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.
I live in Arizona. I agree with the law in principle but not the timing or the politics associated with it. At a time in which we have far bigger concerns, this "birther" law was inappopriate. At the same time, I think it's comical that left wing extremists are bashing the state for something that is common sense. If one is going to run for the highest office in the nation, why shouldn't they provide proof of citizenship with a tangible and verifiable birth certificate. I'm sorry but I fail to understand why that law is crazy or how this makes Arizona crazy. If anything it shows Arizona is willing to enforce a common sense law. My only criticism of the law is that it is obviously politically motivated and targeted toward Obama when our legislature should be focusing it's efforts in more important areas. i can understand someone criticizing Arizona's priorities but not the law itself.
If the law simply asked for a state certified birth certificate, it would not be much of an issue, it would be a bit redundant because no one who isn't eligible would be able to get on the ballot anyway as it is, but not much would come of it.
However, by asking for a type of birth certificate some states do not even provide, its obvious this really has nothing to do with proving someone is eligible or not and then they throw a religious document in there to boot. Its ridiculous.
My criticism is that they apparently won't take a short form COLB, authenticated by the authorities, but they will take a baptism certificate or a circumcision certificate? Just what the H*** is a circumcision certificate? Never heard of it.
These family records can be very inaccurate. One of my dad's cousin did a family tree, and found that someone supposedly died (according to family records) after the cemetary said he was buried! O.K.! Let's take records like that, but spurn the COLB!
I'm sorry but I fail to understand why that law is crazy or how this makes Arizona crazy. If anything it shows Arizona is willing to enforce a common sense law. My only criticism of the law is that it is obviously politically motivated and targeted toward Obama when our legislature should be focusing it's efforts in more important areas. i can understand someone criticizing Arizona's priorities but not the law itself.
On the face of it, it would seem to be common sense, except the law is based upon statute and not what one might consider common sense, after all one persons common sense may not be another's and The Law must be based upon something less subjective. That being said:
There are some interesting arguments in fair of the Arizona's right to conduct national elections as it sees fit. For example placing Electors on the ballot vary widely from state to state, so it could be (and will be I suppose) argued that simply requiring a candidate for President present proof of being born in the U.S. and their age would be pretty innocuous, despite the fact that it may violate the Supremacy Clause, the problem with Arizona's statute is that it goes far beyond that. By stipulating that a candidate present a specific type of certification of birth the state runs clearly afoul of Article IV Section I
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
As a result a candidate should be able to present any official document that provides their date and place of birth, for that purpose a U.S. Passport would be sufficient, not some made to order document devised solely to please the Arizona legislature.
So what's Arizona gonna do when they ask Hawaii for Obama's birth certificate and Hawaii
sends them the COLB he already released, will there be a fight between the two states LOL...
this is hilarious!!!
Imagine the war. Arizona sends tanks west and Hawaii sends boats East. The Battle takes place on Huntington Beach........
How do you figure that they would have to accept the short form,...]
full faith and credit clause of the US constitution.
the arizona secretary of state has already said he will accept the COLB as proof of birth.
to date the only "longer" form that has been released by the hawaiian DOH since 2001 has been the "danae" cert. that certificate does not have a state seal or signature of the registrar therefor does not meet US state department standards for proof of birth.
... preferably a long-form birth certificate. If that document is not available, the candidate can provide at least two of the following: early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child, or an early census record.
Seel said the U.S. Department of Defense accepts these documents in lieu of a long-form birth certificate.
not exactly the truth on seel's part.
the US DoD only accepts baptismal, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record or census record as secondary documentation when submitted with a delayed birth certificate ( one filed more than a year after birth ). they do not accept any of those documents as primary evidence of birth.
what they will accept for primary proof of birth:
"a. For individuals born in the United States, a birth certificate is the primary and preferred means of citizenship verification. Acceptable certificates must show that the birth record was filed shortly after birth and it must be certified with the registrar’s signature. It must bear the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the registrar’s office. The only exception is if a state or other jurisdiction does not issue such seals as a matter of policy. Uncertified copies of birth certificates are not acceptable. "
the hawaiian COLB meets the standard of the DoD. no mention of long-forms or doctor/hospital signatures.
...proves there are crazy extremists on both sides of the fence.
no arguments here.
in this case the "crazy" lies not so much in the request for documentation but in the perception that AZ can refuse the HI COLB as evidence ( a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution ).
in this case the "crazy" lies not so much in the request for documentation but in the perception that AZ can refuse the HI COLB as evidence ( a violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution ).
Hope you realize Hawaii will have to accept Arizona's requirement.
Prolly kinda like mutual reciprocity, or sumtin'.
I mean, some things being unequal, an all.
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.
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.
