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

[gekaap]

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.

This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has been explicit on the matter. The federal government has what power the constitution has given it. I suppose that one thing could be true from a certain perspective. The states all ratified the constitution, and in that way it could be said that the states gave the federal government its power, by their agreement. But your view on the 10th amendment is flatly rejected by the Supreme Court.

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.

None of that changes, or even addresses, the fact that the constitution explicitly reserves the power to judge the qualifications of federal offices to the federal government, and that the Supreme Court has been explicit on the matter. The states do not have the power to judge the qualifications of a candidate for office, and they do not have the power to create additional qualifications, such as possessing a birth certificate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has been explicit on the matter. The federal government has what power the constitution has given it. I suppose that one thing could be true from a certain perspective. The states all ratified the constitution, and in that way it could be said that the states gave the federal government its power, by their agreement. But your view on the 10th amendment is flatly rejected by the Supreme Court.

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.

None of that changes, or even addresses, the fact that the constitution explicitly reserves the power to judge the qualifications of federal offices to the federal government, and that the Supreme Court has been explicit on the matter. The states do not have the power to judge the qualifications of a candidate for office, and they do not have the power to create additional qualifications, such as possessing a birth certificate.

You may want to review that opinion from the bench
Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions.

game set and match

This is untrue, and the Supreme Court has been explicit on the matter. The federal government has what power the constitution has given it. I suppose that one thing could be true from a certain perspective. The states all ratified the constitution, and in that way it could be said that the states gave the federal government its power, by their agreement. But your view on the 10th amendment is flatly rejected by the Supreme Court.

The federal government did not create itself the states created it, and the power it was given can be taken away. And don't forget to read the 10th amendment before you go to sleep.

 

[Flopper]

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.



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



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?

No, I meant that if Obama's birth in Hawaii was accepted by the Birthers, their would be many that would claim he is not a natural born citizen because his father was African. There are many that believe the Constitution requires that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be US citizens. They neglect the fact that we have at least one president that has non-citizen parents.

To think that in 1961, someone would falsify a newspaper announcement concerning the birth of a black child in Hawaii, is a bit far fetched.

This conspiracy theory will live on long after Obama is out of office. Why? Because he will never submit endless amounts of documentation to prove that he is a citizen of the US. No matter what he might submit, it would not be sufficient. To engage in such a silly game would only provoke more controversy which would not serve him well in his reelection campaign.

The Birther conspiracy theories will just be added to a the long list of conspiracy theories:
JFK Assination
9/11
Pearl Harbor
Apollo Moon Landing
Area 51
Bilderberg Group
Freemasons
Skull & Bones
Illuminati
Barcodes
Roswell
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
Nazi Moon Base
Holocaust Denial
Elvis
plus thousands of others not worth mentioning.

 

[USArmyRetired]

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.

Please answer him. Was Obama vetted?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.



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



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.


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?

No, I meant that if Obama's birth in Hawaii was accepted by the Birthers, their would be many that would claim he is not a natural born citizen because his father was African. There are many that believe the Constitution requires that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be US citizens. They neglect the fact that we have at least one president that has non-citizen parents.

To think that in 1961, someone would falsify a newspaper announcement concerning the birth of a black child in Hawaii, is a bit far fetched.

This conspiracy theory will live on long after Obama is out of office. Why? Because he will never submit endless amounts of documentation to prove that he is a citizen of the US. No matter what he might submit, it would not be sufficient. To engage in such a silly game would only provoke more controversy which would not serve him well in his reelection campaign.

The Birther conspiracy theories will just be added to a the long list of conspiracy theories:
JFK Assination
9/11
Pearl Harbor
Apollo Moon Landing
Area 51
Bilderberg Group
Freemasons
Skull & Bones
Illuminati
Barcodes
Roswell
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
Nazi Moon Base
Holocaust Denial
Elvis
plus thousands of others not worth mentioning.

To think that in 1961, someone would falsify a newspaper announcement concerning the birth of a black child in Hawaii, is a bit far fetched.

Nope people place birth notice in the paper to day. It doesn't have to be the parents. In that ad it just says obama was born and gives the address where his parents live, they could have been out of state. It's normal for grand parents to place birth ads My mother did it when her grand kids were born.

