If you thought Florida and Texas were wack...

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

Quote:

---

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


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

:lmao

Wasn't McCain born in Panama?

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

I never thought Florida or Texas were whack.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

What's wrong with this exactly?

---

Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

So, again, what's the problem?

---

it smacks of racism and desperation on their part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quite the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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

---

That's not what I said.

Quote:

---

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?"

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

So what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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 ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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

---

Wasn't that Bill Clinton?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

That's not what I said.

---

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

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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

So what's the problem?

---

why the need to see it again then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

why the need to see it again then?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Obama likes playing games. 1 term prez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Obama likes playing games. 1 term prez.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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

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

Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

Great position deep thinker..

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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

---

Perhaps, but when has that ever stopped government before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.

---

To what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

(TB beat me to the point.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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

---

What doubts?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

But, ostensibly, you've got to put some structure around who is and who isn't eligible for candidacy. :lol

---

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.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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."

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Well, in case you haven't noticed; "here" isn't exactly a mainstream media outlet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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 -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New York Tomes

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")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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 -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by University of Chicago

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, what happened to Obama's law license?

---

Snopes addressed that one. Nice try though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

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