Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[Flopper]

Don't have an issue with states requiring documentation of proof of eligibility, but just a couple of comments...


1. Many states don't issue "long form" birth certificates any more.

2. A location of birth inside the United States establishes citizenship, requiring the hospital is not needed.

3. A location of birth inside the United States establishes citizenship, requiring an attending physician is not needed. (I hate to break it to many but many children are born with no attending attending physician.)

4. Just to be picky, "Natural Born Citizen" is a condition at birth and does not preclude gaining citizenship after birth in another country. Now attesting that there was no dual-citizenship status at birth is part of it.



>>>>

Also, some states, my own included, have destroy-by policies. Apparently there is no record of MY OWN long form medical birth certificate. I only know that because I've been carrying around a very old copy of my short-form birth certificate so long that it's seriously dog-eared, and last summer on a trip to Newport VT where I was born, stopped at the hospital to get a new copy. On an off-chance, I asked if I could have the actual record which showed my birth weight, ink blots of my feet, etc., and was told that those are automatically destroyed after 50 years because they serve no purpose. Operative words: SERVE NO PURPOSE. Hospital and state certification are all that is required.

Sadly, you will never be President

I had a similar experience. The hospital, I was born in closed about 30 years ago. The only birth certificate available from the state is a short form.

I guess I won't be able to make my run for the white house in Arizona.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong bucko. Each state decides who is qualified to run on their presidential ballot. If they demand proof of citizenship from candidates then Obama will have to comply or be left out.

just what we need... another birfer moron...

his birth was certified by the state of hawaii, freak boy...

there is no 'game changer' except in the fantasies of loons.

I've been a pretty staunch anti-birther guy, although being a right winger, because I just didn't believe it. I thought if that was even close to true, Hillary would've been all over it in 08.


But, I've been keeping up with the claims. And literally last night, a Hawaii government official, who was in charge of producing the certified birth certificate, signed and swore an affidavit stating he was told by his superiors that the certificate did not exist, and that the long form one could not be produced, and political pressure would prevent them from admitting that publicly. This guy is coming out now in a sworn affidavit with those facts. He states neither hospital has ANY record of Obama's birth, other than a hand written note regarding it. And he also states the short form, or whatever was produced, was inspected and found to be manufactured by modern day Word software, and that nowhere in Hawaii does a real, legitimate birth certificate exist for Barack Obama.


Again, I still don't buy into this. But some crazy shit has been coming out of this topic the last 48 hours.

So a clerk who no longer works in the Honolulu Elections Division swears that the his supervisor in the Elections Division was told by someone (persumably in Hawaii Dept of Health) that Obama's birth certificate is not on file. So it's another one of those he said, she said, she said, or was it he said, she said, he said, she said.

Wow. I wonder if the Arizona Senate has this starling information.

Considering how many copies have been made, I would not be surprised if someone lost the original.

 

[jgarden]

The state of Arizona will soon pass a law requiring proof of citizenship before being allowed on the Presidential ballot.

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law

I predict, that after futiley spending millions to try to defeat the law, Obama will abandon Arizona in his re-election bid rather than come clean with the American people about his birth origins. While the 10 electoral votes at stake are not pivotal, Texas has 34 and it is going to pass a similar law. Other states may follow suit. The question is, will Obama surrender a second term rather than show us what he's hiding?

In case the news hasn't yet filtered through to the People's Republic of Arizona, the US Supreme Court has already dealt with the birth certificate issue.

Given the national attention already directed towards Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and the other innocent shooting victims, do you really think Arizona wants the added notoriety by resorting to a mean spirited attempt to attack the president by refusing to accept the validity of another state's birth certificate - just to appease a few "birthers?"

 

[KissMy]

Try to keep up with the latest information. Abercrombie is now admitting to friends and colleagues that he looked for the bc in government records, and in the only two Hawaian hospitals where Obama could have been born. Its not there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE

If anti-birthers are so right, why do they always have to misstate the facts.

The Hawaii Governor said he did not remember seeing Obama before he was 5 years old. Who remembers that much before they were 5 yeas old anyhow? The thing that should bother people the most is Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from age 6 to age 10, his most influential years. This would make a larger impact on a person than where they were born.

