Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[bigrebnc1775]

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.




>>>>

So McCain was forced to show his long form through the court, but obama doesn't have to. kind of a double standard would you say?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.




>>>>

So McCain was forced to show his long form through the court, but obama doesn't have to. kind of a double standard would you say?

What part of "was presented in court, but he didn't supply it" was not clear? The claimant obtained a copy from Panama and presented it to the court, McCain did not supply it. So again, McCain was (a) not forced to provide it in court, and (b) did not provide it to any State as apart of election law to get on the ballot.


McCain's case was dismissed for lack of standing by the claimant, just like Obama - where is the double standard?


The funny thing is that the long form shows that McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil as it showed he was born in Colon, Panama - not on the military base and not in the canal zone.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.




>>>>

So McCain was forced to show his long form through the court, but obama doesn't have to. kind of a double standard would you say?

What part of "was presented in court, but he didn't supply it" was not clear? The claimant obtained a copy from Panama and presented it to the court, McCain did not supply it. So again, McCain was (a) not forced to provide it in court, and (b) did not provide it to any State as apart of election law to get on the ballot.


McCain's case was dismissed for lack of standing by the claimant, just like Obama - where is the double standard?


The funny thing is that the long form shows that McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil as it showed he was born in Colon, Panama - not on the military base and not in the canal zone.



>>>>

What part of going to court do you fail you comprehend? McCain did go to court because he wanted to he was foreced there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.




>>>>

So McCain was forced to show his long form through the court, but obama doesn't have to. kind of a double standard would you say?

What part of "was presented in court, but he didn't supply it" was not clear? The claimant obtained a copy from Panama and presented it to the court, McCain did not supply it. So again, McCain was (a) not forced to provide it in court, and (b) did not provide it to any State as apart of election law to get on the ballot.


McCain's case was dismissed for lack of standing by the claimant, just like Obama - where is the double standard?


The funny thing is that the long form shows that McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil as it showed he was born in Colon, Panama - not on the military base and not in the canal zone.



>>>>

What part of going to court do you fail you comprehend? McCain did go to court because he wanted to he was foreced there.

What part of you said that McCain was "forced to show his long form", do you fail to comprehend. No he wasn't. McCain never provided a long form to the court nor was he "forced" to do so as part of qualifying under any state law to be the Republican candidate on the ballot.


Now you are say, "well he was forced to go to court". OK, ya he was, but that was not your original claim. You are moving the goal posts. Your original implication was that McCain had to show his birth certificate to get on a state ballot. Please provide us with evidence that McCain was forced to provide a birth certificate in any State to get on the ballot.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part of "was presented in court, but he didn't supply it" was not clear? The claimant obtained a copy from Panama and presented it to the court, McCain did not supply it. So again, McCain was (a) not forced to provide it in court, and (b) did not provide it to any State as apart of election law to get on the ballot.


McCain's case was dismissed for lack of standing by the claimant, just like Obama - where is the double standard?


The funny thing is that the long form shows that McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil as it showed he was born in Colon, Panama - not on the military base and not in the canal zone.



>>>>

What part of going to court do you fail you comprehend? McCain did go to court because he wanted to he was foreced there.

What part of you said that McCain was "forced to show his long form", do you fail to comprehend. No he wasn't. McCain never provided a long form to the court nor was he "forced" to do so as part of qualifying under any state law to be the Republican candidate on the ballot.


Now you are say, "well he was forced to go to court". OK, ya he was, but that was not your original claim. You are moving the goal posts. Your original implication was that McCain had to show his birth certificate to get on a state ballot. Please provide us with evidence that McCain was forced to provide a birth certificate in any State to get on the ballot.


>>>>

He went to court about his birth certificate yes or no?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.




>>>>

So McCain was forced to show his long form through the court, but obama doesn't have to. kind of a double standard would you say?

What part of "was presented in court, but he didn't supply it" was not clear? The claimant obtained a copy from Panama and presented it to the court, McCain did not supply it. So again, McCain was (a) not forced to provide it in court, and (b) did not provide it to any State as apart of election law to get on the ballot.


McCain's case was dismissed for lack of standing by the claimant, just like Obama - where is the double standard?


The funny thing is that the long form shows that McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil as it showed he was born in Colon, Panama - not on the military base and not in the canal zone.



>>>>

What part of going to court do you fail you comprehend? McCain did go to court because he wanted to he was foreced there.

What part of you said that McCain was "forced to show his long form", do you fail to comprehend. No he wasn't. McCain never provided a long form to the court nor was he "forced" to do so as part of qualifying under any state law to be the Republican candidate on the ballot.