Because he will never submit endless amounts of documentation to prove that he is a citizen of the US.

He hasn't even done that, I have even knock some hole in that document. Maybe he needs to allow a team to look at his Long form a non partisan a democrat and a republican

 

[gekaap]

You may want to review that opinion from the bench

Just because the Supreme Court's decisions don't mesh with your agenda does not make them defective.

Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions.

Arizona's bill IS discriminatory because it creates requirements that the state does not have the power to create. The constitution is the sole source of qualifications for the Presidency.

The federal government did not create itself the states created it, and the power it was given can be taken away.

No, it cannot be taken away. Listen to yourself, you're such an extremist that you are ready to advocate for the dissolution of the country if you don't get your way. The Union is perpetual. Federal law is supreme to state law. The constitution is the utmost supreme law of the land. Nothing the states can do changes this.

And don't forget to read the 10th amendment before you go to sleep.

You don't know anything about the 10th amendment. You don't even understand the concept. You think the 10th amendment gives states the power to do whatever they want. That is untrue. The 10th amendment only reserves to the states those ORIGINAL powers that were not diverted away from the states by the constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You may want to review that opinion from the bench

Just because the Supreme Court's decisions don't mesh with your agenda does not make them defective.

Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions.

Arizona's bill IS discriminatory because it creates requirements that the state does not have the power to create. The constitution is the sole source of qualifications for the Presidency.

The federal government did not create itself the states created it, and the power it was given can be taken away.

No, it cannot be taken away. Listen to yourself, you're such an extremist that you are ready to advocate for the dissolution of the country if you don't get your way. The Union is perpetual. Federal law is supreme to state law. The constitution is the utmost supreme law of the land. Nothing the states can do changes this.

And don't forget to read the 10th amendment before you go to sleep.

You don't know anything about the 10th amendment. You don't even understand the concept. You think the 10th amendment gives states the power to do whatever they want. That is untrue. The 10th amendment only reserves to the states those ORIGINAL powers that were not diverted away from the states by the constitution.

Just because the Supreme Court's decisions don't mesh with your agenda does not make them defective.

You are fooling yourself it goes with what I have been telling you. Read it one more time take note at the red. It's the opposite of what you are arguing.
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

Arizona's bill IS discriminatory because it creates requirements that the state does not have the power to create. The constitution is the sole source of qualifications for the Presidency.

Who does it discriminate against? non citizens do not have any rights protected in the Bill of rights. Failed again

No, it cannot be taken away. Listen to yourself, you're such an extremist that you are ready to advocate for the dissolution of the country if you don't get your way. The Union is perpetual. Federal law is supreme to state law. The constitution is the utmost supreme law of the land. Nothing the states can do changes this.

Yes those powers can be taken away . The powers the fedeal governemnt has was granted to it by the states. Failed again

You don't know anything about the 10th amendment. You don't even understand the concept. You think the 10th amendment gives states the power to do whatever they want. That is untrue. The 10th amendment only reserves to the states those ORIGINAL powers that were not diverted away from the states by the constitution

The tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment doesn't give the sates anything it grants the federal government powers that the states have choosen to give it.

 

[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.

Please answer him. Was Obama vetted?

He hasn't and he won't

 

[gekaap]

It all depends on what your definition of is is. That is your entire argument. Everything you say you bring back to such terms. You look a horse in the case and cry "WOLF!" It is pointless to debate someone who simply refuses to acknowledge reality. There are many people on this board with whom I disagree about various things. But with them, I can have an honest debate on an issue and we can evaluate each others' arguments for their merits. With you, all you do is deny that they sky is blue. You're incapable of having an honest discussion about anything. I don't know if its some kind of narcissism, as if you're simply incapable of comprehending anything other than your initial biased assumptions as well as fathoming the possibility that you have been wrong, or if it's just a willful act that you think helps you to save face, by refusing to acknowledge the truth when you fall short of it, in hopes that others won't notice. Either way, you have here shown that you are entirely insignificant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It all depends on what your definition of is is. That is your entire argument. Everything you say you bring back to such terms. You look a horse in the case and cry "WOLF!" It is pointless to debate someone who simply refuses to acknowledge reality. There are many people on this board with whom I disagree about various things. But with them, I can have an honest debate on an issue and we can evaluate each others' arguments for their merits. With you, all you do is deny that they sky is blue. You're incapable of having an honest discussion about anything. I don't know if its some kind of narcissism, as if you're simply incapable of comprehending anything other than your initial biased assumptions as well as fathoming the possibility that you have been wrong, or if it's just a willful act that you think helps you to save face, by refusing to acknowledge the truth when you fall short of it, in hopes that others won't notice. Either way, you have here shown that you are entirely insignificant.

