If you thought Florida and Texas were wack...

[Nbadan]

....the Arizona State House is trying to pass a bill to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot! :lol


PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

KPHO (http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html)


A whole legislature full of birthers!! Even DarrinS is laughing!

[baseline bum]

:lmao

[Nbadan]

Wasn't McCain born in Panama?

[TeyshaBlue]

Great Scott! Those Arizona guys march to the beat of a different time zone.

[Yonivore]

I never thought Florida or Texas were whack.

[z0sa]

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

What's wrong with this exactly?

[coyotes_geek]

What's wrong with this exactly?

Nothing.

[Stringer_Bell]

What's wrong with this exactly?

John McCain was born in Panama. It's a territory, but it's not a state in the United States. AZ politicians didn't question where he was born, why?

This ballot effort can't be backed up by any sort of argument.

[doobs]

John McCain was born in Panama. It's a territory, but it's not a state in the United States. AZ politicians didn't question where he was born, why?

This ballot effort can't be backed up by any sort of argument.

If he runs in 2012, John McCain would have to submit his supporting documents.

So, again, what's the problem?

[Oh, Gee!!]

So, again, what's the problem?

it smacks of racism and desperation on their part.

[z0sa]

John McCain was born in Panama. It's a territory, but it's not a state in the United States. AZ politicians didn't question where he was born, why?

They don't question McCain's birthplace because they are already 100% sure of where he was born.


This ballot effort can't be backed up by any sort of argument.

Quite the opposite.

[z0sa]

it smacks of racism and desperation on their part.

Only if that's what you're looking for.

You aren't honestly afraid that Obama's credentials are lacking, are you?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Only if that's what you're looking for.

you're right, they're looking for any reason to discredit the first black president.


You aren't honestly afraid that Obama's credentials are lacking, are you?


not at all, the issue has been settled long ago.

[coyotes_geek]

it smacks of racism and desperation on their part.

I know it's going to be tough, but try to put down the partisan pom-poms for a moment and see if you can come up with a reason why it's a bad thing to expect candidates for elected office to prove that they're eligible to hold that office.

[z0sa]

you're right, they're looking for any reason to discredit the first black president.

That's not what I said.





not all, the issue has been settled long ago.

So if Obama's credentials are sound, AND all candidates, including white, black, Asian, and Hispanic candidates or any other race or mixture of races, must prove their credentials, how is Arizona "looking to discredit the first black president?"

[doobs]

Obama has nothing to worry about. He was born in Hawaii.

So what's the problem?

[z0sa]

see if you can come up with a reason why it's a bad thing to expect candidates for elected office to prove that they're eligible to hold that office.

Exactly. I'm a bit appalled the other 49 states didn't think of this first ..

[Yonivore]

you're right, they're looking for any reason to discredit the first black president.
Wasn't that Bill Clinton?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's not what I said.

it's not what you said, but it's what Arizona is attempting to do.




So if Obama's credentials are sound, AND all candidates, including white, black, Asian, and Hispanic candidates or any other race or mixture of races, must prove their credentials, how is Arizona "looking to discredit the first black president?"

because they're making the birth certificate an issue at all. This law will not be enforceable even if passed and signed into law. it's just a middle finger to the president on behalf of the birthers in that state who are probably calling their reps saying something "needs to be done about that muslim/foreigner/socialist."

[z0sa]

it's not what you said, but it's what Arizona is attempting to do.

Says you and any one else who's looking to be defensive.

Again, it's only barely indirectly related to Obama, and that's if you're going to be defensive-minded. Obama is the POTUS and that ain't changing until 2013, earliest. There's plenty of far-more-reaching shit to criticize him over than an extremely exaggerated credentials issue.






because they're making the birth certificate an issue at all.

Where is there mention of Obama's birth certificate in the new legislature?

[coyotes_geek]

Exactly. I'm a bit appalled the other 49 states didn't think of this first ..

No kidding. I'd have thought that every state would have already been requiring this. I really don't see how anyone can be opposed to this, regardless of party affiliation.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama has nothing to worry about. He was born in Hawaii.

So what's the problem?

why the need to see it again then?

[doobs]

why the need to see it again then?

It would apply to all candidates. What's the problem?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It would apply to all candidates. What's the problem?

But he has already proven it. Why do it again?

[doobs]

But he has already proven it. Why do it again?

I think you're missing the point. This is not a law that applies only to Obama. It applies to all candidates.

If a candidate wants to run for an office, what's wrong with requiring him to provide documents supporting his constitutional eligibility for the office? I have no doubt that Obama will be able to quickly and cheaply comply with this law. I fail to see the problem.

Do you think there would have even been a birther movement had this law been in effect in 2008?

[doobs]

So no one has a principled argument against this? Will complying with this law even be a noticeable burden for candidates?

[coyotes_geek]

But he has already proven it. Why do it again?

Why is it so important that Obama not have to prove it again if he's already proven it once? It's not like this would cause Obama any kind of an inconvienence. Some campaign worker of his would be able to fill out all the paperwork in 15 minutes. If even that long.

