NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Well written. You have a point.
Then the AZ is simply foolish and reactionary and sets a dangerous precedent.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Few presidents would qualify under birther bill
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
Well written. You have a point.
Then the AZ is simply foolish and reactionary and sets a dangerous precedent.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The Constitution does not address filing dates.
Okay, lets take this up a notch. Let's accept that every state has total control over who is allowed to be in their ballots.
Since Arizona can exclude dual citizens and people not born in hospitals how about some other exclusions?
Can a state exclude a candidate for being a member of the NRA or for being a gun owner?
How about excluding any one who is an ordained minister?
It is late here. I was up at 3.30 for a run to the airport. I'm off to bed.
Okay, lets take this up a notch. Let's accept that every state has total control over who is allowed to be in their ballots.
Since Arizona can exclude dual citizens and people not born in hospitals how about some other exclusions?
Can a state exclude a candidate for being a member of the NRA or for being a gun owner?
How about excluding any one who is an ordained minister?
It is late here. I was up at 3.30 for a run to the airport. I'm off to bed.
Two things:
1) Misguided bill, solely because of the clause that requires non-dual-citizenship. First clause requiring a long form birth certificate may be misguided as well; the question is, when did every state implement long forms for birth records? (thus, this bill doesn't address other states' requirements)
2) The argument "how many presidents would have qualified under this bill" is misguided. Rather, simply focus on the pros and cons of the bill. Whether George Washington would have qualified under this bill is invalid; two hundred years ago, did they even have birth certificates? If you're going to use this as an argument, keep it to within the last 50-75 years, whenever birth certificates started being used and became a requirement to verify such positions.
1) Misguided bill, solely because of the clause that requires non-dual-citizenship. First clause requiring a long form birth certificate may be misguided as well; the question is, when did every state implement long forms for birth records? (thus, this bill doesn't address other states' requirements)
2) The argument "how many presidents would have qualified under this bill" is misguided. Rather, simply focus on the pros and cons of the bill. Whether George Washington would have qualified under this bill is invalid; two hundred years ago, did they even have birth certificates? If you're going to use this as an argument, keep it to within the last 50-75 years, whenever birth certificates started being used and became a requirement to verify such positions.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Zero. I have not lived the last 14 years in the US. I don't need states to tell me I don't qualify. It's in the Constitution.
Now, can a state refuse to allow gun owners on their ballot?
I do agree in part with the Squire.
1. However, most laws in the last paragraph will state - "if any part of this law is found to be un-constitutional - only that part shall be invalid and will not invalidate any other part of this law" or words to that effect.
2. This is the reason that it takes a while to pass a good bill - because there can be mistakes. They still have several months b4 the election. (think health care bill)
3. The 14 years - does not require the last 14 years - just 14 years at some point in his life.
4. The bill actually does not REQUIRE a baby to be born in a hospital. Even if a child is born "on the outside" he will most certainly be taken to a hospital - where a legal and valid birth certificate will be issued.
5. I do not see the AZ law "defining" natural born citizen - they simply want proof that the child was in fact born in the US
5. Crab asked "how many Tea Party members would be disqualified " why not ask - how many Liberals would be disqualified -
4. Why did you bring up Sara Palin? I see no reason, why she would refuse such a REASONABLE request.
5. I do see where the dual citizenship would be a problem. That should be addressed by Congress.
6. LONG FORM - not the best choice as a phrase. The Bill should simply state what information should be listed.
7. C4K - I realize you have been in Missionary work for years overseas. As I stated before - the 14 years does not have to be the last current 14 years.
(So the bill should be sightly revised there as well)
However in reality, if you were to run for President - your opponents - both for party nomination and in the general election - might question your full loyalty - esp if you are requesting dual citizenship.
8. What does gun owners have to do with this?
David - thank you for your sincere apology
I'm not sure that selecting who the state's electoral votes will go to based on if they are a gun owner or not would hold up. Gun ownership is a constitutional right.
As I stated above, however, states can choose their candidate for President in any way they like. If a state's laws allow for a coin flip, then the electoral votes go with the winner of the coin flip. If a state's laws allow for picking someone based upon eeny, meeny, miny, moe then that is how it works. There is nothing that dictates that a state must allow its citizens to vote for President.
They are not defining anything. They are simply outlining the proof needed to meet the Constitutional requirement to be president. Something the constitution simply does not do and they can do if they wish.
Whether or not past presidents meet the current test means nothing at all. Times were different when they were born.
The real problem most people have with this law is they are worried that the current president cannot meet the standard. That fear should provide enough impetus to install requirements like Arizona's.
There should be no doubt at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Since this has no constitutional basis I take it you would call for an amendment to the Constitution to make this law?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I like this take on the situation - it is logical and constitutional.
However, just because someone has a constitutional right to do something does not mean that a state would have to put him/her on their ballot. Liberal states could just decide not to let Republicans on the ballot and vice-versa.
That is part of my concern about this Arizona issue. It is foolish because it is aimed at one person. Once that starts where will it end up? It opens a can of worms I don't think we want to see opened.
If you can tell a candidate that his must be born in a hospital and that his state of birth must issue a 'long form' birth certificate in order to be put on the ballot and that, despite the fact the Constitution does not address it, he cannot be a dual citizen where are you going to stop?
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
:thumbs: Best post of the thread! This nails the issue!! :thumbsup:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
No, the law states that the birth certificate must state which hospital the person was born in and have the doctor's signature.
What is a person was born just north of the Mexican border and the only person people present were mom and dad. Or even worse. just south of the border. How can a hospital sign off on a birth when they have no idea where it actually took place?
The question does become what candidates can meet the requirements if the Arizona proposed legislation becomes law.
Let's look at the last election.
Obama ... we all know about this issue.
McCain ... was born in Canal zone. I found what is purported to be his long and short form birth certificates. It appears there are no signatures on his long form. Also, it was not issued by a hospital ... so it would appear he could not be listed on the Arizona ballot.
Sarah Palin ... so far I have not been able to find a birth certificate for her from Idaho. There is one from Canada with her name on it. If that is valid, it would mean she was actually born in Canada, and thus not eligible in to be on the ballot in Arizona.
I have not found anything, except a 'certified fake' certificate on Biden.
Maybe no one, except Biden, can run in Arizona. :laugh:
It appears to be a real can of worms.
Seriously, if there, IMHO, was anything question the legitimacy of any of these candidates the rational opposition and media would have been all over it like cats over catnip!
Let's look at the last election.
Obama ... we all know about this issue.
McCain ... was born in Canal zone. I found what is purported to be his long and short form birth certificates. It appears there are no signatures on his long form. Also, it was not issued by a hospital ... so it would appear he could not be listed on the Arizona ballot.
Sarah Palin ... so far I have not been able to find a birth certificate for her from Idaho. There is one from Canada with her name on it. If that is valid, it would mean she was actually born in Canada, and thus not eligible in to be on the ballot in Arizona.
I have not found anything, except a 'certified fake' certificate on Biden.
Maybe no one, except Biden, can run in Arizona. :laugh:
It appears to be a real can of worms.
Seriously, if there, IMHO, was anything question the legitimacy of any of these candidates the rational opposition and media would have been all over it like cats over catnip!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status