Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy
eastvalleytribune.com ^ | January 12, 2010 | Howard Fischer

Posted on 01/12/2010 3:25:13 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 last
To: Drew68

I don’t think it’s a problem about voters being disenfranchised because of requirements to follow for how a candidate is supposed to get on the ballot...

For example, there’s a “date” requirement. If the candidate does not follow the required date to file, they’re not on the ballot. But, no one is going to say that these voters are disenfranchised, by the state (because of their date requirement) if the candidate fails to meet it.

And also, another similar example (although not applying directly to the Presidential candidate) is a residency requirement for a particular office (in the state). With that, if the candidate does not meet the state law which requires a certain residency for that candidate to be able to be on the ballot (or even qualified to run) — the voters cannot put up a challenge saying that because the state required a certain residency that they were disenfranchised because of the state law.

There’s just too many examples of these types of things where (as you were saying) that a bunch of voters could say that they were disenfranchised because the state had a law which prevented the candidate from being on the ballot... LOL...


101 posted on 01/13/2010 10:30:56 AM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Thanks!


102 posted on 01/13/2010 10:39:33 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

When I got on the “birther threads” and posted there... that thing just went “ding, ding, ding” all the time... LOL...


103 posted on 01/13/2010 10:46:23 AM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Well you had it coming. LOL


104 posted on 01/13/2010 11:08:06 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
For example, there’s a “date” requirement. If the candidate does not follow the required date to file, they’re not on the ballot. But, no one is going to say that these voters are disenfranchised, by the state (because of their date requirement) if the candidate fails to meet it.

Yes, but when we start talking about withholding electoral votes, we could be running into problems.

FWIW, I have no issue with requiring candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate for verification. This is perfectly acceptable as the Constitution stipulates certain requirements to holding office. But this is something that Obama could have easily complied with and that's not what the people behind this type of legislation want. They want a law written in reaction to Obama's election and they want it to be specifically one that he can't comply with. This is why Rep. Burges would put the Secretary of State in the position of having to determine whether "individual circumstances" of a candidate's life disqualify him from being on the ballot. That's where "pre-approved by the State" comes into play and with this we'd be treading into dangerous territory.

105 posted on 01/13/2010 11:13:23 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

Waving the white flag a bit early, and on your own, too. Or do you want to instill defeatism in everyone else too?


106 posted on 01/13/2010 11:28:22 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
All secretaries of states are required to do their job this time.

Make sure you read George Soros S.O.S campaign to get all radical liberals in secretary of states positions.

107 posted on 01/13/2010 4:35:58 PM PST by OafOfOffice (Constitution is not neutral.It was designed to take the government off the backs of people-Douglas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“How must each and every presidential candidate prove to the Arizona Secretary of State that their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth?”

By whatever means they have. Maybe their birth cirtificates, or their naturalization papers. If they are dead, then their death certificates would help.


108 posted on 01/13/2010 4:46:32 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; FrdmLvr
You were saying ...

Waving the white flag a bit early, and on your own, too. Or do you want to instill defeatism in everyone else too?

To acknowledge the reality of the situation with Obama and then to support a way to take care of the problem (enact the state law spoken about requiring a birth certificate) -- is not defeatism.

That's called solving the problem... and doing a whole lot more than many of the Obama Derangement Syndrome are doing and/or accomplishing.

109 posted on 01/13/2010 5:14:51 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
You were saying ...

FWIW, I have no issue with requiring candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate for verification. This is perfectly acceptable as the Constitution stipulates certain requirements to holding office. But this is something that Obama could have easily complied with and that's not what the people behind this type of legislation want. They want a law written in reaction to Obama's election and they want it to be specifically one that he can't comply with.

I don't get it... how would the law requiring a candidate produce a birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot of the state -- be a law that he can't comply with?

I must be missing something in what you're saying, because I'm serious... I don't quite get what it is that the "people behind ths type of legislation want"... in that anyone (Obama or anyone else) couldn't comply with... it doesn't quite make sense.