[jack sommerset]

Obama likes playing games. 1 term prez.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why is it so important that Obama not have to prove it again if he's already proven it once? It's not like this would cause Obama any kind of an inconvienence. Some campaign worker of his would be able to fill out all the paperwork in 15 minutes. If even that long.

because he has already proved it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama likes playing games. 1 term prez.

no dummy the game is passing stupid legislation about birth certificates.

[coyotes_geek]

because he has already proved it.

Then he'd have absolutely nothing to worry about were he required to prove it again just like every other candidate wanting to be on the Arizona ballot would be required to. Especially considering how little effort on his part would be required. So there's no legitimacy to opposing the bill on those grounds.

[doobs]

Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then he'd have absolutely nothing to worry about were he required to prove it again just like every other candidate wanting to be on the Arizona ballot would be required to. Especially considering how little effort on his part would be required. So there's no legitimacy to opposing the bill on those grounds.

what could change in 4 yrs?

[coyotes_geek]

what could change in 4 yrs?

With regards to where Obama was born, nothing. Which is exactly why your position on this topic is so absurd.

[George Gervin's Afro]

With regards to where Obama was born, nothing. Which is exactly why your position on this topic is so absurd.

so it hasn't changed and you want him to show it again...got it. Great position deep thinker..

[Mr. Peabody]

Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .

I just don't know how a state can impose it's own special requirements for a federal office. I thought the "Birthers" were big on the Constitution. This would appear to run afoul of the Constitution.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just don't know how a state can impose it's own special requirements for a federal office. I thought the "Birthers" were big on the Constitution. This would appear to run afoul of the Constitution.

no they are strict consitutionalists.. well most of the time anyways..

[TeyshaBlue]

Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .

Is it not reasonable to expect a candidate's citizenship to be established in the nomination process? Is it reasonable to add an additional, likely redundant, step?

[Winehole23]

So no one has a principled argument against this? Will complying with this law even be a noticeable burden for candidates?I would think not, because presumably Federal authorities vet Presidential candidates too. It's a straight reduplication of regulatory function, bureaucratic piling on, if you will.

What warrants the reduplication? Has Federal vetting of candidates been shown to be unreliable or untrustworthy in some way?

In other words, perhaps there is some good reason no state has yet enacted such a law. Namely, because another government entity already does that job.

[Stringer_Bell]

Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .

AZ's got bigger fish to fry than wasting time and catching shit from everyone simply to have one of Obama's aids fill out 15 minutes of paperwork. I'm amazed out how childish these AZ politicians are, they'd never have pulled this shit if McCain was President. How often does AZ vote for a Democrat President anyway? These losers wouldn't raise a stink if their side won.

They're cowards, just like everyone else that suddenly woke up and smelt "the convenient portions" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Total phonies. It'd be much easier and honest if they simply passed a law saying they will excluse Obama or anyone suspected of being a socialist. Get straight up into it instead of pulling your dick out hoping to fall into something. :king

[Winehole23]

Principled argument #1: this a solution in search of a problem.

[Winehole23]

Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.

[coyotes_geek]

so it hasn't changed and you want him to show it again...got it.

I want all candidates for elected office to prove they're eligible to hold the office they're seeking. You're the one who wants to make this about Obama.


Great position deep thinker..

:lol May you rest easy at night knowing that no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker.

[jack sommerset]

no dummy the game is passing stupid legislation about birth certificates.

How dare a business or government ask for such a thing, dummy!!!!!!!!!

[TeyshaBlue]

AZ's got bigger fish to fry than wasting time and catching shit from everyone simply to have one of Obama's aids fill out 15 minutes of paperwork. I'm amazed out how childish these AZ politicians are, they'd never have pulled this shit if McCain was President. How often does AZ vote for a Democrat President anyway? These losers wouldn't raise a stink if their side won.

They're cowards, just like everyone else that suddenly woke up and smelt "the convenient portions" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Total phonies. It'd be much easier and honest if they simply passed a law saying they will excluse Obama or anyone suspected of being a socialist. Get straight up into it instead of pulling your dick out hoping to fall into something. :king

Excluse: \iks-klüs
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Contemporary English from ST Poster Stringer Bell
Date: 2010
To prevent or restrict the entrance of

To bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion by dismissal.

:lol:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

I want all candidates for elected office to prove they're eligible to hold the office they're seeking. You're the one who wants to make this about Obama.



:lol May you rest easy at night knowing that no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker.

So then you should be satisfied that has ALREADY shown it. You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.

[coyotes_geek]

Principled argument #1: this a solution in search of a problem.

Perhaps, but when has that ever stopped government before?


Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.

To what?

[doobs]

I would think not, because presumably Federal authorities vet Presidential candidates too. It's a straight reduplication of regulatory function, bureaucratic piling on, if you will.

What warrants the reduplication? Has Federal vetting of candidates been shown to be unreliable or untrustworthy in some way?

In other words, is there some good reason no state has yet enacted such a law?

Presidential elections are basically 51 separate elections (administered by the 50 states + DC). There is not, to my knowledge, any federal vetting of candidates for constitutional eligibility.