Consession speech?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Never said that requiring documentation that a candidate meets the criteria for elective office does.

However, rejecting the public record of another State issued under the Seal of that State sure does.

What public records were rejected?

It has everything to do with a discussion of the Constitutionality of the law. Under the FF&C (Article IV, Section 1) Arizona is Constitutionally bound to give credit to the public records of another state unless exempted by Congress.

Is a straw man all you have?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well I guess that shows I'm not a member of the "left" as I support 100% that ALL candidates for elective office provide documented evidence that the meet the requirements to hold the office they wish to be elected into.

Your participation in this thread indicates otherwise.

The issue isn't about requiring candidates to provide documentation, in my view the issue is one state mandating the type of information they are required to include in their own public records.

Discrete and specific - I know you are familiar with the phrase. Laws must be discrete and specific.

If the bill did not define the information required, you would be arguing that it was "unconstitutionally vague."

In addition, if Arizona rejects an official birth document issued under the Seal of the State of Hawaii, then they will have violated the Full Faith and Credit clause because they have not received Congressional permission to do so.

And if rabbits sprout wings and stingers like scorpions, they will fulfill prophecy in the Bible.

But the determination of the constitutionality of law is not based on wild speculation of what "could be," it's based on what the law states.

This law requires that a candidate provide to the secretary of state some basic information verifying the eligibility of the candidate to hold office.

That's all the law does.

Sure there is, and you can deny to see it all the way through the liberals winning in court and the law being thrown out followed by the claims of activist judges.

Who knows what the 9th will do, they don't heed the law very closely. Still, there is no basis for challenging this law and any legitimate court will decline to hear it. The 9th might hear it anyway.

Can the sovereign state of Arizona decide that it doesn't want to allow black people to vote in federal elections?

That would violate the 14th amendment.

Can they pass a law requiring ID in order to vote? Would you claim that violates the 14th?

Personally speaking I wouldn't mind seeing Obama file birth documents issued by State of Hawaii and Arizona rejects it.

When did Arizona reject it?

You're whole premise is a akin to demanding that cops can't require a license to be shown in a traffic stop because they might reject an out of state license.

You are basing your claims on facts not in existence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, that's it. LOL. Because obviously, in your world, no-one cares about the Constitution,

You fascists seek to revoke the constitution, but that has nothing to do with this subject.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hmmm, as far as I can see, I'm the one defending the Constitution here,

The North Korean Constitution is irrelevant to me.

You attack the U.S. Constitution and the manner in which states determine who the electors of that state will be.

 

[Navy1960]

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]

1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.

Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records
Hawaiian Official Again Confirms Obama’s Birth Records, Calls Birthers ‘Ludicrous”

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said creating state-level requirements for a federal office could violate the U.S. Constitution.

“While everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens run for president, there are obvious issues with states implementing what could become a patchwork of different tests for a presidential candidate to prove his/her citizenship,” Bennett’s spokesman, Matthew Benson, wrote in an e-mail

Ken Bennett was appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer to replace her as secretary of state, and took the oath of office on Jan. 26, 2009.

The statewide office is the newest chapter in a record of public service that spans 25 years. It’s also the latest distinction for Bennett – an Arizona native and small-business owner.

Bennett began his legislative career in 1998 when he was elected to represent the residents of Legislative District 1. He served four terms in the state Senate – from 1999 to 2007 – and served as Senate president his final four years before being term-limited from office.