110 posted on 01/13/2010 5:17:35 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I don't get it... how would the law requiring a candidate produce a birth certificate or else he cannot be on the ballot of the state -- be a law that he can't comply with?

No, I said showing a certified copy of his BC is a law he could easily comply with. That part of the law should be simple enough that any eligible person ought to be able to comply.

But let's not kid ourselves. The folks behind this want a law drafted so narrowly that Obama can't comply. That's where they'll say, "Gotcha! Not eligible!" It's the second part of the proposed law, the Berg-inspired act of placing the Secretary of State in the position of determining whether "individual circumstances" of a candidate's life disqualify him from being on the ballot that was thought up specifically to target Obama.

I can see clearly what's going to happen. Birthers will get behind new election laws written specifically in reaction to Obama's perceived eligibility issues. Of course, none of these laws will be applied retroactively but they'll be used by Democrats to destroy the candidacy of otherwise outstanding conservatives. And then the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd will be crying, "B-b-but these laws were supposed to be written for the Kenyan Usurper! Not our guy!"

111 posted on 01/13/2010 5:52:15 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
You were saying ...

But let's not kid ourselves. The folks behind this want a law drafted so narrowly that Obama can't comply. That's where they'll say, "Gotcha! Not eligible!" It's the second part of the proposed law, the Berg-inspired act of placing the Secretary of State in the position of determining whether "individual circumstances" of a candidate's life disqualify him from being on the ballot that was thought up specifically to target Obama.

Hmmmm..., I don't know...

For me, it's just about getting "documentation" that shows the relevant facts. Once you have the facts, then the rest of it speaks for itself. I'm not talking about someone making an "off-the-cuff" decision about someone being "qualified" -- with the word "qualilfy" being some vague or indeterminate concept.... not at all.

I'm talking about, very simply, using the demand for a birth certificate to supply facts which would allow anyone to see whether the three requirements of the Constitution were met (or rather, age and birthplace, but living in the country for 14 years or more would have to be by other means).

The documentation of the birth certificate would merely be supplying facts (from that birth certificate) which answers questions regarding two of the three requirements of the Constitution.

You're making it sound like someone is going to be endowed with some kind of "powers" for making some evaluation of some indeterminate "qualifications". I'm not talking about that.

I'm only talking about that if someone does not comply with supplying the birth certificate, then they cannot be on the ballot -- in the same way that if someone does not meet the filing date for the candidacy, they cannot be on the ballot. It's primarily for "getting the facts" which are on the birth certificate. The "qualifications" will speak for themselves, after those facts are make open and clear.


I can see clearly what's going to happen. Birthers will get behind new election laws written specifically in reaction to Obama's perceived eligibility issues. Of course, none of these laws will be applied retroactively but they'll be used by Democrats to destroy the candidacy of otherwise outstanding conservatives. And then the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd will be crying, "B-b-but these laws were supposed to be written for the Kenyan Usurper! Not our guy!"

No..., that's not how I'm seeing it. I mean by that, if a conservative refuses to supply his birth certificate, then he cannot be on the ballot either. It doesn't just apply to Obama. It applies to all candidates. I think it should apply to all candidates, whether conservative or liberal or whatever.

So, no..., I don't see something as applying only to Obama. But, it would require Obama to do what he hasn't done. And it would require a conservative to do what they have not had to do in the past, either.

112 posted on 01/13/2010 6:18:59 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
You're making it sound like someone is going to be endowed with some kind of "powers" for making some evaluation of some indeterminate "qualifications". I'm not talking about that.

Per the article, the law that Rep. Burges wishes to enact will go beyond simply providing a verifiable birth certificate. It would ask the Sec. of State to look at individual circumstances of a candidate's life and make a decision if a candidate is qualified irrespective of the information provided on their BC.

It's really a moot point right now as the actual law itself hasn't yet been written.

I think I got sidetracked in this conversation with you talking about a reasonable proposition that's different from Rep. Burges' more stringent one.

113 posted on 01/13/2010 6:50:32 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-113 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson