Couldn't Obama ignore any law that Arizona passes?

I hope he does. Just becuz he has a birth certificate doesn't mean he should just show it to anyone that ask. It reminds me of white people asking a black person to see their papers back in the day.

... in order to get onto the ballot. If he ignores it, then he concedes AZ to the GOP contender. Maybe he could afford to do that, but what if more states said the same thing?

.... by the time 2012 rolls around, it wont be a concern. (Because, by then, everyone will understand that the President is a borg and the location of his production wont matter. heh!)

but not as much as I hate Ferrengi, the greedy little bastards.

The Ferengi should (will?) sue you for defamation, seeking the maximum amount.

and he's wrong.

I think their were others as well.

Why wouldn't anyone want to show their birth certificate? I'm under the impression that Obama has already shown his, so this would affect future candidates.

They won't accept it.

Look at the illogical rantings over at Freeptard center regarding efforts to get Obama to release his birth certificate.... they are nothing but ignorant racists.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2498603/posts

release anything. I thought federal law made the rules for presidential elections, not states. Am I wrong?

The states run 50 different elections and the results are combined to get the federal result. The states make the rules about ballot access for their state as long as they don't contradict the requirements in the Constitution. For example a state could not require presidential candidates to be 40 when the US Constitution says 35.

That is why some candidates (i.e. Ralph Nader) for Presidential elections don't show up on some state ballots because they did not abide by the state mandates.

against some law.

I have been the ballot three times, twice in Illinois and once in Arizona. Two of the three had age requirements and I was never asked to provide any documentation of age. I think we are in grey legal area here.

It would be unconstitutional for AZ to deny Obama a spot on the ballot by claiming he is not an NBC. That is certain.

It is not unconstitutional for states to require all sorts of paperwork, fees, and other things from applicants for a spot on the ballot.

Here, read the first part of Article Ii of the Constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now, do you see where it says that each state's legislatures may direct the process by which Electors are appointed by the state? That's what this is about.

The state can't violate the Constitution, such as by saying "only white men can run", but they can require anything that does not exclude an otherwise eligible candidate.

What's funny is that a birth certificate does not conclusively prove citizenship. One of the crackpot birther theories is that Obama renounced his citizenship when he was a child. A child cannot do that, though.

However, an adult can renounce citizenship, but it is difficult to do. You have to renounce personally to a US embassy official elsewhere, and you had better not maintain an economic relationship with the US, or think about visiting. Hypothetically, under this AZ law, a non-US citizen who was born in the US, will be considered qualified, because that's how dumb they are in Arizona.

I don't know what the laws of Indonesia are regarding citizenship, but I think it's likely Obama was adopted by his step father and in becoming a citizen of Indonesia had to "renounce" his US citizenship, and possibly claim he was Muslim. And I believe he actually went by the name Barry Soetero for some time.

But a child can't irrevocably renounce his or her US citizenship. The act, IF it occured, had a legal effect in Indonesia but it meant nothing in the US.

It will put their Secretary of State in a catch 22. If they accept the paperwork and grant him access to the ballot they will have a major black mark on their political career. If they challenge the authenticity of the document(s)it will end up in court and they will lose as well as be removed from office or prosecuted by the feds. Or something like that.

Obama will qualify for the ballot, and the birthers will turn and bite the folks responsible.

to push him off the 2012 ballot.

However, there is nothing in this bill that would disqualify him from the 2012 ballot, and the "trouble" would be an immediate injunctive action in federal court.

What WILL happen is that he will be on the 2012 ballot, and the birthers will turn on their own state government.

to the states themselves. The State constitutions, written by the legislatures, determine the nuts and bolts of the election law.

The best example of this is the Florida constitution which caused all the upheaval in 2000. The Republican legislature had amended its constitution to insert the new contest/protest provisions which Al Gore relied heavily on during his recount effort. That language was adopted as a result of a mayoral election which had then-recently been overturned because of a theft of the election.

The phrase that the Republicans relied on during the controversy -- which you remember they said could not be circumvented -- was the earlier language which, believe it or not, had not been deleted when the new language was inserted. It was in fact the equivalent of a typographical, or proofreading, mistake. Hence, all the uproar.

This problem was never discussed during the recount controversy. I only found out about it by doing my own research during that time to find out the literal truth and to try and discern who was lying and who was not.

Sam

Great work, Samantha!

I will remember it. Thanks.

Sam

i would love to be able to just give it out as a pamphlet and stop explaining floridas election law issues to people who blame me personally for it for some reason

say you are from florida and the wackos come out and no amount of facts dissuades them in their attack

and different emerging articles in Florida newspapers at the time. Those articles discussed the theft of the mayoral election (which as I said was just two years prior to the 2000 election) and the ensuing court battles, and the eventual overturn of that election. I believe but don't want to swear to it that it was the Mayor of Miami race. The subsequent amendment to the state constitution happened to make sure nothing like that debacle ever occurred again. And that is when the legislature changed the wording of the constitution, but neglected to delete the old language. I spent about two to three hours per day following that controversy, but was terribly dismayed no one revealed the chain of events and what caused the controversy.