[coyotes_geek]

So then you should be satisfied that has ALREADY shown it.

I'm 100% completely and absolutely satisfied that Obama has proven his American citizenship.


You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.

I'm making this about every candidate, regardless of their party.

[Stringer_Bell]

Excluse: \iks-klüs
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Contemporary English from ST Poster Stringer Bell
Date: 2010
To prevent or restrict the entrance of

To bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion by dismissal.

:lol:lol


Shit, ya got me. I guess I officially gave up my right to argue in this thread. :rollin

[Winehole23]

Presidential elections are basically 51 separate elections (administered by the 50 states + DC). There is not, to my knowledge, any federal vetting of candidates for constitutional eligibility.So then access to the ballot is a purely state matter. Well and fine.

Whence arises the concern about unqualified candidates becoming US President the Arizona law seems to address?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm 100% completely and absolutely satisfied that Obama has proven his American citizenship.



I'm making this about every candidate, regardless of their party.

I am ok with this stupid bill going forward but this was done to try and mess with Obama.. I want the president to indeed be a citizen of this country but this bill is just political grandstanding..

[TeyshaBlue]

Presidential elections are basically 51 separate elections (administered by the 50 states + DC). There is not, to my knowledge, any federal vetting of candidates for constitutional eligibility.

Are they not vetted by the American voters? Seems like a nomination pretty much meets that challenge.

[TeyshaBlue]

Shit, ya got me. I guess I officially gave up my right to argue in this thread. :rollin

ROFL. I'm such a bonehead that occasionally I like to play dictionary-nazi. :lol :lol

Just joshin' ya.:toast

[Winehole23]

Perhaps, but when has that ever stopped government before?Maybe it should have. There's never been any need for it before now. What's so hellfire important about now?



To what?doobs shot me down on this. I presumed that because there were Constitutional qualifications somebody actually checked them. I guess that's our job in the voting booth.

[doobs]

Are they not vetted by the American voters? Seems like a nomination pretty much meets that challenge.

So what's the point of having any constitutional requirements for eligibility?

BTW, I'm of the opinion that voters should be entitled to elect whoever they want. If I had written the Constitution, I would not have inserted any of the age, residency, or natural birth requirements. But rules are rules, and this is a very effective way of enforcing the rules and resolving any doubts.

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe it should have. There's never been any need for it before now. What's so hellfire important about now?


doobs shot me down on this. I presumed that because there were Constitutional qualifications somebody actually checked them. I guess that's our job in the voting booth.

Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla, agrees.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3203

"Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history,” Martinez responded.

And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president,” he wrote.

[Winehole23]

(TB beat me to the point.)

[TeyshaBlue]

So what's the point of having any constitutional requirements for eligibility?


You'd probably have to ask some dead guys about that. But, ostensibly, you've got to put some structure around who is and who isn't eligible for candidacy. Pretty sure we don't want to burn time watching a 14 year old kid take a run @ POTUS, sponsored by MTV.:lol

[Winehole23]

But rules are rules, and this is a very effective way of enforcing the rules and resolving any doubts.What doubts?

[doobs]

Forget about Obama.

What should happen if Schwarzenegger decided to run in 2012? If he's popular enough, should voters be allowed to just disregard constitutional requirements and elect him? If not, is it enough that we can rely on the courts to bail us out after the fact?

Or does a ballot access measure like this make sense?

[doobs]

What doubts?

Any doubts that might arise about a candidate's place of birth. Or age. Or whether he's satisfied the residency requirements.

Etc.

[Winehole23]

But, ostensibly, you've got to put some structure around who is and who isn't eligible for candidacy. :lolHow did we ever get along without one up 'til now?

Why have we "got to put up some structure" around eligibility? 35 years old, native born. It's not that hard.

[Winehole23]

...

[TeyshaBlue]

Forget about Obama.

What should happen if Schwarzenegger decided to run in 2012? If he's popular enough, should voters be allowed to just disregard constitutional requirements and elect him? If not, is it enough that we can rely on the courts to bail us out after the fact?

Or does a ballot access measure like this make sense?

Schwarzenegger cannot run for POTUS. It's a self-limiting question.
It is likely that the issue would be decided in the Fed. courts, but the likelihood of that happening approaches zero.

[TeyshaBlue]

How did we ever get along without one up 'til now?

Why have we "got to put up some structure" around eligibility? 35 years old, native born. It's not that hard.

That is the structure I was refering to...that which already exists in the Constitution.

[doobs]

Schwarzenegger cannot run for POTUS. It's a self-limiting question.
It is likely that the issue would be decided in the Fed. courts, but the likelihood of that happening approaches zero.

Why can't Schwarzenegger run for POTUS? Other non-natural born citizens have done so, just not successfully.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why can't Schwarzenegger run for POTUS? Other non-natural born citizens have done so, just not successfully.

Then one could say their lack of success is a product of the vetting process?

btw, what other non-nat citizens have run? Not saying there weren't, but I remain ignorant of their stories.

[doobs]

Then one could say their lack of success is a product of the vetting process?

btw, what other non-nat citizens have run? Not saying there weren't, but I remain ignorant of their stories.

Most recent example: Roger Calero (Nicaragua), 2004 and 2008.

[Winehole23]

Any doubts that might arise about a candidate's place of birth. Or age. Or whether he's satisfied the residency requirements.

Etc.Is there some question that Obama has fallen short of a residency requirement to be US president?

Do you have any doubt, doobs, that an adversarial primary and Presidential election process sorts out factual issues related to qualification at a fairly early stage, with more than reasonable diligence and reliability? (Political candidates are motivated to win, not just to win the argument.)

[coyotes_geek]

Maybe it should have. There's never been any need for it before now. What's so hellfire important about now?

doobs shot me down on this. I presumed that because there were Constitutional qualifications somebody actually checked them. I guess that's our job in the voting booth.

No doubt the timing and motivations are political. But that doesn't make the concept a bad one. Protecting the integrity of elections seems like a noble endeavor to me. From President of the U.S. all the way down to local elections. Even if it's not neccessary, what's the downside here? Candidates already have to file some paperwork to get their names on the ballot. What's the harm in asking for one more piece of paper? I honestly just don't see why anyone would be opposed to this.

[Winehole23]

I'm saying make the case that we need laws like this. That argument hasn't really been made, yet.

[DarrinS]

Asking for proof that you meet eligibilty requirements is just wack. In fact, I think a "don't ask, just believe" policy should be enacted all across our society. Who needs proof of some fancy shmancy medical license to be a doctor? A white lab coat is all the proof I need.

[TeyshaBlue]

Most recent example: Roger Calero (Nicaragua), 2004 and 2008.

Interesting. From the wiki on him "In 2004, Róger Calero was the SWP candidate for President of the United States and received 3,689 votes, with Arrin Hawkins running for Vice President. Because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero is ineligible to become U.S. president under the United States Constitution, and so James Harris, the Socialist Workers' Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed, receiving 7,102 additional votes."

The statement describing where James Harris had to basically be a stand-in on the ballots of 9 states where Calero could not be included seems to suggest that what Arizona is proposing is actually nothing new and other states apparently do this as well in some fashion (vetting candidates).

[doobs]

I'm saying make the case that we need laws like this. That argument hasn't really been made, yet.

We don't need laws like this, since there is always an available remedy in federal court. But I would rather avoid that disruptive process, since it only becomes available once a plaintiff has standing to sue . . . after the ineligible candidate has already been elected.

This is a relatively minor, but thoroughly sensible, requirement for candidates to fulfill if they want to win an election. It answers any eligibility questions before the fact.

If this doesn't end up becoming law in Arizona, then that's OK, too. Like you said, our current system--with hard-fought primaries and such--is pretty good.

[Winehole23]

doobs broad appeal to emotion (people are/might be "concerned" about matters of eligibility) -- in spite of his honest will, perhaps -- presumes the Manchurian Candidate meme for its effectiveness. In Arizona's case, this sensibility is openly pandered to.

[Winehole23]

Anti Obama dog whistles are fine; let's just not pretend all the concerns proceed from "reasonable" doubts about the process, or the eligibility of candidates.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm saying make the case that we need laws like this. That argument hasn't really been made, yet.

I would think the fact that we have laws laying out what the eligibility requirements are should make it self evident that we need to make sure they get followed. Otherwise, what's the point?

When we make a law saying that you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes do we just assume that everyone will obey, or do we make sure the law involves checking ID's? Now I'm not saying that there are as many politicians out there trying to win an office they're not eligible for as there are kids under the age of 18 trying to get cigarettes, not even close, but that's not the point. Why hold politicians to a lower standard? Especially when the effort to prove compliance is so incredibly simple.

[coyotes_geek]

Anti Obama dog whistles are fine; let's just not pretend all the concerns proceed from "reasonable" doubts about the process, or the eligibility of candidates.

No doubt. Political motivations are definitely in play here. Still, as long as both teams end up having to play by the same rules I don't see the harm. As a bonus, we get a "feel good" knowing that the integrity of elections is being protected. Hell, just shutting up the birthers makes the whole thing worthwhile IMO.

[CuckingFunt]

Presidential elections are basically 51 separate elections (administered by the 50 states + DC). There is not, to my knowledge, any federal vetting of candidates for constitutional eligibility.

And yet we've as a nation managed to elect 43 presidents without ever having someone sneak into the oval office who didn't meet the constitutional requirements for eligibility.

Ultimately I think this is a non-issue. The process is too public for anyone to make it far enough along in their candidacy to have any one state's requirements make that big of an impact. I do think it's naive to ignore the timing of this particular move, however. If the state of Arizona was legitimately concerned about properly vetting presidential candidates, they could have suggested this legislation at any time. They didn't, though. It wasn't an issue for them until we had a person of color with a kooky name (whose place of birth is contested by a small but vocal portion of the population) at the helm that this magically became necessary.

