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.