was not born in hawaii? If obama was not born in Hawaii the U.S. Embassy in Kenya wouldhave to bve contacted to see if obama's mother did the propre paperwork for citizenship.

You can't trust those that examined the certificate for authenticity

What is their training in inspecting records?

You can't trust the newspapers.

I said anyone can submit the information the parants don't have to do it. All the newspaper articles says was obama was born named the parents and gave the address to where they lived. So that knocks that evidence out.

You actually sound like your whinning?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm still waiting on your evidence. fruad is not a valid vetting system.

First of all, YOU need to provide evidence that states have been vetting Presidential candidates for years. After you do that, then you can tell me what point it is that you want evidence for.

proof?
Hawaii validated a document that was not accepted by the state registrar in 1961
obama's document is out of senquence with two twins born a day after he was born.

Are you saying obama wasn't vetted by the states?

 

[gekaap]

proof?
Hawaii validated a document that was not accepted by the state registrar in 1961
obama's document is out of senquence with two twins born a day after he was born.

What does that have to do with your contention that states have been vetting Presidential candidates for years? I'm done arguing with you about what the definition of is is. I'm moving on to the fact that the state of AZ has no constitutional power to "vet" or otherwise review the legal qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

proof?
Hawaii validated a document that was not accepted by the state registrar in 1961
obama's document is out of senquence with two twins born a day after he was born.

What does that have to do with your contention that states have been vetting Presidential candidates for years? I'm done arguing with you about what the definition of is is. I'm moving on to the fact that the state of AZ has no constitutional power to "vet" or otherwise review the legal qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency.

Are you saying obama wasn't vetted by the states?

 

[gekaap]

Are you saying obama wasn't vetted by the states?

I'm telling you to provide proof that he was. I'd also like to see proof that doing things any number of times alleviates constitutional defects.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you saying obama wasn't vetted by the states?

I'm telling you to provide proof that he was. I'd also like to see proof that doing things any number of times alleviates constitutional defects.

Are you saying obama was't vetted? Either he was or he wasn't

 

[gekaap]

Are you saying obama was't vetted? Either he was or he wasn't

I'm not going to repeat myself, moving on. The constitution prescribes the manner by which a person may have their qualifications to hold the Presidency evaluated. The states have no constitutional authority to address the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency. Therefore, the AZ bill is unconstitutional.

Additionally, the states have no power to add qualifications, however small, for candidates to the Presidency. They may not block a candidate ballot access based on such qualifications. The AZ bill would block access to the ballot based on whether the candidate possesses a birth certificate that meets standards selected by the state of Arizona. Therefore, the bill is unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you saying obama was't vetted? Either he was or he wasn't

I'm not going to repeat myself, moving on. The constitution prescribes the manner by which a person may have their qualifications to hold the Presidency evaluated. The states have no constitutional authority to address the qualifications of a candidate for the Presidency. Therefore, the AZ bill is unconstitutional.

Additionally, the states have no power to add qualifications, however small, for candidates to the Presidency. They may not block a candidate ballot access based on such qualifications. The AZ bill would block access to the ballot based on whether the candidate possesses a birth certificate that meets standards selected by the state of Arizona. Therefore, the bill is unconstitutional.

I don't give a **** what you are or are not going to do. Either obama was or wasn't vetted so wae he?

in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/03C1.txt

see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 - Google Scholar

 

[gekaap]

in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access

States may set the time, date, and manner of elections, so long as Congress does not invoke their right to over ride such matters via legislation. Nothing therein, or in the case you have cited, gives the states the right to address the qualifications of any person to hold federal office, or to levy additional requirements not explicitly found in the constitution. The constitution explicitly assigns that power to federal entities, and the Supreme Court has held that the constitution clearly reserves to the federal government alone the power to address the qualifications of candidates for federal office.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access

States may set the time, date, and manner of elections, so long as Congress does not invoke their right to over ride such matters via legislation. Nothing therein, or in the case you have cited, gives the states the right to address the qualifications of any person to hold federal office, or to levy additional requirements not explicitly found in the constitution. The constitution explicitly assigns that power to federal entities, and the Supreme Court has held that the constitution clearly reserves to the federal government alone the power to address the qualifications of candidates for federal office.

Stop being stupid

the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access
see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724

Did you forget about the 10th amendment? Most statist do.

I'll ask again was obama vetted yes or no?

 

[gekaap]

Stop being stupid

the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access
see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724

I'm not being stupid, you're just being ignorant. These issues within the state's power are extremely limited and are strictly administrative. They do not allow the state the power to regulate federal elections in any manner, or to deprive the people of what the Supreme Court has called the sovereign right to vote for whomever they please. Furthermore, reviewing the qualifications of a candidate for office is well beyond an administrative issue, and the constitution explicitly withholds this power from the states.

Did you forget about the 10th amendment? Most statis do.

What of the 10th amendment? Many people like to bring this up for a wide range of issues, and they seem to know very little about the 10th amendment or what it means. The 10th amendment does not give carte blanche to the states, as many people allege. Reserved to the states are something called "original powers." That is, those powers the states were understood to have prior to the constitution. Of course, not all original powers are reserved to the states. The constitution granted some of those powers to the federal government. The 10th amendment reserves to the states only those original powers that the constitution does not subsequently place into the hands of the federal government. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this.

As it turns out, reviewing the qualifications for federal office was not an original power of the states. Indeed it could not have been, because the federal government and its offices did not exist until the constitution was ratified. Again, the Supreme Court has been explicit on this matter; the 10th amendment does not give the states the authority to review the qualifications of candidates for federal offices.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stop being stupid

the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access
see also Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724

I'm not being stupid, you're just being ignorant. These issues within the state's power are extremely limited and are strictly administrative. They do not allow the state the power to regulate federal elections in any manner, or to deprive the people of what the Supreme Court has called the sovereign right to vote for whomever they please. Furthermore, reviewing the qualifications of a candidate for office is well beyond an administrative issue, and the constitution explicitly withholds this power from the states.

Did you forget about the 10th amendment? Most statis do.

What of the 10th amendment? Many people like to bring this up for a wide range of issues, and they seem to know very little about the 10th amendment or what it means. The 10th amendment does not give carte blanche to the states, as many people allege. Reserved to the states are something called "original powers." That is, those powers the states were understood to have prior to the constitution. Of course, not all original powers are reserved to the states. The constitution granted some of those powers to the federal government. The 10th amendment reserves to the states only those original powers that the constitution does not subsequently place into the hands of the federal government. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this.

As it turns out, reviewing the qualifications for federal office was not an original power of the states. Indeed it could not have been, because the federal government and its offices did not exist until the constitution was ratified. Again, the Supreme Court has been explicit on this matter; the 10th amendment does not give the states the authority to review the qualifications of candidates for federal offices.

What of the 10th amendment? Many people like to bring this up for a wide range of issues, and they seem to know very little about the 10th amendment or what it means.

Wrong junior who created the federal government the states or the fed? The federal government has only the poswer the states have granted it. Nothing more or nothing lss and that is in the 10th amendment.

Do you really want to talk about the court?
ANDERSON ET AL.
v.
CELEBREZZE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO

Although these rights of voters are fundamental, not all restrictions imposed by the States on candidates' eligibility for the ballot impose constitutionally suspect burdens on voters' rights to associate or to choose among candidates. We have recognized that, "as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974). To achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes. Each provision of these schemes, whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects — at least to some degree — the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 {I 983) opinion - Google Scholar