When one governing law contains two clauses in conflict with each another, and the issue is a state matter, it is up the state courts to rule on the issue to discern the INTENT of the law. So the Florida Supreme Court did have ultimate jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court had absolutely no authority to interfere with rights delegated to Florida. But by that time things had grown so bitterly partisan, it was just more effective for Bush* to claim Gore was trying to steal the election. And of course with Washington, D.C. Constitutional attorneys traveling down there to donate their time on a pro bono basis to assist Bush*, for instance, now Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court (revealed by the Washington Post in a little-known article), there was just too much at stake to tell the literal truth instead of accusing Gore of trying to steal the Presidency.

i was in west palm then off and on working
it was ugly stuff

He ignores them and they don't put his name on the state ballot. Hows that a win?

that Obama even HAS his original Birth Certificate? I don't have MINE. If I was ever asked to produce my ORIGINAL, I don't have mine either. It would be an official certification, just like Obama's.

dosn't legally mean what they wish it does, but instead just means a valid official copy, not just a zerox you made last night.

I've only seen pictures of it on the Internet, and those could be photoshopped. Nobody has ever shown me a genuine "State of Hawaii", such as the one you say exists.

didn't think so. They don't even have a fake one to post online. What a crock.

I have no direct knowledge of Hawaii, Montana, North or South Dakota or Oregon.

I stopped in a place claimed to be "Texas" on a flight once, but it could have been a setup. It looked just like any other airport, and nobody showed me any official documentation that it was Texas.

Everyone does it is held by the State dept of Health where you were born, they do that so you don't lose it...>LOL>..

but seriously Obama already produced his official Birth cetificate I don't know what all this fuss is mostly they try to make hay out of the official long form version which witnesses have validated exists at the Dept of health in Hawaii .... so you keep on asking why thats not enough and you get responses like " Well ... lets say he was born in kenya and then his mom brought him back a week later and the grandparents and mom decided it would be best for him to be American born because you know he might lose some benefits (or whatever), at that particular time you could apply for a Birth Certificate in Hawaii even if you were a born at home". So his family made up this elaborate hoax to conceal the fact that he was born in Kenya....and his long version COLB will not be able to list an attending Physician or name of the hospital he was born at but the record exists and is a legal record so regardless of what is says or doesnt say it will still stand up as proof that he was born in Hawaii....

Some will never be satisfied.

i really did but that last twist tossed me off into the porch

I understand exactly what they mean, it doesn't matter where he was born to them he is illegitimate and they want their evil cynasism

declaring mc cain to be the "real" winner is almost what it comes to
then i drop the panama facts on them and watch the gears burn up

that has the signature of the doctor and other officials and the babies footprint, parents name, religion, etc?

If you are ever asked to submit a document with an "original signature" it's okay if you have signed your name before.

"Original" here means one issued by the state.

Arizona's Revised

DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
36-118. Director's seal; authentication of records

A. The director shall adopt a seal of office to be used to authenticate records and copies of records required to be made or kept by the department.

B. Records or copies of records authenticated with the director's seal shall be received in evidence in any proceeding without further proof of their authenticity.



DOES IT REALLY MATTER WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR LAWS?

Aren't they required to accept documents from other states as being valid when they are provided as required by the issuing state? It is no different that they are required to recognize marriages that are performed in other states. Or recognize drivers licenses from other states

and most likely would not get Arizona's electoral votes. Although he could orchestrate a write-in campaign. The law (that I know of) says nothing about rejecting write in candidate because the write in candidate is not eligible, it only talks about keeping them off the ballot. So he may be able to end-run the law that way, by winning with write in votes.

...and unless the morans in AZ want to make a big deal of it, it will be a non-starter of an issue. There's nothing technically wrong with the law, it's the motivation behind it and the timing that make AZ look like a bunch of azz holes.

The electoral votes of Arizona will most likely end up
in the rethug column anyway. So screw them and ignore them.

by not accepting it because even with the possible requirement it would contradict their own state laws as well as federal laws.

They would also be imposing additional requirements on him that others don't when they are required to provide legal documents.

On Arizona's Dept of Health Services website they have the following:

Arizona Vital Records has birth records ONLY for births that occurred in Arizona. If you need a certified copy of a birth certificate from another state, you must contact that state's vital records office.

You may request a certified copy of a birth certificate in several different ways for births that occurred in Arizona. You may, in many cases, obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate for a birth that occurred in Arizona after 1989, at the county health department in the county where the birth occurred. Click here for a list of local offices.

In addition, the State Office of Vital Records has birth records from the late 1800s to the present. You may apply in person at the State Office of Vital Records in Phoenix, send your request by mail, or file a request for expedited service on-line.

IN ADDITION:

Arizona is a "closed record" state. That means that vital records are not public record. Arizona law restricts the public's access to vital records as follows to protect the confidentiality rights of our citizens. Arizona Administrative Code R9-19-403 specifies that only the following may receive a certified copy of a birth certificate:

Just like LBJ enforced voting rights for African Americans.