Oh please. I barely remember anything about my teachers until fourth grade, and then only vaguely. That young, kids are learning things by rote, not political messaging.

Bull Shit!! Obama should have an above average memory & I know many people that remember most things from 3 years on including my sister. I remember some from age 4 & most things from 5 years on.

At 5 years old after my sister got on the bus for school, I helped care for the pigs & chickens every morning along with other farm work then washing up & dressing for school before the little bus that took me to kindergarten arrived at 11:05. I remember right down to the teachers name Miss Ross, the words I learned to spell in kindergarten & all the other kids names in the class. Bobby was the best speller because it sure was not me. I learned to write my first name & loved to play fireman with the fire engine & played with the wooden building blocks & Lincoln logs. The teacher gave us milk & cookies most days but there were 3 kids (Donnie, Lisa & Jerry) that kept peeing their pants during class after drinking milk & it would run out of their chair so then we would take a nap while they got changed. Donnie & Lisa got held back that year. Donnie always got into trouble & Lisa cried a lot. After class I would ride home on the big bus with my sister & the big kids who taught me many bad things. On Wednesdays we would not take the bus home but would walk from school through the park where the older boys would climb in the rafters of the shelters to get the cigarettes, whiskey, pot & Play Boy magazines they had hidden & look at them because Crystal Smith from our local Kansas City, MO town was on the cover of the November Issue. Then from the park to church to attend CCD class where we learned about God, Jesus, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses & the 10 commandments that Mrs Griffin wrote in chalk on 2 slate tablets. Mom or dad would pick us up afterwords & would sell eggs from our farm out of the trunk of our car to other parents while there. I also remember the men waiting to pick kids up standing in a group complaining about the UAW strike that was going on & how USA automobiles were going down hill. Their new car engines were smoking, burning oil & fenders were rusting out. They talked politics every Wednesday & Sunday. All the farmers were happy that crop prices were going up then Nixon ended the Gold Standard & wanted to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Then corn prices dropped & did not go up again until the next year. I got a KC Chiefs football, jersey & helmet for Christmas & then our team the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl. Life was good then. On weekends we would ride horses, explore caves, swim & fish at the river, light bonfires to cook the fish we caught & sometimes camp there. I remember once we were picking mint leaves at the river before supper & I picked the wrong leaf & put it in my mouth & it burned & stung my tongue the rest of the night. There is a lot more from my memory at 5 years old that I don't have the time to go into but I defiantly do remember the politics, religion & culture from that time in my life.

 

[Sallow]

How does the State of Arizona overrule the State Of Hawaii on the legitimacy of Obama's birth in that state?

Its not one state versus another. Each state determines qualifications to be on the ballot, and if Arizona demands all candidates furnish a valid certified birth certificate it's none of Hawaii's business.

Bullshit.

It's one state vs. 49.

 

[Father Time]

just what we need... another birfer moron...

his birth was certified by the state of hawaii, freak boy...

there is no 'game changer' except in the fantasies of loons.

Members of the Anti-Birther Gestapo are way behind the times.
This story is all over the news.

When will people like you stop this senseless campaign to marginalize people who want answers?

when you stop being an embarrassment to humans..

bolded: what the **** is wrong with?Do you even know what would happen if there really was a gestapo? You wouldnt be here, you would be in a camp. the fact is your not, you never will be and the fact you are trying to say the "secret police" is an insult to anyone with intelligence.


go **** yourself.

His mind is so warped that he thinks being insulted and dismissed is akin to being rounded up or silenced by the government.

 

[Father Time]

just what we need... another birfer moron...

his birth was certified by the state of hawaii, freak boy...

there is no 'game changer' except in the fantasies of loons.

"Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012. "

Read more: Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

So you'll accept that there is a birth certificate, without actually seing same?

How wonderful to find you to be a person of faith!

There's too much proof to the contrary that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. They don't need to SEE the medical form detailing height, weight, birthmarks, etc., at birth. Ironically, the birfers are so insanely reactionary, they would probably try to claim it was a forgery even if that kind of document ever is produced for all the world to see. Don't you get it? These people aren't about to give up. If he were a white anglo, do you really believe this idiocy would be so relentlessly pursued?

