Posted on 05/19/2012 3:44:41 AM PDT by Las Vegas Dave
Arizona's secretary of state said Friday he had asked officials in Hawaii to verify that Barack Obama was born in their state in order for the president's name to appear on the November ballot in Arizona.
Ken Bennett, who is Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign co-chairman in Arizona, said he made the request on behalf of a constituent.
Earlier this year, hardline Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that an investigation by his office had found that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery.
Most Republican critics of Obama have given up pushing widely discredited long-running allegations that he was not born in the United States.
Bennett said he is attempting to confirm that Obama's name can appear on Arizona's presidential ballot, the Arizona Republic newspaper said.
While confirming on Friday that he had made the request, Bennett said he did not buy into the "birther" belief.
"First, I have been on the record since 2009 that I believe the president was born in Hawaii. I am not a 'birther,'" he said in a statement.
"At the request of a constituent, I asked the state of Hawaii for a for a verification in lieu of certified copy. We're merely asking them to officially confirm they have the president's birth certificate in their possession and are awaiting their response," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Much, much better. Thanks for your help! =)
Besides -- I know you are "one of the good folks" -- and I very much want you to succeed!!!!!
Yes, we will.
Hawaii is challenging Arizona to prove that it needs that information.
Is Hawaii suggesting that Arizona does not havethe Constitutional right to govern its own election proceedings?
That's madness. That's like asking a state to prove its own right to sovereignty.
I took another look at the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.
Article IV Section 1 Clause 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Hawaii cannot ask Arizona to prove its need to see the documents. Full faith and credit requires Hawaii to comply.
It's the second sentence that intrigues me.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
If I'm reading this right, Congress could in effect define Natural Born Citizen itself by establishing the documents that it accepts as proof of qualifying for President.
This could get interesting.
Congress could pass a law that says that candidates for President must provide proof of natural-born citizenship. Such proof will consist of all of the following:
1. The candidates original hospital long-form birth certificate.
2. Each parent's original hospital long-form birth certificate, OR, US Naturalization certificate.
That should pass Constitutional muster unless someone challenges the need for the parents' documents. If that happens, the requirement for the candidate's birth document would remain.
Congress can fix this without the Court.
-PJ
I have to assume that Bennett will pursue this despite the delay and obfuscation from Hawaii’s record’s department. Bennet knows he is playing with fire and knew ahead of time that Hawaii would not comply in an honest straightforward way. So on to round two now.....I am hoping this escalates to were Obama is not allowed on the Arizona ballot and the ObamaTrons try to make it a racial thing. This will blow up in their faces
"Obama has not been nominated [yet], so you have no cause to put him on the AZ ballot (much less to deny him a place there). For that reason, your request is denied."
To cover that base, if I were Bennett, I would have a full (repeat) set of requests waiting in HI to hand to (serve upon) the HI officials the minute Øbozo is declared the nominee by the DNC...
Always when it comes time to put up, Hawaii shovels BS - but no one in Hawaii up to this point is willing to put it totally on the line for Obama.
They could do that, but any delay they do now is only going to make it less likely for Obama to be on the ballot. If an audit ends up being required it will take time - more time than there is between the DNC Convention and Nov 8th.
In addition, what Bennett is doing actually benefits Arizona democrats, because it protects their ability to choose an ELIGIBLE candidate with their delegates to the Dem Convention. If Bennett was just being a political hack he would have left this to the last minute and then denied placement on the ballot. As it is, he is letting the DNC know that if their candidate is not able to prove his eligibility he’s not going to be on the ballot. Bennett is providing a service to the dems by letting this be known now. The DNC is officially on notice that their OCON and an affidavit from Obama are not going to be enough...
Good job.
You are doing a FRoutstanding job!!! Wish I could do more to help...
And the Obama house of cards comes tumbling down.
The SOS could have already requested from all parties and not received the Presidents. He could have received Mitts so it is not an issue or bias, simply requesting doc’s from both parties and not getting one.
What evidence has been provided by anyone to discredit the allegations?
5.56mm
All the reasons you state are good arguments for why candidates need to be “pre-vetted” when asking to be included on a state ballot.
I think a single congressman could have challenged the electoral college results but by then booting our second black president out was unimaginable. Sigh.
At this stage of the game I cannot imagine SCOTUS actually declaring Obama ineligible for the upcoming election much less requiring a “do-over” from 2008.
The problems you note, including rioting in the streets nationwide, would force the court to punt. We’ll have to beat him at the ballot box.
Amazing how similar that sounds to all the bleating about the Swiftboat Vets claims being “discredited” with no proof. Just say it and it is so!
I will never forget a conversation I was having a couple of days after the 08 election... was talking to someone at work about the birth certificate thing. Another co-worker overheard us and came over to ask what we were talking about. When the other guy told her, she scoffed. "Oh please, that is ridiculous." Why is it ridiculous? "Because... of course they would have checked his birth certificate and background. The CIA would have done it. It's ludicrous to think they wouldn't have checked him out."
So there you have it. Most everyone I have spoken to just assumes that he was background-checked.
In so far as we are aware, no one has ever questioned Romney's birth in Michigan, nor is there any evidence to suggest that he wasn't born there as claimed. If would seem like a waste of effort for a political opponent to go to any great lengths to verify his birth in the state, because it's nearly a certainty.
And as for Romney himself at this point in the presidential campaign, he would be reluctant to display his birth certificate publicly, simply because opponents would accuse him of playing up the "birther" issue against Obama if he did so.
Will this SOS of AZ have the balls to actually strike Obama from the ballot if he gets no official statement from HI ? Doubtful, IMHO.
What is the AZ law regarding write-in candidates ?
If write-ins are allowed and require manual counting of all ballots, you just know some Dem in AZ is going to say the SOS is just causing unnecessary additional election expenses for which there is no funding. Obviously, anyone who wants to vote for Obama is just going to write-in his name rather than vote for one of the other candidates already printed on the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.