Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2011, 07:18 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,400,272 times
Reputation: 589

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
It'll hafta be tried on merit to determine its constitutionality.

No tellin' what might show up in the discovery process.


Good luck with your time-line Birth Control!
Montana (and all the birther bills) are facially invalid because they ignore the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. There's no "discovery" to be had.

You called me defensive earlier, and sometimes I am. I get defensive when birthers and other conspiracy theorists propose blatantly violating the Constitution in order to advance a conspiracy theory, and advocate mass mutiny and military uprising because they don't like that the courts and Congress haven't acted on their conspiracy theories. The anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-republic, anti-common sense agenda of the birther movement shows how anti-American they actually are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2011, 07:40 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Montana (and all the birther bills) are facially invalid because they ignore the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. There's no "discovery" to be had.
Bad faith and bad credit.


[quote=bc42gb43;17771419You called me defensive earlier, and sometimes I am. I get defensive when birthers and other conspiracy theorists propose blatantly violating the Constitution in order to advance a conspiracy theory, and advocate mass mutiny and military uprising because they don't like that the courts and Congress have acted on their conspiracy theories. The anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-republic, anti-common sense agenda of the birther movement shows how anti-American they actually are.[/QUOTE]

Well, you don't hafta get personal!

Don't beat yourself up with introspections of blatantly advancing Communism, and advocating mass mutiny and military uprising because the establishment doesn't like that the courts and Congress have forfeited their Constitutional mandates. The anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-republic, anti-common sense agenda of the Obama administration shows how anti-American the establishment actually is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2011, 08:07 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,400,272 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Bad faith and bad credit.
No surprise, birther doesn't understand the Constitution.



Quote:
Well, you don't hafta get personal!

Don't beat yourself up with introspections of blatantly advancing Communism, and advocating mass mutiny and military uprising because the establishment doesn't like that the courts and Congress have forfeited their Constitutional mandates. The anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-republic, anti-common sense agenda of the Obama administration shows how anti-American the establishment actually is.
Ooh, nice job, you reversed what I said and used it against me. Wouldn't this be about the time some right winger calls that an Alinsky tactic?

On the other hand, I think I've seen somebody do this before. I said that birthers were anti-Constitution, and then you turned around and said that the Obama administration was anti-Constitution. Where have I seen that before...?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8#t=38s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 03:40 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
A state statute that explicitly states that it will not accept the legal records of another state will be unconstitutional on its face as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. To date almost every birther bill in each state runs afoul of the Constitution.
The same can be said that the ballot status requirements in each state run afoul of the Constitution.

Since when does anyone play by the rules?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,049,604 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
The same can be said that the ballot status requirements in each state run afoul of the Constitution.
Show us examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:44 AM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,460,144 times
Reputation: 3657
Connecticut, SB291 require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot." That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."

Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.

Maine, LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."

Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."

Nebraska, LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."

That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."

Montana's plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.

Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."

Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates' documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:51 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Show us examples.
Do your own research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 07:55 AM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,400,272 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Do your own research.
You claim that state ballot procedures are violating the Constitution.

Back up your argument with evidence.

On the other hand, if you were capable of that sort of critical thinking, you wouldn't be a birther.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,049,604 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Do your own research.
I have.

I just wanted to put as fine a point as possible on your complete pointlessness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2011, 08:36 AM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,460,144 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
Connecticut, SB291 require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot." That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."

Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.

Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.

Maine, LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."

Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."

Nebraska, LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation." That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."

Montana's plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.

Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."

Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates' documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
I wonder what dipwad Eric Holder and his Department of InJustice will try to pull to nullify what these states will do so the radical scumbag fraud Obozo can run for a second term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:19 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top