If you thought Florida and Texas were wack...

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.