Ken Bennett - Biography

A few things here, one is a state setting requirements for a candidate for President, while Az. might run into several constitutional hurdles among them the one's pointed out above, and that is it bring it in direct confilct with the Supremacy Clause, In Ableman v. Booth, the court held, that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments. However it should be interesting how these cases go and all Arizona cases usually end up in the 9th circuit and that court has not been very favorable to Arizona Laws such as these. Further, our Republican Sec. of State tends to think the same way as can be seen. All of this does nothing however to bring down our 1.15 billion dollar deficit. or clean up our housing mess, not does it help our educational status as it ranks with the rest of the nation, as well as the illegal immigration issue. As I stated before among all the issues our legislature can take up, this issue is a nonstarter and is clearly meant to gain political favor with a segment of the Republican base who believe the President was not born in this country. I does nothing at all to address the real issues of our state and does not represent many Republicans here and I myself tend to agree with J.D Hayworth on the issue.

"He said definitely that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and meets all the legal and constitutional requirements to be President. Period. End of Story." J.D. Hayworth Feb. 18th 2010

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land."

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]

1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com

Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.

Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records
Hawaiian Official Again Confirms Obama’s Birth Records, Calls Birthers ‘Ludicrous”

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett said creating state-level requirements for a federal office could violate the U.S. Constitution.

“While everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens run for president, there are obvious issues with states implementing what could become a patchwork of different tests for a presidential candidate to prove his/her citizenship,” Bennett’s spokesman, Matthew Benson, wrote in an e-mail

Ken Bennett was appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer to replace her as secretary of state, and took the oath of office on Jan. 26, 2009.

The statewide office is the newest chapter in a record of public service that spans 25 years. It’s also the latest distinction for Bennett – an Arizona native and small-business owner.

Bennett began his legislative career in 1998 when he was elected to represent the residents of Legislative District 1. He served four terms in the state Senate – from 1999 to 2007 – and served as Senate president his final four years before being term-limited from office.

Ken Bennett - Biography

A few things here, one is a state setting requirements for a candidate for President, while Az. might run into several constitutional hurdles among them the one's pointed out above, and that is it bring it in direct confilct with the Supremacy Clause, In Ableman v. Booth, the court held, that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments. However it should be interesting how these cases go and all Arizona cases usually end up in the 9th circuit and that court has not been very favorable to Arizona Laws such as these. Further, our Republican Sec. of State tends to think the same way as can be seen. All of this does nothing however to bring down our 1.15 billion dollar deficit. or clean up our housing mess, not does it help our educational status as it ranks with the rest of the nation, as well as the illegal immigration issue. As I stated before among all the issues our legislature can take up, this issue is a nonstarter and is clearly meant to gain political favor with a segment of the Republican base who believe the President was not born in this country. I does nothing at all to address the real issues of our state and does not represent many Republicans here and I myself tend to agree with J.D Hayworth on the issue.

"He said definitely that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and meets all the legal and constitutional requirements to be President. Period. End of Story." J.D. Hayworth Feb. 18th 2010

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.


http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/clearing-the-smoke-june10/

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, you weren't "back-quoting" you were cutting and pasting pieces of my posts to relieve them of their desired intent and effect. That is a no-no.

You're full of shit.

You're a whiny little ***** who can't debate so you seek respite in rules.

 

[Navy1960]

12th Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

One more thing, if a person who is elected does not meet the criteria as setr down in the constitution to be President, then that person would NOT be certified when the electors meet. In fact at that time ANY elector can object to the certification on the grounds that the President does not meet the constitutional requirements as well as the Vice President. Having met those, this President was certified.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

12th Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

One more thing, if a person who is elected does not meet the criteria as setr down in the constitution to be President, then that person would NOT be certified when the electors meet. In fact at that time ANY elector can object to the certification on the grounds that the President does not meet the constitutional requirements as well as the Vice President. Having met those, this President was certified.

and still we wait

 

[Vast LWC]

Doesn't Arizona have the same sovereign rights as Hawaii?

And if Hawaii were trying to overrule the citizenship of Arizonian citizens, that would also be illegal.

As far as I know, Obama never lived in Arizona.