Yes.

As the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding Bush prove.

Just ask a 9/11 "truther" about that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How does the State of Arizona overrule the State Of Hawaii on the legitimacy of Obama's birth in that state?

Its not one state versus another. Each state determines qualifications to be on the ballot, and if Arizona demands all candidates furnish a valid certified birth certificate it's none of Hawaii's business.

Bullshit.

It's one state vs. 49.

Exactly what is it you are afraid of? The left wing nuts on this board appear to be in a bit of a panic. If obama has a birth certificate then there should be no problem showing this to Arizona, and any other state that ask for proof. But if he do not campaign in Arizona, then there leaves plenty of room for doubt.

 

[gekaap]

Because Obama is President now, means that he complied with the laws as they were then. To remain President after 2012, he has to run again in a new campaign and a new election. Just because he's President now, doesn't "grandfather" him into compliance with new laws.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a challenge to the Arizona law and it would likely be successful. Not because Obama would be able to claim that the law wouldn't apply to him though, the law would have issues with requiring another state to include certain information on a birth certification beyond name of the parents, name of the child, and birth location. Requiring an attending physician is beyond logical requirements because not all people are born in the presence of a doctor. In addition as people get older those in attendance might not even be alive so requiring "witness" statements is also illogical.

I think you're missing the first step, second step structure of it. AZ cannot make any law about qualifications to be President. That power is the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Constitution. No change in constitutionally prescribed qualifications has happened between 2009 and now. Therefore, in a hypothetical case where Obama would be challenging AZ not allowing him on the ballot, as a civil action the burden of proof would be halfway on both parties. Obama would merely have to allege the possibility of injury, and present the legal argument that the federal government recognizes him as President now, therefore the government must be satisfied that he is a natural born citizen. His current Presidency becomes prima facia evidence. The burden would then switch to the state of AZ. Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, nor the power to police the matter of qualifications for a person to hold the office of President, they cannot claim that Obama must now conform to a new law or qualification requirements under such new law. They do not have the power to create a law of such a nature. Therefore, their burden would now become to prove to the court that they have a positive reason to doubt the citizenship of Obama.

 

[Jackson]

Its not one state versus another. Each state determines qualifications to be on the ballot, and if Arizona demands all candidates furnish a valid certified birth certificate it's none of Hawaii's business.

Bullshit.

It's one state vs. 49.

Exactly what is it you are afraid of? The left wing nuts on this board appear to be in a bit of a panic. If obama has a birth certificate then there should be no problem showing this to Arizona, and any other state that ask for proof. But if he do not campaign in Arizona, then there leaves plenty of room for doubt.

You're absolutely right, bigred. Not only will he not show it to Arizona, he said he will fight it in the courts! And it isn't just Arizona. Other states are joining in.

 

[Jackson]

Because Obama is President now, means that he complied with the laws as they were then. To remain President after 2012, he has to run again in a new campaign and a new election. Just because he's President now, doesn't "grandfather" him into compliance with new laws.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a challenge to the Arizona law and it would likely be successful. Not because Obama would be able to claim that the law wouldn't apply to him though, the law would have issues with requiring another state to include certain information on a birth certification beyond name of the parents, name of the child, and birth location. Requiring an attending physician is beyond logical requirements because not all people are born in the presence of a doctor. In addition as people get older those in attendance might not even be alive so requiring "witness" statements is also illogical.

I think you're missing the first step, second step structure of it. AZ cannot make any law about qualifications to be President. That power is the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Constitution. No change in constitutionally prescribed qualifications has happened between 2009 and now. Therefore, in a hypothetical case where Obama would be challenging AZ not allowing him on the ballot, as a civil action the burden of proof would be halfway on both parties. Obama would merely have to allege the possibility of injury, and present the legal argument that the federal government recognizes him as President now, therefore the government must be satisfied that he is a natural born citizen. His current Presidency becomes prima facia evidence. The burden would then switch to the state of AZ. Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, nor the power to police the matter of qualifications for a person to hold the office of President, they cannot claim that Obama must now conform to a new law or qualification requirements under such new law. They do not have the power to create a law of such a nature. Therefore, their burden would now become to prove to the court that they have a positive reason to doubt the citizenship of Obama.

