Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law

[carpro]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489

Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law
Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again

It could be a game-changer.

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am not sure that a collection of 50 states want to enter into this kind of quagmire.

Will every state now be required to prove their driver's licensing laws before a person from one state can drive in another?

Will states have to prove their marriage requirements before a couple married in one state can be recognised as married in another?

The State of Hawaii has certified that President Obama was born there in 1961, making him a natural born citizen. The only documentation needed to prove that is for the state of his birth to verify. The certification of births varies from state to state. The proposal seems to require a mandated national standard of verification of birth status.

I am a strong state's righter. If Hawaii says he was born there that is good enough for me.

States have a long and satisfactory record of recognising situations like this from the other states. I don't think I want to see that change.

 

[targus]

It could be a game-changer.

Game changer is right.

Not just Arizona but Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas too ! :thumbsup:

 

[Ruiz]

I am not sure that a collection of 50 states want to enter into this kind of quagmire.

Will every state now be required to prove their driver's licensing laws before a person from one state can drive in another?

Will states have to prove their marriage requirements before a couple married in one state can be recognised as married in another?

The State of Hawaii has certified that President Obama was born there in 1961, making him a natural born citizen. The only documentation needed to prove that is for the state of his birth to verify. The certification of births varies from state to state. The proposal seems to require a mandated national standard of verification of birth status.

I am a strong state's righter. If Hawaii says he was born there that is good enough for me.

States have a long and satisfactory record of recognising situations like this from the other states. I don't think I want to see that change.

I agree with you in part. I do not like the birther movement. However, each candidate must register in each individual state already (unlike a Driver's license or marriage license). To be honest, I think this is a good idea if it were not based upon people trying to attack Obama on this issue. If it happened 4 years ago, no one would have said a word and it would pass easily. Yet, the elephant in the room is Obama, which is the reason I hesitate about the new law.

However, I think it could be a good law... if it were not a reactionary law.

 

[targus]

Will every state now be required to prove their driver's licensing laws before a person from one state can drive in another?

A more accurate comparison would be "will every state require a driver to have a license in order to drive?"

And yes, all states require that you have an actual driver's license in your possession in order to drive. A note from some employee of the other state saying that you have a license but that they can't find it is not sufficient.

 

[carpro]

.

I am a strong state's righter.

Doesn't sound like it.

I like the law and believe it should apply to all 50 states. Birth status is so easy to prove. Why not do so?

It applies to everyone, and no one with nothing to hide would even consider spending millions of dollars to keep their birth records hidden.

 

[KenH]

Interesting scenario this could create:

This issue causes President Obama to not run for re-election which results in Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, then winning the general election, and we have President Hillary Clinton as of noon on January 20, 2013.

 

[carpro]

Why would it cause Obama not to run?

He should have nothing to fear.

 

[just-want-peace]

Barring a direct intervention from God Himself, I frankly see this nation as doomed to pass from a world power/benefactor to a 3rd world status.

If He has mercy on us, we may be spared and given another chance in '12 - if not, then it's immaterial whether the "0" is re-elected, Clinton or whoever gets it, the die is cast and we are history.

MARANATHA!!!​

 

[KenH]

Why would it cause Obama not to run?

From your link:

"Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

 

[KenH]

I frankly see this nation as doomed to pass from a world power

No world power has maintained that status forever. There is no reason to think that the United States will not lose that status as well.

 

[billwald]

I still say the Constitution and the courts give Congress final say over congressional and federal elections.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I still say the Constitution and the courts give Congress final say over congressional and federal elections.

States do have the right to decide who can be on the ballot.

If these bills pass every state will be forced by law to produce documents satisfactory to every other state to allow someone on the ballot. Hawaii could well have to produce 49 different versions of birth certificates for a candidate to satisfy every other state's requirements. (an obvious overstatement to make a point)

This would in effect nullify the right of a state to certify who was born in that state and force them to comply with standards that they may or may not have in their own state.

For example, the Arizona law requires two witnesses other than the doctor to verify the birth. If Hawaii was satisfied with a doctor and one witness, then the person still would not qualify to be on the ballot.

If a baby was born in a car on the way to the hospital it would be impossible for a doctor and two witnesses to witness the birth and verify it to satisfy Arizona.

This seems to be a dangerous road to go down.

 

[carpro]

From your link:

"Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

Ken, I know what the article says, but that doesn't address my question to you...so I repeat:

Why would it cause Obama not to run? He should have nothing to fear.

 

[targus]

States do have the right to decide who can be on the ballot.

If these bills pass every state will be forced by law to produce documents satisfactory to every other state to allow someone on the ballot. Hawaii could well have to produce 49 different versions of birth certificates for a candidate to satisfy every other state's requirements. (an obvious overstatement to make a point)

This would in effect nullify the right of a state to certify who was born in that state and force them to comply with standards that they may or may not have in their own state.

For example, the Arizona law requires two witnesses other than the doctor to verify the birth. If Hawaii was satisfied with a doctor and one witness, then the person still would not qualify to be on the ballot.

If a baby was born in a car on the way to the hospital it would be impossible for a doctor and two witnesses to witness the birth and verify it to satisfy Arizona.

This seems to be a dangerous road to go down.

You are making some assumptions that may not be correct.

To my knowledge states do not have specific requirements for each other as to what is necessary to hold a drivers license.

But states do require drivers to hold a drivers license in order to drive in their state.

Why do you assume that the case of birth certificates to be on the ballot would be any different?

 

[KenH]

Why would it cause Obama not to run?

He would not win if he could not win enough electoral votes because a sufficient number of states refuse to place him on the ballot due to this issue.

 

[targus]

From your link:

"Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

Asking for a birth certificate is not a new requirement of eligibility - it is merely the state asking for proof from the candidate that he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President.

And if a candidate fails to prove eligibility - why would you want to allow them to be on the ballot?

 

[carpro]

States do have the right to decide who can be on the ballot.

If these bills pass every state will be forced by law to produce documents satisfactory to every other state to allow someone on the ballot. Hawaii could well have to produce 49 different versions of birth certificates for a candidate to satisfy every other state's requirements. (an obvious overstatement to make a point)

This would in effect nullify the right of a state to certify who was born in that state and force them to comply with standards that they may or may not have in their own state.

For example, the Arizona law requires two witnesses other than the doctor to verify the birth. If Hawaii was satisfied with a doctor and one witness, then the person still would not qualify to be on the ballot.

If a baby was born in a car on the way to the hospital it would be impossible for a doctor and two witnesses to witness the birth and verify it to satisfy Arizona.

This seems to be a dangerous road to go down.

Baloney. You're reaching and not making sense.

Each state has it's own voting laws and regulations. As you say, the federal government does not run elections. The states do.

No state is required to use or accept the regulations of another. If Hawaii is satisfied, the candidate will be on their ballot. If Arizona is satisfied, he'll be on theirs. If either one decides the candidate does not have , or is unwilling to share their birth records, they will simply be left off that states ballot.

These laws simply require a candidate to show proof they meet the Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen. It sounds like you either think it can't be enforced or don't want it to. Curious.

 

[carpro]

He would not win if he could not win enough electoral votes because a sufficient number of states refuse to place him on the ballot due to this issue.

Why are you dodging the question?

Why would any stae refuse to place him on the ballot?

He is a natural born citizen, isn't he?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The propsed Arizona law specifically tells Hawaii what must be on their birth certificates. This is clearly being done specifically on the basis of one case.

I would not have an issue if the state simply required a prospective candidate to prove his national born citizenship. If President Obama's passport list his place of birth as USA both his home state and the federal government recognise that he was born in the US.

Case closed.