Skip to comments.Arizona's 'birther' bill faces legal challenges (constitutionality)
Posted on 04/16/2011 9:23:42 AM PDT by Libloather
Link only - Arizona's 'birther' bill faces legal challenges
Other than black folks who think he's The Messiah and don't care about parentage (70%+ of them have no fathers in their "homes", either), the rest of society sure sees something very smelly about the protection of his path through life.....
A "Constitutional" challenge to states that require adherence to the Constitution? States have the right to demand the Federal Government adhere to the Constitution, whether the courts like it or not. At some point, we don't need the court's permission to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."
Secretaries of state routinely prevent candidates from being on ballots over all kinds of issues including constitutional ones.
People who think the states can’t restrict ballot access are idiots. Its like saying the democrats could nominate a 12 year old and the states would simply have to accept it.
We knew this was coming
This is still a win win for us as Obama will have to challenge this in the courts, and bring the spotlight of media attention upon the issue he wants to avoid. Keep the issue on the front page, and little by little drip by drip, it will erode his chances in 2012.
remember we only have to sway 3-5% of the voting public, into believing that there is something fishy about someone who will not hand over a simple birth certificate.
This is open to constitutional challenges, as NBC has not been legally defined by the higher courts.
Fine with me, just keep bringing the issue up. The more the better.
States, however, should not back down from this issue about their right to insist on Constitutional adherence by the Federal Government. It's time.
As recently as 08 the state of California refused to allow a candidate on the ballot due to constitutional ineligibility.
Socialist party Candidate Roger Calero was removed from the ballot due to the fact that he isn’t a citizen of this country. Unfortunately he was allowed on the ballot in several other states.
If this bill is signed by Brewer and is challenged on constitutional grounds, then, would it not be unconstitutional to ask for a birth certificate or to prove citizenship for ANYTHING???
Don’t worry folks, the bill requires a long-form BC...... OR instead, your choice of “2 of 4” easily-forged documents.
It’s like a Chinese menu: “1 from column A, 1 from column B.”
Read the bill — it allows things like “CENSUS FORM” and “CIRCUMCISION RECORD” in place of the long-form BC.
The only document not acceptable is “USED KLEENEX.” Runners-up included “Pawprint of cute puppy,” and “Marxist haiku.”
Hey, Caligula got his horse appointed as a Senator. Democrats would like the same power.
It requires essentially the same documents as a US passport. Obama is going to have to produce more than the Hawaii COLB. And if he fights the AZ requirement in the courts rather than provide the documents, he will just pour more fuel on the fire. Bring it on.
If the requirement stands, and he doesn’t choose the long form as one of his forms of documentation, he will insure further speculation.
“And if he fights the AZ requirement in the courts rather than provide the documents, he will just pour more fuel on the fire. Bring it on.”
This is the real issue. Fight it in the courts, and it becomes a highly covered public issue.
Bring it on indeed!!
States are going to have to contend with an anti-Constitution/anti-America apparatus never before seen: the Democratic Party with the Impostor-Marxist at the helm and leftist courts emboldened by these astonishing turn of events.
It is up to the states to certify candidates since states run the elections according to their rules. They cannot however require a higher standard for national office than the US Constitution establishes. Regardless there is no constitutional control over a state’s authority to certify candidates as ITS responsibility.
As a result, each situation would become an individual case:
At the state level there would likely be judicial challenges to any refusal by a state’s election authority to certify a candidate to the ballot;
at the federal level there would be challenges to a state “overstepping its authority” by refusing to certify a (presumed) qualified candidate.
Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.
I don't understand Bender's statement above.
I think that it is a copout, because people like Bender, for some unknown reason, don't want presidential candidates to have to provide legal documents to prove that they are who they say they are. (According to the article, Bender is a lawyer, I think that he is a professor.)
My question to Bender is this: Why can't the 50 states get together and agree on just one standard, like this simple standard: A presidential candidate must provide a copy of his long form birth certificate, the one with the doctor's and hospital's names on it.
Or, the 50 states could get together and agree on a list of documents that a presidential candidates can choose from, like the list in Arizona's law, because then there would only be one standard.
My point is this: In order to clear up this presidential candidate eligibility confusion once and for all, there has got to be some legal requirement that a presidential candidate must provide a legal document to each state to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is who he says he is.
Right now, it seems that all a presidential candidate has to do is sign an affidavit that he is who he says he is-----basically all that means is that we simply take the candidate's word for it that he is who he says he is---and the candidate is magically allowed to put his name on a state's primary ballot and presidential ballot without any problems whatsoever. How weird is that?
The Constitution grants the State legislatures the ABSOLUTE authority to choose Presidential electors in any manner they please. They can choose electors based on a dice game, the number of letters in the names of the candidates, whichever is taller, or whichever weighs the most. The only Constitutional requirement is that the electors must be chosen in whatever manner the legislature of the State mandates by law.
So the idea that there is even the remotest chance the Supreme Court would find a law passed by the State legislature that speaks to the manner in which the State chooses its electors (such as by requiring Candidates to prove they qualify as natural born citizens) is so ridiculous it deserves no further discussion.