Now you are say, "well he was forced to go to court". OK, ya he was, but that was not your original claim. You are moving the goal posts. Your original implication was that McCain had to show his birth certificate to get on a state ballot. Please provide us with evidence that McCain was forced to provide a birth certificate in any State to get on the ballot.


>>>>

He went to court about his birth certificate yes or no?

Yes.


Did he supply the birth certificate to the court yes or no?

Did he supply a birth certificate to any State as part of the requirements as the Republican candidate for President yes or no?




Now, I answered your question, lets see if you will answer mine or if you will deflect. BTW - I kind of like this Quote in a Quote feature, I noticed you snipped out the part where you said a state set a standard that John McCain was forced to supply a BC, which is what started this conversation. I replaced it for you so people could see the progression. No thanks necessary.


ETA: Just realized, it's Hollander v. McCain, not Hollister. Thank you for your time.


>>>>

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hawaii said so. That's been good enough for the courts. A state law on the subject isn't going to change a thing.

It will in that state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

2. I also think that passing a law specifically targeting one individual position is suspect in terms of partisan hackery.

Only the Presidency has a constitutionally-mandated natural-born citizen requirement.
Of course, a state could have this requirement for anyone tha runs for any office, but that's not the issue.

4. There has never been a Supreme Court case which directly concerned Presidential eligibility in terms of NBC status.

So?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part of you said that McCain was "forced to show his long form", do you fail to comprehend. No he wasn't. McCain never provided a long form to the court nor was he "forced" to do so as part of qualifying under any state law to be the Republican candidate on the ballot.


Now you are say, "well he was forced to go to court". OK, ya he was, but that was not your original claim. You are moving the goal posts. Your original implication was that McCain had to show his birth certificate to get on a state ballot. Please provide us with evidence that McCain was forced to provide a birth certificate in any State to get on the ballot.


>>>>

He went to court about his birth certificate yes or no?

Yes.


Did he supply the birth certificate to the court yes or no?

Did he supply a birth certificate to any State as part of the requirements as the Republican candidate for President yes or no?




Now, I answered your question, lets see if you will answer mine or if you will deflect. BTW - I kind of like this Quote in a Quote feature, I noticed you snipped out the part where you said a state set a standard that John McCain was forced to supply a BC, which is what started this conversation. I replaced it for you so people could see the progression. No thanks necessary.


ETA: Just realized, it's Hollander v. McCain, not Hollister. Thank you for your time.


>>>>

No he did not supply it but it was a forced issue that had tobe handled in court, even if the judge ruled the plabit had not grounds.

 

[kaz]

It has nothing to do with people who want answers, but with people who already have THE answer they want, and refuse to accept evidence to the contrary

Birthers are idiots. Obama is President and there is plenty to oppose him for, that's the least of my issues with him. Question though if you're consistent. Do you find it equally as idiotic the Democratic party and liberal media continuing to go after W when Rather's documents were proven to be forgeries or is it just different when it's a Democrat? They didn't even blink. Talk about having "THE answer they want." I'm consistent, are you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

2. I also think that passing a law specifically targeting one individual position is suspect in terms of partisan hackery.

Only the Presidency has a constitutionally-mandated natural-born citizen requirement.
Of course, a state could have this requirement for anyone tha runs for any office, but that's not the issue.

Yes they could and which Maine is doing with their attempted law. Making the requirement to submit supporting eligibility documents for all elected positions. A much better approach IMHO.

4. There has never been a Supreme Court case which directly concerned Presidential eligibility in terms of NBC status.

So?

With no federal law on the books and with no SCOTUS decision directly addressing the Constitutional definition of NBC, there is no definition for the State to apply. Since the Congress has failed to define it under Federal statute, then the State is free to define it as they please. Ultimately that State definition of a Constitutional item is likely to be challenged and addressed by the SCOTUS.



>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

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

No, they can't but that really is not the point. they can require that the documents are furnished that prove his birth within that state though. As far as whether or not it MUST be a long form is another matter. I have not read the actual text of the law in question but it does require more than what the state of Hawaii furnishes as proof of citizenship then there will be a problem for Arizona. I do believe that if it is asking for documents that Hawaii DOES issue as proof of citizenship it will be another story. Does Hawaii not issue a long form birth certificate and are you able to obtain a long form from that state?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No he did not supply it but it was a forced issue that had tobe handled in court, even if the judge ruled the plabit had not grounds.

So you can now retract you earlier implication that McCain was forced to supply a birth certificate as part of the process to be placed on a State ballot.