[Winehole23]

I would think the fact that we have laws laying out what the eligibility requirements are should make it self evident that we need to make sure they get followed. Otherwise, what's the point? Maybe it was self-evident that the voters sort out qualifications for themselves, an adversarial political process limits shenanigans, and the states run the whole show.

In the strict legal sense Arizona's law is reasonable and proper. Whether it is needful or politically astute is doubtful IMO.

[coyotes_geek]

Maybe it was self-evident that the voters sort out qualifications for themselves, and political process already limits shenanigans.

Perhaps. But what's the harm in putting such a law in place as a backstop? Is there some potential unintended, adverse consequence here that I'm just not seeing? What's the worst thing that could happen here?

[Yonivore]

Maybe it was self-evident that the voters sort out qualifications for themselves, and an adversarial political process limits shenanigans.
With the entire investigative might of the Mainstream Media packing all the hotels within a 500 mile radius of Wasilla, Alaska -- pretty much throughout the "political process" of the last presidential election, I'm not so sure the "political process" limited much, this time around.

Am I a "birther?" Nah, I'm sufficiently satisfied he's constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of the Presidency. What I'm disappointed in is the "political process."

A robust "political process" would have discovered as much about Obama's relationships with criminals, crooks, and terrorists as it did about Trig's provenance, Palin's family's stance on sex before marriage, and one of her relative's drug arrest.

A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama could go through Harvard Law and run it's Review without ever publishing one legal article. One.

A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama -- after producing zero academic writings could muster the authoriship to write two -- count them, two! -- autobiographies, before he had achieved little more than what thousands of "community organizers" before him have achieved.

I could go on about the things we don't know that a robust "political process" would have discovered about Obama if, in fact, we had a robust "political process."

[Winehole23]

All those things came to light before the election. You ceaselessly flacked them here. The grand conspiracy to conceal the truth about Obama's past was non-existent.

It was and is all out in the open Yoni. If people have ignored you, or keep ignoring you, perhaps that goes to the quality of the brief you have assembled.

[Winehole23]

I won't just sit here and let you say the MSM conspired to undermine your credibility, when you do it so well yourself.

[Yonivore]

All those things came to light before the election. You ceaselessly flacked them here. The grand conspiracy to conceal the truth about Obama's past was non-existent.
Well, in case you haven't noticed; "here" isn't exactly a mainstream media outlet.


It was and is all out in the open Yoni. If people have ignored you, or keep ignoring you, perhaps that goes to the quality of the brief you have assembled.
Again, conflating my exposure to that of say, the White House Press Corp, one of the major networks, any number of cable outlets, etc... while flattering, isn't exactly demonstrative.

[Yonivore]

I won't just sit here and let you say the MSM conspired to undermine your credibility, when you do it so well yourself.
So, tell me this.

How did the mainstream media explain how Obama was able to graduate Harvard Law and hold the prestigious position of President of its Law Review, without ever publishing a legal brief or paper?

I'm curious.

How did the mainstream media reconcile Obama's claim to have been a Constitutional Professor at the University of Chicago with the University's claim that he wasn't?

I'm curious.

How has the mainstream media reported Obama's license to practice law being revoked, abandoned, relinquished, or otherwise voided (I'm not sure which because, it's never been adequately explained.)

I'm curious.

Apparently, you and the mainstream media are not.

[Mr. Peabody]

A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama could go through Harvard Law and run it's Review without ever publishing one legal article. One.

Editors in law review don't write law review articles, they review the submitted articles for corrections and evaluation for publication. The staff writers write the articles.

Also, only a small percentage of articles submitted to a law review are actually published. There are tons of staff writers, professors, legal professionals, etc. who submit articles that are not published.

Additionally, I think he did write an article or case note -


But what truly distinguishes Obama from other bright students at Harvard Law, Tribe [Harvard Law Professor] said, is his ability to make sense of complex legal arguments and translate them into current social concerns. For example, Tribe said, Obama wrote an insightful research article showing how contrasting views in the abortion debate are a direct result of cultural and sociological differences.

Also - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html ("Obama's Lost Law Review Article")


A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama -- after producing zero academic writings could muster the authoriship to write two -- count them, two! -- autobiographies, before he had achieved little more than what thousands of "community organizers" before him have achieved.

I wasn't aware that thousands of community organizers had become the first Black editor of Harvard Law Review (first book) or been the only sitting Black senator and only the third Black senator since Reconstruction (second book).

[Yonivore]

Obama pap
Lawrence Tribe is a liberal hack. Others at Harvard have said Obama was lazy and incurious.

So, what happened to Obama's law license? And, what about his claim of being a "Constitutional Professor" in Chicago?

[Mr. Peabody]

So, tell me this.

How did the mainstream media explain how Obama was able to graduate Harvard Law and hold the prestigious position of President of its Law Review, without ever publishing a legal brief or paper?

You don't "publish" legal briefs in law school. They may be a requirement of your first or second year course load, but they aren't published. Second, he did publish a case note his first year. Finally, you don't write articles as an editor of law review. You are far too busy reviewing staff writer articles for correction and reviewing other submitted articles for publication.