I believe the part of your opinion is your error:

"Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, "

They are just reiterating the qualifications set out in the constitution.

Also what kind of injury could Obama prove by allowing the citizens see his bc?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because Obama is President now, means that he complied with the laws as they were then. To remain President after 2012, he has to run again in a new campaign and a new election. Just because he's President now, doesn't "grandfather" him into compliance with new laws.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a challenge to the Arizona law and it would likely be successful. Not because Obama would be able to claim that the law wouldn't apply to him though, the law would have issues with requiring another state to include certain information on a birth certification beyond name of the parents, name of the child, and birth location. Requiring an attending physician is beyond logical requirements because not all people are born in the presence of a doctor. In addition as people get older those in attendance might not even be alive so requiring "witness" statements is also illogical.

First of all let me pour you a cup of coffee as this may take a few minutes. I’ve got a Sumatra medium roast in a French Press. Excellent in the morning with a splash of real cream and a teaspoon of clover honey.

I think you're missing the first step, second step structure of it. AZ cannot make any law about qualifications to be President. That power is the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Constitution. No change in constitutionally prescribed qualifications has happened between 2009 and now.

No I don’t think I’m missing the first step, second step structure. Arizona’s argument is that they are not making “new law” about qualifications for President. They are defining criteria whereby prospective candidates gain access to Arizona’s ballots. While the qualifications for President are a Constitutional issue, the process of party candidacy selection and the process of ballot production has always been within the purview of the states except where clearly defined in the Constitution. For example a State cannot deny women the right to vote per the 19th Amendment and they cannot deny the vote to those that are at least 18 years old per the 26th Amendment.

Arizona’s position will be that they are not changing the law in an attempt to usurp the Constitution, but are implementing the requirements of the Constitution itself.

Therefore, in a hypothetical case where Obama would be challenging AZ not allowing him on the ballot, as a civil action the burden of proof would be halfway on both parties.

This is fundamentally the beauty for the new law for the citizens of birtherstan. For them it’s a win/win no matter what happens.

See in the past they have been unable to get past the standing requirement in the courts. I wouldn’t put it past (and of course this is just my opinion) them, do develop their own conspiracy by creating a law specifically for the purpose of generating State level action in the courts. In the dozens and dozens of cases that have gone before the courts and been shot down, it’s always been a third party challenging Obama. This creates a situation where it will be Obama challenging a State. As such Obama will have standing and clearly the State will have standing since it will be State Officers (probably the Arizona Secretary of State) that will be named in the suit in the official capacity.

Birthers will be creaming in their jeans under the prospect of having a case proceed where they will have standing. See once the case is allowed to proceed, then the State of Arizona will have subpoena authority. They will be able to subpoena birth records directly from the State of Hawaii, since it would qualify as an ongoing legal action the state (under it’s own laws) would have to comply as it would be outside the privacy restrictions of the Hawaiian State Code.

Obama would merely have to allege the possibility of injury, and present the legal argument that the federal government recognizes him as President now, therefore the government must be satisfied that he is a natural born citizen. His current Presidency becomes prima facia evidence.

Prima facia evidence is accepted as true only as long as it is not countered with evidence to the contrary. Just because you currently occupy a position, is not prima facia evidence they you are eligible to occupy the position in the future.

I will bet you the argument will be made that the Secretaries of State and the Congress did not exercise due diligence in the previous election. All that would be need it a sworn statement from each State noting that they did not receive an physical copy of the birth certificate, nor did they request one directly from Hawaii, that they merely took the parties application at face value with no further investigation. Same applies to Congress, there were questions during the campaign, yet all it took was one Senator and one Representative to object to the Electoral College vote and the law would have required each house to adjourn and the objection investigated. Since no objection was raised, Congress did not follow due diligence.

The burden would then switch to the state of AZ. Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, nor the power to police the matter of qualifications for a person to hold the office of President, they cannot claim that Obama must now conform to a new law or qualification requirements under such new law.

