gekaap
Rookie
- Jan 25, 2011
- 1,795
- 136
- 0
- Banned
- #181
Candidates are selected by the parties themselves, not by any given state. Arizona statute provides that "At a primary election, each political party entitled and intending to make nominations for the ensuing general or special election shall, if it desires to have the names of its candidates printed on the official ballot at such general or special election, nominate its candidates for all elective, senatorial, congressional, state, judicial, county and precinct offices to be filled at such election except as provided in section 16-344." [Section 16-344 deals with electors and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.]
For the state government to disallow a candidate would mean that they are either denying a political party their legal right to nominate a their own candidate for office, and to place him or her on the ballot (that right being established elsewhere in Arizona law). If the state were to refuse to include the candidate of a given party on the ballot based on some lack of "showing" of qualification, that would amount to the state attempting to police whether a person meets the qualifications of the office. They can do this for their own offices if they wish, but the state does not have the power to police the qualifications of a candidate for a federal office. Of course, considering all the circumstances, the legislative intent is very clear, and that matter alone would demand a high burden of proof from AZ to justify its "concerns" about Obama's citizenship. In addition to that, the proposed AZ law, regardless of whatever claimed intention, would still to fail the test of effect. Since the effect of the law would be to police the qualifications of a Presidential candidate, they would fail in any proposed explanation that they are just trying to conform to the constitution.
They might try that position, but the state does not have the power to "implement" the requirements of the constitutional qualifications to hold the office of POTUS. That is a matter for the Senate to deal with when tallying the votes of electors.
No, the state will not have the opportunity to subpoena the birth records because that will fall under Obama's 5th amendment rights. If Obama were to bring a cause of action against the state, he would only have to show that he was the nominated person by the Democratic party, and that he is currently President, thus is recognized by the government as still meeting the qualifications for his second term. The burden would then shift to AZ to show that they have the right to deny a candidate from appearing on the ballot. In order to do that based on qualifications, they would have to not only successfully argue a right to police the qualifications of people holding federal office, but also have to provide positive evidence of Obama failing those qualifications.
The only way his eligibility could change would be for him to serve a second term, or to renounce his citizenship. None of the qualification requirements have changed, so it would take a change in his personal status to create an ineligibility on Obama's part. The fact that he is the current sitting President, therefore, would suffice for the question of him being a natural born citizen. All branches of the federal government have affirmed his credentials. The legislator affirmed them by certifying the election results of the electoral college. The judiciary affirmed them at the inauguration. The executive branch affirms them by him occupying the office. Therefore, in order for AZ to be able to maintain that he is not eligible based on alleged citizenship failings, they will have to provide the positive proof to that claim.
This would actually be a very weak argument. First of all, there is no requirement that a candidate present a birth certificate, and it goes beyond common practice, thus all due diligence has been followed. The constitution does not demand a birth certificate. Second, Congress is not required to raise any such objection. Therefore there is no failure of due diligence. Whether such due diligence can even be applied to Congress would be a shaky question in and of itself. Most likely, the court would say, in essence, that if you don't like what your Congressman or Senator did, don't vote for them next time. But since their actions were constitutional, there is no argument for the court to entertain the state objecting to the acts of Congress.
Actually, that's not true. There has been alot of case law where the Supreme Court has addressed what it means to be a "natural born citizen." There is no issue of a special application for the term toward the Presidency. A natural born citizen is a natural born citizen, and there would be no need for the court to even bother with re-addressing the question to specifically apply it to the President. Perhaps most notable is United States v. Wong Kim Ark
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
They have the power to decide how they will choose their electors. They even have the power to decide how a political party can qualify to have its candidate listed on the general election ballot. They have the power to not use a general election at all as their means to choose their electors. But they do not have the power to set their own criteria for determining the eligibility of a given candidate for the office of the President. The Senate has the responsibility to tally the total of electoral votes and to certify the results of the election. For the state to intervene would be a violation of the Constitution's distinction between state and federal powers, much like Florida's statute several years ago to re-insert Terri Shiavo's feeding tube was a violation by the legislator of constitutional separation of powers, and amounted to the legislator interfering with the acts of the judiciary.
See above cited Supreme Court case.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. There is no ambiguity about this.
No, the Supreme Court has rejected this theory.
That law was ultimately superseded by the 14th amendment, which extended citizenship at birth to all people born in the US regardless of lineage.
