So no one has a principled argument against this? Will complying with this law even be a noticeable burden for candidates?
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.
because he has already proved it.
no dummy the game is passing stupid legislation about birth certificates.
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 . . .
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.
so it hasn't changed and you want him to show it again...got it. Great position deep thinker..
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 Cons ution. This would appear to run afoul of the Cons ution.
no they are strict consitutionalists.. well most of the time anyways..
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?
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 en y already does that job.
AZ's got bigger fish to fry than wasting time and catching 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 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 Cons ution 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 out hoping to fall into something.
Principled argument #1: this a solution in search of a problem.
Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.
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..May you rest easy at night knowing that no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker.
How dare a business or government ask for such a thing, dummy!!!!!!!!!
Excluse: \iks-klüsAZ's got bigger fish to fry than wasting time and catching 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 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 Cons ution 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 out hoping to fall into something.
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.
So then you should be satisfied that has ALREADY shown it. You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.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.
Perhaps, but when has that ever stopped government before?
To what?
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 cons utional eligibility.
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.You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.
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.
, ya got me. I guess I officially gave up my right to argue in this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
