Arizona passes birther bill(Obama will not campaign there now)

[aGameOfThrones]

Arizona’s state Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that will require presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before they can be included on a state ballot.

Prompted by challenges to President Barack Obama’s citizenship and, therefore, eligibility for the job, the bill passed 20-9 in the Senate, and now moves to the state House for a final vote before heading to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53141.html

 

[libertybrewcity]

about time they pass this.

can obama get around this if by chance he doesn't have a long form birth certificate?

The legislation, a revised version of an earlier bill that would have required each candidate to provide a “long-form” birth certificate, also gives candidates the option of instead providing two of the following documents: an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, a postpartum hospital record for the mother or an early census record.

 

[Aratus]

the bill has a reasonable flexibility to it? AZ's governor will most likely sign
this bill into law and most likely this will directly answer the controversy???

 

[reillym]

Just think of all the better things they could have been doing rather than perpetuating this idiotic, racist, notion. Drop it. He's american. He has a birth certificate.

 

[Krugerrand]

Just think of all the better things they could have been doing rather than perpetuating this idiotic, racist, notion. Drop it. He's american. He has a birth certificate.

I think it's a brilliant tactic. They aren't perpetuating anything. It's put up or shut up - then there's nothing else to discuss.

 

[virgil47]

Unfortunately this law and all other state laws that are the same will be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. They will simply rule that it is the U.S. Congresses job to certify his eligibility and that the states have no standing.

 

[Krugerrand]

Unfortunately this law and all other state laws that are the same will be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. They will simply rule that it is the U.S. Congresses job to certify his eligibility and that the states have no standing.

I'm not so sure SCOTUS will go that way. Plus, it would look very bad for Obama to take this to court. he'd be better served forgoing AZ - which he stands to lose anyway.

 

[hillbilly123069]

You realize that the media is that which pull the strings of what we see. Democrats say we dont have the rights to demand lawful compliance to the US Constitution, our nations highest law??? We could give the media chain a big yank to get it's attention. They don't consider the average citizen to be any consequence. If they think their welfare is in question, they would tow the line with a little more integrity if they think they have more to lose than their job. Career and credibility is what I mean to say for those that would think I'm stirring a mob.

 

[virgil47]

I'm not so sure SCOTUS will go that way. Plus, it would look very bad for Obama to take this to court. he'd be better served forgoing AZ - which he stands to lose anyway.

Obama is not in the least concerned with his image. The only thing he is concerned with is completing his agenda. If we as citizens have no standing to demand proof of his citizenship then it follows that the states do not have standing as the states are simply an aggregate of citizens that live in a particular area. The constitution plainly states that it is the congresses responsibility to determine if a candidate is eligible to be President. There does not appear to be any legal means to force the congress to do its job.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Unfortunately this law and all other state laws that are the same will be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. They will simply rule that it is the U.S. Congresses job to certify his eligibility and that the states have no standing.

Wrong. That would be like saying they have no right to determine how their electors are chosen, a right of states that is specifically affirmed in the Constitution. States definitely have standing to specify how a presidential candidate can get on their ballot. The state is not certifying his eligibility, just requiring to see proof that it HAS been certified. It puts the issue back where it belongs, in Barry's lap---it's HIS job or burden to evidence his eligibility, not for others to prove a negative. The more states that follow in doing this, the more inexcusable Obama's inability to confirm his status will become.

 

[Acala]

woohoo. The LEAST important aspect of the entire Constitution maybe vindicated. So the next puppet in line will have a birth certificate. happy days. sigh.

 

[virgil47]

Wrong. That would be like saying they have no right to determine how their electors are chosen, a right of states that is specifically affirmed in the Constitution. States definitely have standing to specify how a presidential candidate can get on their ballot. The state is not certifying his eligibility, just requiring to see proof that it HAS been certified. It puts the issue back where it belongs, in Barry's lap---it's HIS job or burden to evidence his eligibility, not for others to prove a negative. The more states that follow in doing this, the more inexcusable Obama's inability to confirm his status will become.

The rights of the people are also confirmed in the Constitution but are ignored by the courts. The only proof that the congress must provide to the states is that it believes a candidate to be eligible. This is what was done in 2008. If the states had an actual legal and enforcible right to demand hard evidence of a candidates eligibilty it would already have been done.

 

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately this law and all other state laws that are the same will be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. They will simply rule that it is the U.S. Congresses job to certify his eligibility and that the states have no standing.

Umm....no. States can set their own rules on ballot access. That's why it's difficult for third parties to get on in some states and not difficult in other states.

 

[jmdrake]

The rights of the people are also confirmed in the Constitution but are ignored by the courts. The only proof that the congress must provide to the states is that it believes a candidate to be eligible. This is what was done in 2008. If the states had an actual legal and enforcible right to demand hard evidence of a candidates eligibilty it would already have been done.

It wasn't done before because it wasn't an issue before. The Supreme Court typically won't even hear ballot access cases.

 

[specsaregood]

about time they pass this.
can obama get around this if by chance he doesn't have a long form birth certificate?

The legislation, a revised version of an earlier bill that would have required each candidate to provide a “long-form” birth certificate, also gives candidates the option of instead providing two of the following documents: an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, a postpartum hospital record for the mother or an early census record.

3 of those options could easily exist even if somebody was born outside the country.

 

[Johnnymac]

Ollama will come up with some botched bullshit birth cert. by that time, mark my words.

 

[Krugerrand]

The rights of the people are also confirmed in the Constitution but are ignored by the courts. The only proof that the congress must provide to the states is that it believes a candidate to be eligible. This is what was done in 2008. If the states had an actual legal and enforcible right to demand hard evidence of a candidates eligibilty it would already have been done.

I'm not sure where you're getting this Constitution information . Why would Congress provide anything to the states about a candidate?

 

[virgil47]

Umm....no. States can set their own rules on ballot access. That's why it's difficult for third parties to get on in some states and not difficult in other states.

True to an extent. I do not believe a state can deny a candidate of a major political party. Third parties are a different story. You see if a republican leaning state could deny access to the ballot by a democratic challenger it would assure a republican win and vice versa. I believe that is called electioneering and is a federal crime. It all boils down to whos job it is to determine eligibility of a presidential candidate and according to the constitution that responsibility lies with the U.S. congress.

 

[Krugerrand]

Obama is not in the least concerned with his image. The only thing he is concerned with is completing his agenda. If we as citizens have no standing to demand proof of his citizenship then it follows that the states do not have standing as the states are simply an aggregate of citizens that live in a particular area. The constitution plainly states that it is the congresses responsibility to determine if a candidate is eligible to be President. There does not appear to be any legal means to force the congress to do its job.

Obama's image is the only thing he has. There are powers bigger than Obama that call his shots. Obama needs them. They don't need Obama - then can control somebody else just as much.

If it states it plainly, I can't find it.

 

[Krugerrand]

True to an extent. I do not believe a state can deny a candidate of a major political party. Third parties are a different story. You see if a republican leaning state could deny access to the ballot by a democratic challenger it would assure a republican win and vice versa. I believe that is called electioneering and is a federal crime. It all boils down to whos job it is to determine eligibility of a presidential candidate and according to the constitution that responsibility lies with the U.S. congress.

where?