Few presidents would qualify under birther bill

Well written. You have a point.

Then the AZ is simply foolish and reactionary and sets a dangerous precedent.

 

Actually states already have other requirements for getting on the ballot such as filing dates.

Are you against those requirements as well?

 

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.

 

Ok - how about if you contact each and every state and let them know that you wish to be on the ballot.

How many state ballots do you think that you would be on?

Any?

 

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.

 

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?

 

Ok then, how about trying to see how many state ballots you can get me on?

I dunno.

Do you?

 

Gun owner is an example. Basically why stop there. They could keep going to allow basically only what they want.

 

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.

 

If he does not renounce his Irish citizenship, he should be prohibited from running for president.

No divided loyalties should be tolerated.

 

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.

 

Since this has no constitutional basis I take it you would call for an amendment to the Constitution to make this law?

 

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?

 

What difference does it make?

The current system isn't any better anyway.

The only candidates that get on the ballot in all of the states are the two that are hand picked by the power brokers.

 

:thumbs: Best post of the thread! This nails the issue!! :thumbsup:

 

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?

 

Obama, McCain, Palin...

We would be much better off if none of the above had been on the ballot the last time around.

I think that Crabby just undercut his own argument. :laugh: