Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

Originally posted by Gazrok
I believe the only thing the Constitution says is "natural born", but technically, a child of two parents (who are not US Citizens) could be born here, and that child could be President?

Yes. The existing law and rationale is based on a Supreme Court case from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the court found Ark was a US citizen at birth, despite his Chinese parentage. From the opinion—

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. ...

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. ...

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

The exceptions are—

[T]he children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

The child would (by most nations) have dual citizenship.

Dual citizenship is of no consequence to US citizenship, particularly if it was acquired by involuntary means, like by virtue of birth, as was the case with Obama. From a Supreme Court decision concerning the alleged loss of US citizenship by acquisition of a foreign citizenship, Perkins v. Elg (1939)—

And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

What about McCain? He was born in the Panama Canal area...so technically, was he even eligible to run? I never really looked into it much, but it's curious.

Considering the common law principles and precedents, and US Supreme Court case law, at this moment there isn’t a conclusive answer to that question.

From a strict interpretation, McCain might not be considered a natural born citizen, seeing as his citizenship was granted by a naturalization statute (8 USC 1403) several months after McCain’s birth.

However, if the Supreme Court had to rule on it, it’s incredibly unlikely they would deem McCain to have not been eligible, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that decision.

This is all just another "divide and conquer" sideshow. At this point, what does it matter? Even if you had video of Obama in a test tube in a joint Chino-Soviet base on Saturn's moon of Titan, it wouldn't roll back the bank bailouts. The insurance companies would still be getting money for every American from the time they are six months old till the day they die. The government would still be spending $2 billion a week to kill sheep-herders in the Middle East, while homeless Americans are dying of starvation.

As Obama's Christian Bible would say, by their deeds shall ye know them. If you want more wars, higher taxes, austerity measures, more bank bailouts, more Patriot Acts, more torture, less freedom, etc. you can vote for the Nobel Peace Prize recipient next year. Or you can vote for whomever the Republicans put forth, same things will happen.

Is it too early to petition the UN for a no-fly zone over America to prepare for a regime change?

Another one bought and paid for.

How's that change workin' for ya.

reply to post by tungus


Hes made over 2 million cash money for sitting on his ass so far

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Another one bought and paid for.

How's that change workin' for ya.

Is there a reason why there is a paragraph worth of blank space following your sig line?

Did your pointless post not waste enough thread space by itself?

this is totally ridiculous.. we get what we deserve here in this country because we continue to accept this crap.. in other "less civilized" countries they would go into the whitehouse and grab these folks out and burn them at the stake. How dare we allow such ridiculousness FOR ANY REASON! EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO SHOW PROOF THAT THEY ARE A CITIZEN.. this is not an issue which is up for debate. OH DIOS MIO

Originally posted by 13Godslivinglight
in other "less civilized" countries they would go into the whitehouse and grab these folks out and burn them at the stake.

Are you suggesting this would be a good practice for the US to start?

EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO SHOW PROOF THAT THEY ARE A CITIZEN..

Agreed. And Obama did.

Originally posted by truther357
Wow...You talking about 'shallow minds'...Your going to log over to Obama's FactCheck to get the truth?

Got some oceanside property up in Denver I need to unload

I guess you also use web sites run by Marxist 'felon' Soros, paid disciples , x & current members of the New Party @ MoveOn, Media Matters, St.Peters-PolitiFact, Fight The Smears, DailyKos,Huffington Post-AOL and snopes...
Wait..snopes did get it right,one time!
Snopes:Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama,was born in Kenya

See...Democrat terrorist are very confused people.

edit on 19-4-2011 by truther357 because: Not enough pictures

I demonstrated precisely why this was a myth to you in a similar thread and you had no comeback. www.abovetopsecret.com...
What, did you think if you spread a falsehood long enough the aggregate IQ drops and suddenly it becomes "gospel"?

And here you are again going on and insulting other people's references/sources (whether they were actually used or not) while holding your references (WND, blogs, and partisan websites) to an apparently differing standard in your own mind.

When that fails (and it did in that thread), will you then resort to the Weapon of Mass Distraction - we're ALL Dis-info agents?

reply to post by tungus

No surprises here, it's a sold out act.

Obama's still not as bad as ol' G-dubya.
2nd line.

Originally posted by Caji316
""""There is more than enough proof of his birth certificate and even pictures of it,"""""


You post a picture of his Long Form Birth Certificate and I will give you my Home...Yes, it is paid for....Valued at $212,000.00 right now....It's your's just for a picture of his long form birth certificate you say there is a picture of....

That will end this lie right here...There can't be a picture of something that does not exist.....TPTB may make him up a fake one but it will be disproven because of ink and paper content of that era....Barry is screwed and it's just a matter of time now....

edit on 19-4-2011 by Caji316 because: (no reason given)

Here, read the article associated with this link and then reevaluate your comment for us: www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by backinblack

You want people to come forward and admit they committed fraud?? I don't see that happening...