How did the mainstream media reconcile Obama's claim to have been a Constitutional Professor at the University of Chicago with the University's claim that he wasn't?

This is how the University of Chicago reconciled it -



Statement Regarding Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media



How has the mainstream media reported Obama's license to practice law being revoked, abandoned, relinquished, or otherwise voided (I'm not sure which because, it's never been adequately explained.)

I think they try to avoid reporting on urban legands.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

[Mr. Peabody]

Lawrence Tribe is a liberal hack. Others at Harvard have said Obama was lazy and incurious.

Well, then he must be a f-cking genius because the lazy and incurious Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and was editor of the law review (a time-consuming undertaking for a third year law student when others are often in cruise mode).


So, what happened to Obama's law license?
Snopes addressed that one. Nice try though.

[z0sa]

Anti Obama dog whistles are fine; let's just not pretend all the concerns proceed from "reasonable" doubts about the process, or the eligibility of candidates.

Should every presidential candidate be constitutionally eligible for the position? It is a rather important concept.

[Mr. Peabody]

Should every presidential candidate be constitutionally eligible for the position? It is a rather important concept.

I think the more important question is whether each state gets to have their own specialized criteria and gets to make a individual determination as to whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible for this federal office.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the more important question is whether each state gets to have their own specialized criteria and gets to make a individual determination as to whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible for this federal office.

Moot. The criteria already exists. The rest is recognition of the criteria.

[z0sa]

I think the more important question is whether each state gets to have their own specialized criteria and gets to make a individual determination as to whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible for this federal office.

Where did AZ ask for specialized criteria? Their criteria is the same constitution the other 49 states ratified and use.

[Winehole23]

Should every presidential candidate be constitutionally eligible for the position? It is a rather important concept.The political process already reliably addresses it, I think. But the states are free to do whatever they want.

[Mr. Peabody]

Where did AZ ask for specialized criteria? Their criteria is the same constitution the other 49 states ratified and use.

Not it's not. Their criteria is that to prove place of birth, you have to submit a birth certificate to their Secretary of State for review. That's not in the Constitution and the other 49 states do not require this.

[coyotes_geek]

Not it's not. Their criteria is that to prove place of birth, you have to submit a birth certificate to their Secretary of State for review. That's not in the Constitution and the other 49 states do not require this.

The other 49 states all give out birth certificates though. Arizona would only be asking for something that every citizen should have or be able to get. Also, is there some clause in the Constitution somewhere that says it's unconstitutional to pass a law designed to ensure compliance with something in the Constitution?

[z0sa]

The political process itself reliably addresses it, I think. But the states are free to do whatever they want about it.

You know, I'm not sure if AZ and other states don't have a solid reason to do this with the (admittedly exaggerated) press Obama's birth certificate got.

It has nothing to do with Obama's actual citizenship (which I don't doubt and neither does anyone informed), it has to do with the precedent it established - never before have we even questioned a candidate's constitutional eligibility.

[Winehole23]

It wasn't very much in question this time IMO, but I hear there is a division of reasonable people on this point.

[boutons_deux]

If Magic Negro were 100% white, AZ racist nutjobs wouldn't pull this stunt.

Goddam, America really is God's Gift To The Universe. :lol

[z0sa]

Not it's not. Their criteria is that to prove place of birth, you have to submit a birth certificate to their Secretary of State for review. That's not in the Constitution and the other 49 states do not require this.

Does the constitution lay down eligibility requirements for government offices? Yes.

Is being an American-born citizen a constitutional requirement for holding presidency? Yes. This is the most important point.

Is every American-born citizen issued an American birth certificate? Yes.

Thus, in actuality, meeting constitutional eligibility requires a birth certificate - it is by far the easiest, foolproof way of assuring someone was born in America.

Do you have an easier, or better way, of establishing whether a person meets the constitutional requirements?

[boutons_deux]

"constitution requires a birth certificate"

Magic Negro provided his, and there were other proofs (newspaper announce) but the birther nutjobs refused to believe anything but their own echo chamber noise.

[Mr. Peabody]

So, just to reiterate, the state of Arizona has determined that all Mexicans (or people who look like Mexicans) need to carry around I.D. or risk being jailed, and our first Black President has to carry around his birth certificate to prove he was born here.

:lmao

[z0sa]

"and our first Black President has to carry around his birth certificate to prove he was born here."

No

[Winehole23]

or people who look like Mexicans) need to carry around I.D. or risk being jailedYour papers, please.

[LnGrrrR]

Are there any tests to make sure our President isn't a Cylon as well? That's what I'm most worried about...

Also, witch trials. Just in case.


Edit: Skipped ahead, didn't see the discussion on who checks presidential pre-reqs. If it isn't vetted at a fed level, I see no harm in this law. Of course, the politics are heavy-handed.

[LnGrrrR]

I won't just sit here and let you say the MSM conspired to undermine your credibility, when you do it so well yourself.

Wait WH23... you're DEFENDING the MSM? :lol

[Winehole23]

It's one source of information among others. No more, no less.

[LnGrrrR]

It's one source of information among others. No more, no less.

