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

[Vast LWC]

The only one who is ignoring the Constitution is you. The only reason their is no mentin of a birth certificate in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is because birth certificates did not exist until the 1900's. Birth certificates are need to verify the place of birth. And the one hawaii issued has a few issues that need to be addressed.

Wow, do you realize how much you've defeated your entire argument in this post?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only one who is ignoring the Constitution is you. The only reason their is no mentin of a birth certificate in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is because birth certificates did not exist until the 1900's. Birth certificates are need to verify the place of birth. And the one hawaii issued has a few issues that need to be addressed.

Wow, do you realize how much you've defeated your entire argument in this post?

When did the states first issue birth certificates? America has more people now than we did during the days of the founders, we are more spread out than we were back then. word of mouth is no longer a good source we need documentaion. So how does that defeat my argument?

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

ROFL.

The only people "whining" around here are the birthers.

Bitching and moaning because they're afraid they can't win an election based on real things, like the issues, so they resort to trying to game the system.

And all of my arguments in this thread have been sound, with a strong Constitutional basis, and I don't seem to be losing the argument, so I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

I'm not reporting you to the Mods or anything, so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to get all bent out of shape and resort to invectives.

I'm just alerting you to what the Mods told me, and asking you not to edit my posts in a way that changes the context, which is what you did.

 

[Vast LWC]

The only one who is ignoring the Constitution is you. The only reason their is no mentin of a birth certificate in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is because birth certificates did not exist until the 1900's. Birth certificates are need to verify the place of birth. And the one hawaii issued has a few issues that need to be addressed.

Wow, do you realize how much you've defeated your entire argument in this post?

When did the states first issue birth certificates? America has more people now than we did during the days of the founders, we are more spread out than we were back then. word of mouth is no longer a good source we need documentaion. So how does that defeat my argument?

Because at the time the Constitution was written, THERE WERE NO BIRTH CERTIFICATES. So it would have been impossible for the Constitution to require birth certificates to prove that any citizen was a "Natural Born Citizen".

Therefore the only proof required by the Constitution was the verification of "Natural Born" status by the person's place of birth.

 

[sinister59]

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.

not many people would admit to living there . but theses ideat are saying in no hawaiian is considered natural because they were a territory back until 1950s , but that a load of crap because everyone there became citizens , in fact old snaggletooth palion if born before 58 is in the same boat .

 

[Lasher]

LMFAO!!! I read the comments there by the libs-- OMG, TOO FUNNY!! They're freaking out, spewing and cracked lips- worried their messiah is done~ Liberals would rather the Constitution be usurped than give up power.. Make no mistake about it. Oh well-- TOOO BAD! I'd say that's checkmate once the House passes it.. DingleBarry will HAVE to show a legal BC or not run. Hahahahahahahaha LOLOL Ohhh, it's just too good.

That's something.

The law won't stand up to the Constitution and you talk about usurped?

How do you know it won't, Swallow?

 

[Uncensored2008]

ROFL.

The only people "whining" around here are the birthers.

Nope, you're a whiny little *****. You can't compose a rational thought nor argument, so you resort to what you've always resorted to: "I'm telling!"

Sorry *****, I've violated no rules, so go whine to whomever you please. (Then go **** yourself.)

 

[Lasher]

You know, all of this talk about what the definition of is is, is irrelevant. You've still yet to respond to the fact that the states do not have any powers to regulate federal elections, and that is what this bill tries to do. And the way it goes about it indirectly creates new qualifications for the office of POTUS, which the states again do not have the power to do. There is no constitutional demand that a person have a birth certificate, only that they be born in the US. The states don't have the power to "vet" Presidential candidates, as you put it, either. Congress delegates the power to qualify an elected President to the electoral college. The constitution is clear. Elect first, qualify second. The state of AZ is adopting for itself powers that it does not have under the constitution.

The book you are reading in your avatar, Bozo, should be entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wow, do you realize how much you've defeated your entire argument in this post?

When did the states first issue birth certificates? America has more people now than we did during the days of the founders, we are more spread out than we were back then. word of mouth is no longer a good source we need documentaion. So how does that defeat my argument?

Because at the time the Constitution was written, THERE WERE NO BIRTH CERTIFICATES. So it would have been impossible for the Constitution to require birth certificates to prove that any citizen was a "Natural Born Citizen".

Therefore the only proof required by the Constitution was the verification of "Natural Born" status by the person's place of birth.

They used the family bible, and didn't I say there weren't any kind of Birth certificates when the Constitution was created? So for repeating what I said.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

None yet.

If Arizona rejects official birth documents from Hawaii (or any candidate submitting birth documents from another state) issued under the Seal of that State, then they will have rejected them. If they accept such documents, then they will not have rejected them.

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?

Glad to know you think the plan language of the United State Constitution is a straw man.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."​

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

not many people would admit to living there . but theses ideat are saying in no hawaiian is considered natural because they were a territory back until 1950s , but that a load of crap because everyone there became citizens , in fact old snaggletooth palion if born before 58 is in the same boat .

What does any of this have to do with 1961 the year obama said he was born?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

ROFL.

The only people "whining" around here are the birthers.