To save the Constitution and American Democracy from the corrupt con-artists that make up the government in the State of Hawai'i? Sure I do.

If you are so damn sure that it is easy to do, because Hawai'i law permits it, how is it fraud on your part if you are just following Hawai'ian law? If it is so easy to obtain one a fraudulent certificate, why hasn't the State Department invalidated all the passports based on the poorly controlled Hawai'ian certificates?

reply to post by tungus

Of course, that might be a problem for someone with dual citizenship so you might want to keep that locked.

As long as one of the dual citizenships is natural born citizen of America, there is no problem what-so-ever.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


id be willing to bet your british.

can tell by the words you use. sure you slip an "aint" in every now and then but id still bet my bottem dollar your british.

reply to post by HabaneroPepper

Um no. As a resident of Az, I can assuredly tell you that you are wrong.

As a former resident of Az, and as someone who has read the bill, I can assuredly tell you that you are wrong.

The Arizona bill attempts to dictate to the other 49 states and territories etc, what form their official records must be in. The Constitution of the United States gives that authority only to Congress, and further specifies that all states must give full faith and credit to the official records of the other states.

I know that the Arizona education system has fallen on hard times since I was a student there, so you may have missed out on the Constitution in your civics class. I'll show you the relevant part, just as a refresher:

Article IV Section 1

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.

There is another problem with the Arizona bill: namely that the extraordinary proof applies only to candidates for the office of President of the United States. The Vice-President is conspicuously left out of that section of the bill. In other words, this bill is aimed squarely at one person and one person only: the one person that has had lies and disinformation about his birth circumstances and slanderous allegations of fraud by State and Federal officials repeated like a broken record for 3 years despite zero evidence of any such fraud.

A strong argument can be made that this is a Bill of Attainder, and while we are on Constitutional civics lessons:

Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

reply to post by tungus


In my opinion the intent behind the veto is important if it is genuine. Placing that kind of power into a single person can be detrimental no matter what the context is.

If the bill was ratified it would set a bad example. It would basically say that a person who holds a position in the government could dictate who can and cannot run for president. So rather than supporting this bill with the inane logic of "this would of been epic tho but looks like your stuck with barry the kenyan commie president you never wanted," the message the bill sends out is that it doesn't give a government official like the president the ability to tell people that they can or cannot run for president.

The message it sends says that a single person will not be given that power. I support that message.

awww..poor birthers didn't get to treat a black man like dirt this time..poor wittle babies..

reply to post by HabaneroPepper

Though i understand your view, there is evidence that would support a counter claim.

No, there really isn't.

Have a look at the image of the COLB that Obama published


Do you see the phrases printed white on black, one on the top border (the title) and the other on the bottom border (the footer)? One phrases says "Certification of Live Birth". The other says "Any Alterations Invalidate this Certificate".

So the document is claiming to be both a certificate and a certification!

How can that be? Well lets try studying those words, shall we?

(from Merriam Webster Online)

cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
noun \ˌsər-tə-fə-ˈkā-shən\
Definition of CERTIFICATION
1
: the act of certifying : the state of being certified
2
: a certified statement
See certification defined for English-language learners »
Examples of CERTIFICATION

1. the certification of the vote
2. She had to wait until her certification as a nurse before she could start her new job.
3. The certifications of nine teachers were revoked.
4. The school offers scuba diving certification.

First Known Use of CERTIFICATION
15th century
Related to CERTIFICATION
Synonyms: certificate, document, instrument


cer·tif·i·cate
noun \(ˌ)sər-ˈti-fi-kət\
Definition of CERTIFICATE
1
: a document containing a certified statement especially as to the truth of something; specifically : a document certifying that one has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a field
2
: something serving the same end as a certificate
3
: a document evidencing ownership or debt
See certificate defined for English-language learners »
Examples of CERTIFICATE

1. She has a certificate in midwifery.
2. He earned his teaching certificate last year.

Origin of CERTIFICATE
Middle English certificat, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare to certify
First Known Use: 15th century
Related to CERTIFICATE
Synonyms: certification, document, instrument

So it isn't too hard after all. A certification is a certified statement, and a certificate is the document that contains that certified statement. Not only that, but in common usage the two words are synonyms of each other.

Tilting at this windmill is really, really, unrewarding for your argument. There is no case for such a counter claim.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I THINK, but I'm not sure yet, that even Arizona does NOT issue the long form!

You are correct.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I agree, maybe she wants more than one person to see the birth certificates though. I agree with her on that and dis-agree that there be no checks. She needs to demand a jury to check first.