Posted on 03/30/2011 11:21:07 AM PDT by patlin
So, now that technicalities have been addressed. The question begs to be answered...why is the Huckmeister's gaffe been white-washed by ALL media, including "FOX" news.
Because the federal "government" is doing everything it can to ignore the Constitution. It's up to the states to save the Union.
But the states will never do it because all the lie-brals and more than enough conservatives and independents will be happy to believe this is a matter of federal preemption of states rights.
Besides, it would take political courage. Which is in pretty short supply in most state legislatures.
What Obama’s trying to do with our military by going to the UN and totally ignoring our Congress. He’s setting a precedence. He’s doing it on purpose. From now on other Presidents can ignore Congress and go to war.
He’s doing the same about the eligibility. After Obama, anybody can be President. And illegal mexican may be out commander in chief tomorrow. That’s why he’s ignoring it. He was probably born in NJ for all we know. He may not be hiding anything. But his failure to prove it with documents sets a precedence for all future Presidents.
I don’t refer to them as birthers... they’re more like constitutionalists, if you ask me.
“information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents,”
This needs to be tightened. What’s relevant is the citizenship of both parents at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Trump’s an example of a candidate whose mother was born outside the U.S. but nevertheless became a U.S. citizen well before he was born. But had she attained that citizenship a year after his birth, he would not be eligible.
The point is that having a candidate submit information about the parent’s current or most recent citizenship status will not suffice the reliably sort out genuine natural born citizens from those who are not. What you don’t want is another Obama-type candidate who submits exactly what is requested and then who fights in court to avoid having to disclose the additional information regarding parental citizenship that really matters, on grounds that they technically complied with the letter of the law and hence should be declared eligible.
We lost our chance to committee failer (spineless RINOS) this year. Next year we won’t!
DrC . . . Your obfuscating remarks are so obvious...go back to politijab and the other progressive boards where they think you actually know what you are talking about. You are so out of your league here!
Utah passed amnetys but they could not pass this. F Utah.
I actually think Obozo can probably prove he was born in the United States. He just thinks he’s bigger than the constitution and doesn’t have to.
There, fixed it for you
That's the part we can't have. Next it will be banning guns. He's already gone to war without even consulting Congress and I doubt he plans to consult Congess because his point is that the United Nations trumps the United States Congress.
Slippery slope
You would think at least one of the 57 states could pass it.
Unfortunately, his disapproval ratings need to get north of the 60% range before our glorious gutless cowards in congress will even flirt with impeachment proceedings.
“Your obfuscating remarks are so obvious...go back to politijab and the other progressive boards where they think you actually know what you are talking about. You are so out of your league here!”
Huh? I support these state initiatives. I was offering a suggestion to IMPROVE them. Your ad hominem attack was entirely unwarranted. If you have something substantive to say, then say it. Otherwise, shut your yap.
Yes, you would think
It was announced today that OK is set to take another big step. I don't have the info on AZ as to when it comes up again there after passing our of both committees. But I do know, SD will have somehthing again in both the state House & Senate committees in Nov and our Reps will be more informed and we will hold their feet to the fire if they do not uphold the integrity of our elections.
SD State Constitution:
Aarticle VII, Sec. III : Elections. The Legislature shall by law define residence for voting purposes, insure secrecy in voting and provide for the registration of voters, absentee voting, the administration of elections, the nomination of candidates and the voting rights of those serving in the armed forces.
History: 1889 Const., art. VII, §§ 3, 6, 7; amendment proposed by SL 1974, ch 2, approved Nov. 5, 1974.
Right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Trolls like you try and suggest language that is not needed in order to drag it out & obfuscate until it is too late. The language of the AZ bill is just fine. They are not using the document to determine citizenship of the candidate today, but at birth & the parents citizenship at that time is what is needed to make that determination.
Now, go obfuscate elsewhere
“They are not using the document to determine citizenship of the candidate today, but at birth & the parents citizenship at that time is what is needed to make that determination.”
First, I never stated they were using the documentation to determine the the citizenship of the candidate TODAY.
Second, IF the Arizona law was intended—as you claim—to determine citizenship of the parents AT THAT TIME (i.e., when candidate was born), then why doesn’t the law state that? Here is the full text, as YOU posted it:
“1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.”
My whole point was that the language “including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents” DOESN’T in fact obligate the candidate to provide ANY information regarding his/her parents’ citizenship at the time of his/her birth.
Any MORON who understands the meaning of plain English can see my point. The fact that you can’t speaks volumes.
I guess the term “natural born citizen” which is at birth and which is THE requirement is too hard for you to comprehend.
SOOOOOO out of your league
Er...I think you misread DrC.
“I guess the term “natural born citizen” which is at birth and which is THE requirement is too hard for you to comprehend.”
Anyone who has read our exchange realizes the statement you’ve made about my comprehension of this issue is complete and utter nonsense. If you’re truly a birther doing your best to defend the birther position, I respectfully suggest you sit on the sidelines, as you clearly are not up to the task. Alternatively, you are a troll trying to make birthers look like blithering idiots. In either case, further “conversation” with you is pointless.
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.