Bitching and moaning because they're afraid they can't win an election based on real things, like the issues, so they resort to trying to game the system.

And all of my arguments in this thread have been sound, with a strong Constitutional basis, and I don't seem to be losing the argument, so I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

I'm not reporting you to the Mods or anything, so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to get all bent out of shape and resort to invectives.

I'm just alerting you to what the Mods told me, and asking you not to edit my posts in a way that changes the context, which is what you did.

No the only one who has any fear are the defenders of the document obama uses as a birth record. If they did not fear this new law they would enjoy having obama produce a document that is supposed to be a true document of birth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

None yet.

So you just want a preemptive unconstitutionality?

If Arizona rejects official birth documents from Hawaii (or any candidate submitting birth documents from another state) issued under the Seal of that State, then they will have rejected them.

And if pigs sprout wings and soar through the heavens...

Glad to know you think the plan language of the United State Constitution is a straw man.

Your quote has nothing to do with the bill passed nor with the subject at hand. It is a straw man argument.

 

[Vast LWC]

ROFL.

The only people "whining" around here are the birthers.

Nope, you're a whiny little *****. You can't compose a rational thought nor argument, so you resort to what you've always resorted to: "I'm telling!"

Sorry *****, I've violated no rules, so go whine to whomever you please. (Then go **** yourself.)

LOL. Yes, yes, that's the ticket.

I'm clearly the irrational one in this conversation, not the person screaming "whiny little *****", and "go **** yourself".

I think someone needs an anger management class, though it probably won't help your (rather poor) debating skills very much.

So, whiner, who exactly did I "tell" and what was it I "told" them? Or do you construe my request that you don't edit other people's posts as "telling"?

 

[Vast LWC]

They used the family bible, and didn't I say there weren't any kind of Birth certificates when the Constitution was created? So for repeating what I said.

"They used the family bible." I see.

So... you admit that "Long Form Birth Certificates" (or whatever BS identification birthers will demand next) couldn't possibly have been a requirement for eligibility to run for President as far as the Constitution is concerned. Correct?

And you also admit that at least half the Presidents of the United States couldn't possibly have had Birth Certificates, much less produced them for some BS requirement in another state, correct?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They used the family bible, and didn't I say there weren't any kind of Birth certificates when the Constitution was created? So for repeating what I said.

"They used the family bible." I see.

So... you admit that "Long Form Birth Certificates" (or whatever BS identification birthers will demand next) couldn't possibly have been a requirement for eligibility to run for President as far as the Constitution is concerned. Correct?

And you also admit that at least half the Presidents of the United States couldn't possibly have had Birth Certificates, much less produced them for some BS requirement in another state, correct?

When I got my first drivers license back in 75 I could have used a family bible as a birth record of citizenship. That was the birth certificate back when the founders were alive. Most families had them and kept brith recorded in them. But if a family didn't have one word of mouth was good enough. But we as a people are to dishonest and the long form BC is the best record.

 

[Vast LWC]

No the only one who has any fear are the defenders of the document obama uses as a birth record. If they did not fear this new law they would enjoy having obama produce a document that is supposed to be a true document of birth.

OK, let me make this simple:

Obama ran for President. No one expected him to win. No one really cared a whit about "long form birth certificates" except perhaps a couple of crazy, black-helicopter, conspiracy-crazed nutjobs.

Then Obama wins the Presidency, and has an excellent chance at winning a second term.

Suddenly it's not just the crazy black helicopter-types anymore.

Suddenly, in the face of a load of evidence to the contrary, politicians on the right start jumping out of the woodwork, screaming bloody murder about the theory that Obama might have spent the first couple of his days of his life in some foreign country, like he could have been a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate because of it.

All because they're afraid he might beat their ass soundly, again, in a presidential election.

Now that is "whining". All-Star, first-class whining. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

 

[Vast LWC]

They used the family bible, and didn't I say there weren't any kind of Birth certificates when the Constitution was created? So for repeating what I said.

"They used the family bible." I see.

So... you admit that "Long Form Birth Certificates" (or whatever BS identification birthers will demand next) couldn't possibly have been a requirement for eligibility to run for President as far as the Constitution is concerned. Correct?

And you also admit that at least half the Presidents of the United States couldn't possibly have had Birth Certificates, much less produced them for some BS requirement in another state, correct?

When I got my first drivers license back in 75 I could have used a family bible as a birth record of citizenship. That was the birth certificate back when the founders were alive. Most families had them and kept brith recorded in them. But if a family didn't have one word of mouth was good enough. But we as a people are to dishonest and the long form BC is the best record.

And, by saying that, you're admitting that there's no possible way that producing the long form birth certificate is part of the Constitutionally mandated conditions for running for president.

Therefore, the fact that Arizona is creating new conditions for presidential candidates is Unconstitutional, and that's not even considering the trampling of Hawaii's right to determine if their own residents are citizens or not.

 

[Sallow]

Where is the Constitutional Requirement for a birth certificate from Presidential Candidates?

Anyone?

 

[Liberty]

Where is the Constitutional Requirement for a birth certificate from Presidential Candidates?

Anyone?

Article I Section II

"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.