Arizona’s argument will be that it is not the creation of “new law”, it is the codification of existing understanding law. Neither the Constitution or Federal Law actually define Natural Born Citizen, in addition there has never been a Supreme Court case that defines Natural Born Citizen in a case specifically about Presidential eligibility. To achieve that definition at the federal level it will take one of two things: (a) Congressional action to codify it in the United States Code, or (b) court action resulting in a ruling by the SCOTUS which defines it in terms of Constructional Case Law. Since the Arizona legislature can’t do “A”, it appears they are writing the criteria for appearing on the ballot to force a situation under “B”.

They do not have the power to create a law of such a nature. Therefore, their burden would now become to prove to the court that they have a positive reason to doubt the citizenship of Obama.

Actually they do have the power to define the criteria for who appears on a State ballot, that criteria can be NO MORE restrictive then that defined in the Constitution, however they can define ballot criteria intended to comply with the Constitution. For example, Arizona can define a criteria to be on the ballot where someone has to submit documented evidence they have been a resident of the United States for 14-years. They cannot set the criteria though that someone has to be a resident for 20-years to be eligible to appear on the ballot.


**********************

Personally I think the affidavits from the attending physician and witnesses requirement will be thrown out (in court) as an undue burden given that the candidate is required to supply prima fascia evidence in the form of a State provided valid birth certificate. It will be thrown out under the logic that the State supplied documents are the official records, if considered to be fraudulent – it will be the requirement of someone making a challenged to disprove that evidence.

As I said, IMHO, if this law passes it will be a win/win for the citizens of birtherstan. Obama will do one of four things:

4. Request Hawaii issue a long-form birth certificate. In which case the win because they got what they wanted. Now if they deny his placement on the ballot because of his fathers citizenship, that will be a whole other can of worms.

3. Request birth document from Hawaii, which will be a Certification of Live Birth, if Arizona denies use of the official birth document from Hawaii, then there will be issues which will have to be addressed in court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

2. Blow off Arizona primary and election and don’t participate. Political suicide and the GOP, birther or not, will make huge political hay of the fact that Obama is evading compliance with the law.

1. And the #1 Possibility is… And I wouldn’t put that past the Spender-In-Chief is that Obama is laughing his stupid head off at all the focus being generated (in some circles) on his birth certificate knowing full well that he can supply such State issued birth documents. That his plan is to wait until right before the general election, and under the guise of statesmanship and patriotism to provide such a document. The result would be a political feeding frenzy by the Main Stream Media regarding those from birtherstan and of course it would taint the GOP candidate (whether they were a birther or not). Obama would expect a bump in the voting and a slump for his primary opponent. Remember he would not expect the votes of birthers anyway, what he would be hoping for it to paint the entire GOP in a negative light thereby pulling more of the moderate voters away from the GOP.

The problem is that the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is used in the Constitution, but there is no definitive definition as it applies to Presidency (despite what some may claim).

• Does it mean “born a citizen” as some think?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” based on the bloodline of the father as Vattal stated in the Law of Nations without regard to the soil?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” as in “born a subject” as described under British Common Law by Sir Blackstone without regard to the soil as applicable at the time of the Constitution and which would be understood by the founders?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” to two citizen parents as stated by Congress in the 1790 Act? (An act that was later superseded in 1795 but in which the verbage was changed with no indication if it was an omission or a conscious intent to change the definition.)

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Arizona’s position will be that they are not changing the law in an attempt to usurp the Constitution, but are implementing the requirements of the Constitution itself.

I believe the part of your opinion is your error:

"Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, "

They are just reiterating the qualifications set out in the constitution.

Also what kind of injury could Obama prove by allowing the citizens see his bc?

OK, I read this after making my last post.

I hate to say it, but I told you.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because Obama is President now, means that he complied with the laws as they were then. To remain President after 2012, he has to run again in a new campaign and a new election. Just because he's President now, doesn't "grandfather" him into compliance with new laws.