I'd say some sources of the MSM provide quite less than others. But to each their own; however, I refuse to impart an equal quality of usefulness to everyone in the MSM. :D

[Mr. Peabody]

Your papers, please.

This is a mix-up. I was born in East LA.

[Winehole23]

It would be more accurate to say I attacked Yoni than defended the MSM, but the inference is common enough: because I attacked what Yoni said I must be defending what he attacked.

But this does not necessarily follow. Yoni's comments can be flawed all on their own, as revealed by Mr. Peabody upstream.

[Winehole23]

This is a mix-up. I was born in East LA.JCwrdqGrxBU

[Winehole23]

Everybody should have to carry ID, or nobody should.

[Winehole23]

I vote for nobody should, and picking on the Mexicans is chickenshit. We'll see how it all shakes out in AZ.

[Yonivore]

Are there any tests to make sure our President isn't a Cylon as well? That's what I'm most worried about...

Also, witch trials. Just in case.


Edit: Skipped ahead, didn't see the discussion on who checks presidential pre-reqs. If it isn't vetted at a fed level, I see no harm in this law. Of course, the politics are heavy-handed.
And, to be fair, the test isn't to determine what he isn't but, rather, what he is.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it an issue all of a sudden? How long has Arizona gone without checking?

[DarrinS]

Why is it such a big deal if someone's eligibility requirements are checked? Do they not do this already?

How often do we have to verify our credentials or eligibility requirements in daily life? Why is there such phony outrage to this?

[DarrinS]

John McCain was born in Panama. It's a territory, but it's not a state in the United States. AZ politicians didn't question where he was born, why?

This ballot effort can't be backed up by any sort of argument.


Well, if he were born prior to the Naturalization Act of 1795, he'd be fucked.

But, he is pretty old. Better check that birth certificate just to make sure.

:lmao at you and 911 Twoofer Nbadan bringing up McCain being born in Panama.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why is it such a big deal if someone's eligibility requirements are checked? Do they not do this already?

How often do we have to verify our credentials or eligibility requirements in daily life? Why is there such phony outrage to this?

because it's a phony issue

[Winehole23]

Why is it such a big deal if someone's eligibility requirements are checked? Do they not do this already?Have the authorities demanded to see your papers to prove your legal residence in Texas yet?

Do you look forward to it? :wow


How often do we have to verify our credentials or eligibility requirements in daily life? Why is there such phony outrage to this?Your papers, please.

[Winehole23]

You can keep your phony outrage to yourself, Sir.

[ChumpDumper]

That is one butthurt state.

[DarrinS]

Have the authorities demanded to see your papers to prove your legal residence in Texas yet?

Do you look forward to it? :wow

Your papers, please.


Yes.

[coyotes_geek]

Have the authorities demanded to see your papers to prove your legal residence in Texas yet?

Do you look forward to it? :wow

Your papers, please.

Last time I voted I seem to recall being required to provide some kind of document before they'd let me cast my ballot. Doesn't seem like it's all that big of a deal to me to ask politicians to provide one before they're allowed to be on the ballot.

[LnGrrrR]

I used to be concerned with gov agencies forcing one to have licenses/ID's etc etc for various objects.

But now that ridiculous amounts of data can be pulled on you by commercial companies without your knowledge... well, it's inevitable. The best I can do is fight against any "Real ID" proposals, it seems.

[DarrinS]

I used to be concerned with gov agencies forcing one to have licenses/ID's etc etc for various objects.

But now that ridiculous amounts of data can be pulled on you by commercial companies without your knowledge... well, it's inevitable. The best I can do is fight against any "Real ID" proposals, it seems.


Don't go to an airport.

[doobs]

So I've thought a little more about this, and I do have a concern. There is some dispute about what it means to be a natural born citizen. There is basically no authority on the matter.

A court could theoretically hold that a natural born citizen includes the child of two US citizens born overseas. Natural born citizen might necessarily incorporate whatever federal law says about who is or isn't entitled to US citizenship upon birth. The Constitution assures birthright citzenship for those born in the United States, but it's the grey area that concerns me.

If natural born citizen includes people not born in the United States, then Arizona has to be careful with how it restricts ballot access. Arizona probably cannot make these kinds of determinations on its own without running afoul of federal law or the Constitution. The smartest thing to do, IMO, is adopt a very liberal construction if natural born citizen, which might allow an ineligible candidate ballot access, and then see what happens with court challenges.

[doobs]

In other words, I first want to know what a natural born citizen actually is.

[DarrinS]

If you're going to have eligibility requirements and not check them, why have eligibility requirements at all?

[doobs]

If you're going to have eligibility requirements and not check them, why have eligibility requirements at all?

You can always use the eligibility requirements to check after the fact, via lawsuit. But yeah, I'd rather prevent that from happening altogether.

[LnGrrrR]

If natural born citizen includes people not born in the United States, then Arizona has to be careful with how it restricts ballot access. Arizona probably cannot make these kinds of determinations on its own without running afoul of federal law or the Constitution. The smartest thing to do, IMO, is adopt a very liberal construction if natural born citizen, which might allow an ineligible candidate ballot access, and then see what happens with court challenges.

