Arizona "Shoe Me The Proof" Law passes Legislature and.....

...it appears over 10 states will soon follow.
========================

Arizona Legislature OKs Presidential 'Birther' Bill

Published April 15, 2011
Associated Press
November 2, 2010. (AP)

PHOENIX -- The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state's ballot.

Arizona would become the first state to require such proof if Gov. Jan Brewer signs the measure into law.

Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the author of the bill, said the bill wasn't about opposition to Obama. "This bill is about the integrity of our elections," Seel said.

Thirteen other states have considered similar proposals this year. The proposals were defeated in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine and Montana.

The bill won final approval from the state House in a 40-16 vote.

So-called "birthers" contend since the last presidential election that Obama is ineligible to hold the nation's highest elected office because, they argue, he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland. The Constitution said a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency.

Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama's citizenship, and his Hawaiian birth certificates have been made public. Even though the courts have rebuffed lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, the issue hasn't gone away.

"It's a fringe issue in my view, and it's going to cause people to look again at Arizona and say what's all this craziness going on there," said Democratic Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson, an opponent of the bill.

The Arizona proposal would require political parties and presidential candidates to hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age and to provide the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates don't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it can't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates are eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would be able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements have been met.

The names of candidates can be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state doesn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

The Arizona proposal would require political parties and presidential candidates to hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age and to provide the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

Not sure that this is going to accomplish much. Obama will submit his Certificate of Live Birth and some judge will have to decide if that counts as a birth certificate. Wanna bet how that turns out?

That really antagonizes the Dems, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by FlaRick

. Obama will submit his Certificate of Live Birth and some judge will have to decide if that counts as a birth certificate. Wanna bet how that turns out?

And you can bet your sweet bippy that judge'll be a Dem..

Even Bob won't take THAT bet...

Quote

Arizona would become the first state to require such proof if Gov. Jan Brewer signs the measure into law.

I wonder if she'll sign it? After all her and bammy are pretty tight.

Laffin'....she probably had a courier waiting at the state house.

Originally Posted by Redneck

Originally Posted by FlaRick

. Obama will submit his Certificate of Live Birth and some judge will have to decide if that counts as a birth certificate. Wanna bet how that turns out?

And you can bet your sweet bippy that judge'll be a Dem..

Even Bob won't take THAT bet...

I disagree, Bob would take that bet in a heartbeat.

I would. There are 5 conservatives on the SC.

Things are getting nasty outside the Beltway, and it's early yet.

Gawd, I hope the "R"s can find someone worthwhile to run against his sorry behind.

Hopefully this is further sign that Conservatives are finally wising up and dealing with the things that socialists use to grab and entrench their power.

Put this together with immigration enforcement, voter ID requirements and right to work laws and it is possible to remove the left from power for generations!

Originally Posted by isaac

I would. There are 5 conservatives on the SC.

You are very predictable Bob.

Even I wouldn't take that bet.

I have a hard time believing that the 5 conservatives on the SC would ignore The Supremacy Clause and Federal preemption arguments that are sure to basis of challenging this law. My prediction is that this new AZ law gets ruled unconstitutional, is upheld by the appellate courts, and even upheld by the SC if appeals make it that far.

What Federal preemption clause which overcomes the constitution are you speaking if? Supremacy Clause as to a pres. candidate's contitutional qualifications?? You have to be kidding. Please go on....I'm dying to know how you got there.

Bob, can an individual state make the qualifications for runnning for the President of the US (a federal position) more stringent than the current federal requirement? Can a state really preempt current federal qualification requirements?

Are you sure you want to take that bet Bob.

At the moment short form BC's like Hawaii's meet the requirements to get a passport from feds, under the new AZ law this would not be sufficinet to get put on the ballot in AZ. Keep in mind that at the same time a "circumcism" document would be enoug to get put on the ballot.

Have a good weekend Bob.

Ummmm...what's the Fed requirement that replaces the constitutional mandate,again?