Don't get me wrong, I think there would be a challenge to the Arizona law and it would likely be successful. Not because Obama would be able to claim that the law wouldn't apply to him though, the law would have issues with requiring another state to include certain information on a birth certification beyond name of the parents, name of the child, and birth location. Requiring an attending physician is beyond logical requirements because not all people are born in the presence of a doctor. In addition as people get older those in attendance might not even be alive so requiring "witness" statements is also illogical.

First of all let me pour you a cup of coffee as this may take a few minutes. I’ve got a Sumatra medium roast in a French Press. Excellent in the morning with a splash of real cream and a teaspoon of clover honey.

I think you're missing the first step, second step structure of it. AZ cannot make any law about qualifications to be President. That power is the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Constitution. No change in constitutionally prescribed qualifications has happened between 2009 and now.

No I don’t think I’m missing the first step, second step structure. Arizona’s argument is that they are not making “new law” about qualifications for President. They are defining criteria whereby prospective candidates gain access to Arizona’s ballots. While the qualifications for President are a Constitutional issue, the process of party candidacy selection and the process of ballot production has always been within the purview of the states except where clearly defined in the Constitution. For example a State cannot deny women the right to vote per the 19th Amendment and they cannot deny the vote to those that are at least 18 years old per the 26th Amendment.

Arizona’s position will be that they are not changing the law in an attempt to usurp the Constitution, but are implementing the requirements of the Constitution itself.




This is fundamentally the beauty for the new law for the citizens of birtherstan. For them it’s a win/win no matter what happens.

See in the past they have been unable to get past the standing requirement in the courts. I wouldn’t put it past (and of course this is just my opinion) them, do develop their own conspiracy by creating a law specifically for the purpose of generating State level action in the courts. In the dozens and dozens of cases that have gone before the courts and been shot down, it’s always been a third party challenging Obama. This creates a situation where it will be Obama challenging a State. As such Obama will have standing and clearly the State will have standing since it will be State Officers (probably the Arizona Secretary of State) that will be named in the suit in the official capacity.

Birthers will be creaming in their jeans under the prospect of having a case proceed where they will have standing. See once the case is allowed to proceed, then the State of Arizona will have subpoena authority. They will be able to subpoena birth records directly from the State of Hawaii, since it would qualify as an ongoing legal action the state (under it’s own laws) would have to comply as it would be outside the privacy restrictions of the Hawaiian State Code.




Prima facia evidence is accepted as true only as long as it is not countered with evidence to the contrary. Just because you currently occupy a position, is not prima facia evidence they you are eligible to occupy the position in the future.

I will bet you the argument will be made that the Secretaries of State and the Congress did not exercise due diligence in the previous election. All that would be need it a sworn statement from each State noting that they did not receive an physical copy of the birth certificate, nor did they request one directly from Hawaii, that they merely took the parties application at face value with no further investigation. Same applies to Congress, there were questions during the campaign, yet all it took was one Senator and one Representative to object to the Electoral College vote and the law would have required each house to adjourn and the objection investigated. Since no objection was raised, Congress did not follow due diligence.

The burden would then switch to the state of AZ. Because AZ does not have the power to prescribe new qualifications to hold the office of President, nor the power to police the matter of qualifications for a person to hold the office of President, they cannot claim that Obama must now conform to a new law or qualification requirements under such new law.

Arizona’s argument will be that it is not the creation of “new law”, it is the codification of existing understanding law. Neither the Constitution or Federal Law actually define Natural Born Citizen, in addition there has never been a Supreme Court case that defines Natural Born Citizen in a case specifically about Presidential eligibility. To achieve that definition at the federal level it will take one of two things: (a) Congressional action to codify it in the United States Code, or (b) court action resulting in a ruling by the SCOTUS which defines it in terms of Constructional Case Law. Since the Arizona legislature can’t do “A”, it appears they are writing the criteria for appearing on the ballot to force a situation under “B”.

They do not have the power to create a law of such a nature. Therefore, their burden would now become to prove to the court that they have a positive reason to doubt the citizenship of Obama.