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

[admiralsnackbar]

A robust "political process" would have discovered how Obama could go through Harvard Law and run it's Review without ever publishing one legal article. One.


This one stuck in my craw a little, so I decided to write to the HLR to ask about Obama's obligations there as the head of the publication.



In order to be an editor on the Review, a law student must take the writing competition at the end of their 1L year. You may read more about how 1Ls become members on our website at http://www.harvardlawreview.org/hlr_477.php (http://www.harvardlawreview.org/hlr_477.php). Students do not write essays for publication in order to become a members of the Review.

The Harvard Law Review Association does not have an editor-in-chief. The top administrative job is president— which is an editor-in-chief with extensive managerial and leadership duties— a job that includes three primary responsibilities: editorial, corporate, and community.


In other words, presidents of the review have no obligation to contribute, which jibes with this LA Times article from 9/4/08:


As law review president, Obama is the last person to edit student articles, as well as longer pieces by accomplished legal scholars. The review publishes eight times a year and receives about 600 free-lance articles each year.

Referring to his fellow students at the review, whom he edits, he said: "These are the people who will be running the country in some form or other when they graduate. If I'm talking to a white conservative who wants to dismantle the welfare state, he has the respect to listen to me and I to him. That's the biggest value of the Harvard Law Review. Ideas get fleshed out and there is no party line to follow."

Obama spends 50 to 60 hours each week on law review business. The full-time volunteer job leaves little time for an additional 12 hours of class, plus homework. When it comes to choosing between the two, as it often does, Obama usually misses class.

One of Obama's most difficult tasks as editor in chief is keeping the peace amid the clashing egos of writers and editors.

"He is very, very diplomatic," said Radhika Rao, 24, a third-year law student from Lexington, Ind. "He is very outgoing and has a lot of experience in handling people, which stands him in good stead."

Tina Ulrich, 24, a third-year student, wrote an article for the review that went through several editors before her final draft landed on Obama's desk.

"When he sent it back, it had lots of tiny print all over it and I was just furious," she said. "My heart just sank. But it was accompanied by specific examples of how parts could be made better. He wound up getting an enthusiastic response from a very tired writer."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html


So, for the record, I don't see how the media let anyone down on this count.

[doobs]

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

That might be the case, but we don't know it to be the case. Point being, I don't think any court has interpreted the provision. It could be that whatever the federal law is at the time of birth governs whether someone is a natural born citizen; that is, a natural born citizen would include all those on whom Congress has granted birthright citizenship. Or it could be that the requirement was meant to restrict eligibility only to those who were born in the United States.

Anyway, so long as the Arizona law pertains solely to the disclosure of documents--and doesn't restrict ballot access to candidates complying with the requirement--I have no problem with it.

[Winehole23]

Yes.At least you're honest about liking the taste of jackboots.

[admiralsnackbar]

AFAIK, natural-born citizenship requires either being born in the states, or born to ONE parent with US citizenship.

It just means you have to have citizenship from birth, IIRC... you can't run for President as a naturalized citizen.

Taken with a grain of salt from the venerable folks at About.com, but it all sounds about right...


Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected president; he was 43 years old when he was inaugurated in 1961. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president; at the end of his term in 1988, he was nearly 77.

Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point. For example, it does not make clear whether those 14 years need to be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. So far, however, this requirement has not been challenged.

These are the only explicit criteria in the Constitution.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

[LnGrrrR]

That might be the case, but we don't know it to be the case. Point being, I don't think any court has interpreted the provision. It could be that whatever the federal law is at the time of birth governs whether someone is a natural born citizen; that is, a natural born citizen would include all those on whom Congress has granted birthright citizenship. Or it could be that the requirement was meant to restrict eligibility only to those who were born in the United States.


Eh, I was relatively close. I forgot about the residency requirements... and both parents have to be US citizens. Per wiki...



All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-9) Additionally, under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act) (restated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law) in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code)), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-10) The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-abc-11) Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-12)
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam), and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-13) Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands)) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of "outlying possessions of the United States" (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. "nationality" but not U.S. "citizenship") is now restricted to American Samoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa) and Swains Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swains_Island).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-15)

Here's an interesting tidbit...





Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_State) policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_State_Foreign_Affairs_Manual)) reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born#cite_note-16)


So if I was stationed in an overseas base when my child was born, he wouldn't be a natural-born citizen, as my wife doesn't have her citizenship yet. Interesting.

[DarrinS]

At least you're honest about liking the taste of jackboots.

Nah. Too easy. I won't do it.

[doobs]

^ You're talking about "statutory" birthright citizenship. It's not at all clear that "natural born citizen" for purposes of presidential eligibility includes that.

Two different things.

[LnGrrrR]

In regards to the specificity of "natural-born" distinction, you're right Doobs, there's no clear ruling on whether a person has to be physically born in the States, in territories belonging to the states, or if it covers children born to US citizens overseas as well.

Edit: Maybe Arizona should cover this too? :)