Good.


Glad we could clear that up.



>>>>

 

[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

No, they can't but that really is not the point. they can require that the documents are furnished that prove his birth within that state though. As far as whether or not it MUST be a long form is another matter. I have not read the actual text of the law in question but it does require more than what the state of Hawaii furnishes as proof of citizenship then there will be a problem for Arizona. I do believe that if it is asking for documents that Hawaii DOES issue as proof of citizenship it will be another story. Does Hawaii not issue a long form birth certificate and are you able to obtain a long form from that state?

The State of Hawaii issues a COLB which lists the parents, the child, and the birth location. All that is needed to establish citizenship (and really all that is needed to establish Natural Born Citizenship). It does not include the Doctor, Hospital, or witnesses and it doesn't need to as none are a factor in determining citizenship at birth nor are they a factor needed to determine Natural Born Citizen no matter what definition you use.


>>>>

 

[M14 Shooter]

2. I also think that passing a law specifically targeting one individual position is suspect in terms of partisan hackery.

Only the Presidency has a constitutionally-mandated natural-born citizen requirement.
Of course, a state could have this requirement for anyone tha runs for any office, but that's not the issue.

Yes they could and which Maine is doing with their attempted law. Making the requirement to submit supporting eligibility documents for all elected positions. A much better approach IMHO.

Well, that's fine - but the fact that the possible AZ stattute is more limited in scope doesnt invalidate it.

4. There has never been a Supreme Court case which directly concerned Presidential eligibility in terms of NBC status.

So?

With no federal law on the books and with no SCOTUS decision directly addressing the Constitutional definition of NBC, there is no definition for the State to apply. Since the Congress has failed to define it under Federal statute, then the State is free to define it as they please. Ultimately that State definition of a Constitutional item is likely to be challenged and addressed by the SCOTUS

Federal statute that defines NBC
United States Code: Browse Titles Page

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No he did not supply it but it was a forced issue that had tobe handled in court, even if the judge ruled the plabit had not grounds.

So you can now retract you earlier implication that McCain was forced to supply a birth certificate as part of the process to be placed on a State ballot.


Good.


Glad we could clear that up.



>>>>

And **** you I am not retracting a motherfucking thing. Since McCain did not freely go to court he was forced so kiss my ass.

 

[Sheldon]

No he did not supply it but it was a forced issue that had tobe handled in court, even if the judge ruled the plabit had not grounds.

So you can now retract you earlier implication that McCain was forced to supply a birth certificate as part of the process to be placed on a State ballot.


Good.


Glad we could clear that up.



>>>>

And **** you I am not retracting a motherfucking thing. Since McCain did not freely go to court he was forced so kiss my ass.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

No, they can't but that really is not the point. they can require that the documents are furnished that prove his birth within that state though. As far as whether or not it MUST be a long form is another matter. I have not read the actual text of the law in question but it does require more than what the state of Hawaii furnishes as proof of citizenship then there will be a problem for Arizona. I do believe that if it is asking for documents that Hawaii DOES issue as proof of citizenship it will be another story. Does Hawaii not issue a long form birth certificate and are you able to obtain a long form from that state?

The State of Hawaii issues a COLB which lists the parents, the child, and the birth location. All that is needed to establish citizenship (and really all that is needed to establish Natural Born Citizenship). It does not include the Doctor, Hospital, or witnesses and it doesn't need to as none are a factor in determining citizenship at birth nor are they a factor needed to determine Natural Born Citizen no matter what definition you use.


>>>>

So, you are saying that they do not issue a long form birth certificate? If they do, I fail to see how AZ requiring the form is trampling Hawaii at all. If they do not or do not issue copies then I cannot see how AZ could legally require it. Even if the COLB is proof of citizenship in Hawaii that does not mean that another state could not require a specific document that is also used by Hawaii to establish proof of citizenship. As you said earlier, there are exceptions in the information that can be listed because people are not always born in a hospital but if a birth certificate is issued to all people in a given state as well as a COLB I cannot see the problem of requiring one document or the other. As I said, I have not read the actual text of the law though and if there is no provisions for cases where a birth certificate was never issued and yet the individual retains legal citizenship with other proof then the law has no future.

 

[rightwinger]

I predict that President Obama will present everything he has provided up till now regarding his birth to the State of Arizona and they will find it to perfectly acceptable.


Why wouldn't they? Do you think they are a bunch of birthers?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assume for the moment that The Obama is found to NOT be a Naturally-Born Citizen.

Will the liberals press for His removal from office?