Actually they do have the power to define the criteria for who appears on a State ballot, that criteria can be NO MORE restrictive then that defined in the Constitution, however they can define ballot criteria intended to comply with the Constitution. For example, Arizona can define a criteria to be on the ballot where someone has to submit documented evidence they have been a resident of the United States for 14-years. They cannot set the criteria though that someone has to be a resident for 20-years to be eligible to appear on the ballot.


**********************

Personally I think the affidavits from the attending physician and witnesses requirement will be thrown out (in court) as an undue burden given that the candidate is required to supply prima fascia evidence in the form of a State provided valid birth certificate. It will be thrown out under the logic that the State supplied documents are the official records, if considered to be fraudulent – it will be the requirement of someone making a challenged to disprove that evidence.

As I said, IMHO, if this law passes it will be a win/win for the citizens of birtherstan. Obama will do one of four things:

4. Request Hawaii issue a long-form birth certificate. In which case the win because they got what they wanted. Now if they deny his placement on the ballot because of his fathers citizenship, that will be a whole other can of worms.

3. Request birth document from Hawaii, which will be a Certification of Live Birth, if Arizona denies use of the official birth document from Hawaii, then there will be issues which will have to be addressed in court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

2. Blow off Arizona primary and election and don’t participate. Political suicide and the GOP, birther or not, will make huge political hay of the fact that Obama is evading compliance with the law.

1. And the #1 Possibility is… And I wouldn’t put that past the Spender-In-Chief is that Obama is laughing his stupid head off at all the focus being generated (in some circles) on his birth certificate knowing full well that he can supply such State issued birth documents. That his plan is to wait until right before the general election, and under the guise of statesmanship and patriotism to provide such a document. The result would be a political feeding frenzy by the Main Stream Media regarding those from birtherstan and of course it would taint the GOP candidate (whether they were a birther or not). Obama would expect a bump in the voting and a slump for his primary opponent. Remember he would not expect the votes of birthers anyway, what he would be hoping for it to paint the entire GOP in a negative light thereby pulling more of the moderate voters away from the GOP.

The problem is that the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is used in the Constitution, but there is no definitive definition as it applies to Presidency (despite what some may claim).

• Does it mean “born a citizen” as some think?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” based on the bloodline of the father as Vattal stated in the Law of Nations without regard to the soil?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” as in “born a subject” as described under British Common Law by Sir Blackstone without regard to the soil as applicable at the time of the Constitution and which would be understood by the founders?
  
• Does it mean “born a citizen” to two citizen parents as stated by Congress in the 1790 Act? (An act that was later superseded in 1795 but in which the verbage was changed with no indication if it was an omission or a conscious intent to change the definition.)

>>>>

I think a state can set any standard to show proof of citizenship or personal history.

 

[rightwinger]

You think wrong.......

Arizona can set standards for what proof it takes to be born in Arizona, they can't set the standard for Hawaii

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You think wrong.......

Arizona can set standards for what proof it takes to be born in Arizona, they can't set the standard for Hawaii

I said they can set standards for their board of elections any state can do it.

 

[rightwinger]

You think wrong.......

Arizona can set standards for what proof it takes to be born in Arizona, they can't set the standard for Hawaii

I said they can set standards for their board of elections any state can do it.

They can't negate the standards for recording birth of another state

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You think wrong.......

Arizona can set standards for what proof it takes to be born in Arizona, they can't set the standard for Hawaii

I said they can set standards for their board of elections any state can do it.

They can't negate the standards for recording birth of another state

They can set any standard they want to they did it with John McCain. He had to show his long form. What is your state of panic for?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think a state can set any standard to show proof of citizenship or personal history.

For their own documents of course, however under the Constitution (Article IV Section I) them must accept the standard used by another State unless those public acts are addressed by the Federal Congress.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said they can set standards for their board of elections any state can do it.

They can't negate the standards for recording birth of another state

They can set any standard they want to they did it with John McCain. He had to show his long form. What is your state of panic for?

Please link to evidence of any State requiring John McCain to present his long form birth certificate as a requirement to be placed on the ballot in that state.


Psst - McCains long form was presented in court, but he didn't supply it. It was obtained by the Hollister and presented to the court, not by McCain. BTW - that case was dismissed because Hollister lacked standing.




>>>>