You're acting way too confident for someone who's scrambling. You ain't close to being there yet. I'd love to see the circumcision papers and the doctor who performed it....not the tribal witch doctor,mind you.

Originally Posted by NeBassman

Originally Posted by isaac

I would. There are 5 conservatives on the SC.

You are very predictable Bob.

Even I wouldn't take that bet.

I have a hard time believing that the 5 conservatives on the SC would ignore The Supremacy Clause and Federal preemption arguments that are sure to basis of challenging this law. My prediction is that this new AZ law gets ruled unconstitutional, is upheld by the appellate courts, and even upheld by the SC if appeals make it that far.

You are "Presuming" that Arizona gives a FRA what the "Feds" rule, or don't,......and that "Marshalls" are going to be allowed to waltz in and have their way,....( doing WHAT,... selling more guns to the enemy ? )

GTC

I believe the time is rapidly approaching when the States tell the fed to FOAD.

Shoot the wolves.
Drive illegals to the border and point them south.
Build a wall.
Kick out the EPA and ATF.
Etc etc.

Might even see the States tell citizens to stop paying IRS. I would were I Governor of a State. Tell them to send State and Fed taxes to the State Treasury and it'll be doled out to the Fed as the State sees fit. Then tell the Fed if they come and try to arrest citizens the agents will be arrested and imprisoned with extreme prejudice.

Course, I got a lot more guts than most folks...

The push back....
Huff Post

Quote

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

�It�s an interference with federal supremacy. It�s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,� said Tribe.

If I understand correctly, the states are not imposing ADDITIONAL requirements to get on the ballot for POTUS, they are ensuring that the existing requirements are met.

Quote

It�s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,� said Tribe.

Then who is it up to? The federal election commission has no authority spelled out. They're only interest is campaign donations.

Originally Posted by Bend

The push back....
Huff Post

Quote

Legally, national political parties have the right to put forth presidential candidates, and many view Arizona's legislation as a classic example of a state's attempt to encroach on federal power.

�It�s an interference with federal supremacy. It�s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,� said Tribe.

"�It�s an interference with federal supremacy."

That [bleep]' King George azzwhole thought his word was "Supreme" , too,....didn't he ?

I guess he hated Minutemen, too.

GTC

That'll shoe 'em!

(in my best Ed Sullivan voice) One of these days the American people are going to have a "really big shoe" for them fedral supremacists.

Originally Posted by watch4bear

Quote

It�s not up for a state to decide who is qualified to run for president,� said Tribe.

Then who is it up to? The federal election commission has no authority spelled out. They're only interest is campaign donations.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Quote

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

�Anyone born inside the United States *
�Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
�Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
�Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
�Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
�Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
�Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
�A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law � the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

I wouldn't be too surprised if Brewer signs it that Barry just ignores it. His administration has basically declared war on this state and it's very unlikely that he'd carry Arizona's electoral votes in the election. So he'll just ignore it, hope it goes away and doesn;t draw any additional attention to the issue.

There's enough acronyms and abbreviations in this thread to really confuse an old [bleep] like me.....
Frosted jelly donut award to cross for FRA and archer for FOAD

Sounds like it will challenged in court.

Ariz. plows controversial ground with birther bill - AP

Quote

But Richard Hasen, a University of California, Irvine professor who specializes in election law, said the candidate in such a case could go to federal court to seek an order preventing enforcement of the law on the grounds it would be an unconstitutional qualification for the office.

Hasen believes there's a good chance the law would get struck down, likely on the grounds that it adds an impermissible requirement for presidential candidates. "It depends on how a court would read the bill," he said.

Seel predicted the proposal would stand up in court because it relies on standards that the Department of Defense uses in making sure military applicants are U.S. citizens.

He said one fan of the measure is real estate tycoon and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who last month appeared on ABC's "The View" and called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Seel said he discussed the bill with Trump last week, and "he liked it."

Seel added that the measure was not intended as a snipe at the federal government.

"I wouldn't say that, but I am proud of my Republican colleagues (who voted for the bill)," he said. "It was a good day for the Constitution."