It's obvious that nobody cares about what the actual document says.
I'm saying the states, at some point, don't need the courts' permission to insist the Constitution is upheld and followed by the Federal Government.
There was Freeper in a discussion thread a while back who actually cited a court case about state law and eligibility, but it was regarding age and not natural born status.
I think the gist of the case was that a state court chucked the candidate off the ballot because he wasn’t 35.
So the precedence is there.
Regardless, the elector college electors are determined by state law, not federal law.
States manage elections, not the feds.
So this liberal notion that we can’t have 50 different standards is bogus.
It is already happening.
Your full of crap:
The following information posted was copied from the Arizona Legislatures page about pending/passed bills.
This is the specific information that covers the requirements to be eligible:
Fiftieth Legislature Antenori
First Regular Session H.B. 2177
ANTENORI FLOOR AMENDMENT #1
SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.B. 2177
(Reference to GR amendment)
Page 4, line 26, after the period insert If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:
(a) An early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
(b) A hospital birth record.
(c) A postpartum medical record for the mother or child that is signed by the doctor or midwife or person who delivered or examined the child after birth.
(d) An early census record.
Line 28, strike the preceding
Between line 29 and 30, insert:
C. In addition to the requirements of subsection B, the presidential candidate may also submit a notarized affidavit from two or more persons who witnessed the presidential candidates birth.
D. If the secretary of state receives any documents in place of a long form birth certificate pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 1 and cannot determine if the presidential candidate meets the requirements prescribed in Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States, the secretary
state may establish a committee to assist in the determination or hold hearings and submit any documents for forensic examination.
Reletter to conform
Amend title to conform
Destroyed country in three years
George Soros is proud
“Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.”
Exactly. What candidate wants an issue like this hanging over his head during a campaign, with everyone asking him why he just doesn’t release his long form BC?
A simple question, with a simple answer.
Story here about 3 past candidates denied ballot access. One of them was due to candidate age.
It's obvious that nobody cares about what the actual document says.
Thanks for reminding us about this little noticed clause. They will run over it with a tank when it gets to the courts.
Fine. Let Nobama’s lackeys explain why they would spend big money challenging this law rather than shell out $25 for a certified long form birth certificate.
That’ll make even more Americans suspicious of the NOne.
“as NBC has not been legally defined by the higher courts.”
What has National Broadcasting Corporation havr to do with anything?
The obvious questiont to ask and to propogate is, why doesn’t Obama just release his long form birth certificate and not put the people through al this hassle.
Its all Obamas fault by not releasing his birth certificate so that we can avoid this.
I have a few reservations about this. True, we need to avoid another KPOO (Kenyan Pretender to the Oval Office), but a birth certificate wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution. I know my mother was unable to get one because the courthouse in the rural town where she was born had burned many years ago.
And I know a couple of families who birthed their kids at home and they have no “long form” birth certificates. No doctor was present at the births.
Actually, they did that in 2008.
I wonder how much of his proposed $1B campaign war chest is intended to be used to defend against questions regarding his birth certificate, residency, authorship and Social Security number
You have got to be kidding!!!
Now we have the president of Hillsdale College saying no judge can rule on it and impeachment doesn't apply on the eligibility issue and it doesn't matter. Here's a post of his reply at today's Q&A
You have got to be kidding!!!
No I’m not kidding. Right now the MSM has the choice to report this issue framed in their context, or simple ignore it. A federal court challenge will define the issue and put it into the public arena. The point being the issue is so simple to the average voter.
Why hide the birth certificate, which Obama and the state of Hawaii have said is there?
It will be hard to avoid that question being answered. The question will not be whether you were born in the US, but why are you refusing to produce your long form BC.
A question many more voters will be asking themselves in Nov 2012.
Knowing the Lame Stream Media, it is my opinion they will give this very little, if any attention, so as to protect their boy as much as possible.
I understand where you are coming from, but just as Trump forced their hand, so would a federal court challenge. All I’m asking is keep it in the news, with whatever form it takes.
I’m after voter confidence erosion.
Of those examples you say lack a birth certificate, are they running for president? There are often instances where someone might be qualified but can't document it. It's not a perfect system but it is what it is. Alternative types of documentation are often accepted as is the case in the AZ bill.
The city's records for my grandmother were lost in a fire. She didn't run for president.
One issue I have with birth certificates these days is the perversion of them as a historical document. Several states reissue them with names other than given at birth or even after living years as one name and gender and having sex reassignment surgery. Hell I think Oregon, doesn't even require the surgery to issue a new birth certificate for a transgender!
An actual birth certificate should be an immutable historical document. If you need to amend, amend it, but rewrite history? No thanks.
Good! Let’s get a SCOTUS read-out on this and get it settled once and for all.
Anybody who wants to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision in court can do so.
All this law would ultimately do is ensure that it is the courts who decide any controversies surrounding a candidate’s eligibility. A legal answer to a legal question. Bizarre in today’s mucked-up world, I know.
But Arizona hasn’t issued long form birth certificates since 1989. How can they make that a requirement?
Because any eligible candidates had to be born before 1989.
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.