Posted on 04/15/2011 8:14:47 AM PDT by Music Producer
ARIZONA SHOOTS BUT MISSES THE MARK
Dean C. Haskins
Since the last presidential election, a handful of state legislators have been working to advance bills that would ultimately require presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility under Article II Section 1, where the “natural born citizen” requirement resides. While it is true that Arizona has recently been making some bold legislative statements on other fronts, it is unfortunate that they have chosen to advance their version of this bill, since it is merely a shell of what it purports to accomplish.
Sadly, it appears Arizona has fallen prey to the underhanded doublespeak propagated by those who either don't understand the clear meaning of the framers' mandate, or who are purposely obfuscating the truth through the deceptive declaration that the Constitution merely requires the president to be a citizen, for that is all their current bill would accomplish. While there are numerous resources that detail the differences between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” I recently detailed that issue here.
It is true that this bill's passage might preclude Barack Obama from running for a second term; but it might not. That's the way it is with a word like “might.” As I have speculated, if Obama is simply keeping his original birth certificate hidden in order to keep the hounds off the scent of the actual troubling rabbit (his father's citizenship), then this bill will accomplish nothing, for he will miraculously produce a valid document and continue his quest to destroy the greatest nation on earth. Even if he doesn't provide a long-form version of his birth certificate, Arizona's bill provides him ample avenues around that requirement.
What has rendered Arizona's bill meaningless? A single Amendment:
“1. Removes parental requirements needed to run for or hold office or to be put on the ballot.”
It does look like somebody TRIED to accomplish something with the bill, but it has been neutered by amendment. By removing “parental requirements,” the bill essentially cuts in half the natural born citizenship requirement by permitting to run, one who was born to at least one parent who was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore, nullifies what the framers were so careful to require—that a president be one who is born on our soil to citizen parents (the historic, and only, definition of “natural born citizen”).
With the final passage of this bill, birthers will believe they hold a metaphorical gun with which to put an end to the eligibility issue in the next election. But, as was learned by the last election, it will be a sad day when it is discovered that the proverbial gun is loaded with nothing but blanks.
LLS
If this sh!thead get’s re-elected, I’m leaving the country as fast as I can.
May well go to Japan and take my chances with radiation. At least radiation is honest.
If we are coming up on the last days, which we are, then I think I’d rather spend my remaining time in the last decent society on earth, which America is clearly not.
FYI
35 years of age
residing in the US for at least 14 years
Natural Born Citizen
This thread should be removed.
FUbo!
LLS
Their ideology will not allow us to “split”,
because their ideology demands that ALL be subjected to their thumb of control.
Actually, Obama has never produced his COLB in any official setting where it could be examined.
If the Factcheck.org COLB is legit, why didn’t Obama and his lawyers submit it as evidence in all [12?] court cases rather than spend over $2 mm fighting over “standing”?
Reason: Rules of Evidence. The other side could challenge the authenticity of the COLB under oath.
This alone is the smoking gun.
Because no case advanced to the point of looking at evidence.
If you had read the bill (link provided in my article), you would understand that your post is incorrect. The law would not demand that one be a natural born citizen, but merely a citizen, because an amendment by committee removed the parental requirements—which is HALF of the definition of “natural born citizen.”
Well at the very least its seems this law may produce a court challenge that can’t be thrown out. I’m not sure about the AZ law but I think the Constitution is pretty clear. If this ends up on the way to SCOTUS he may not run.
All that needs to be done is for this AZ law or any combination of other state laws to force Obama out in the open. Then unless he’s legit (highly doubtful) he won’t run because if there is a cover up there is also a crime.
Even if it were to do that (which is doubtful), the AZ law would not preclude a future usurper who is not truly a natural born citizen.
The Arizona bill says that the presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen.” It does not say that he or she must be a “citizen.”
It will be up to the Secretary of State to apply the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen,” just like the SOS must determine if the candidate is at least 35 years old and has been a resident of the U.S. for a minimum of 14 years.
Also, the law gives a citizen of Arizona standing to contest the decision of the Secretary of State.
It can SAY whatever they want it to say, but, by removing parental information from the requirement, they are reducing the qualification to “native born citizen” at best. It is an attempt to change the historic definition of “natural born citizen.”
The Constitution SAYS “natural born citizen,” but you SEE how useful that was in the last election. There is a reason the AZ committee removed the parental information requirement, for it was obviously there to begin with. There will be the same confusion there was in the last election, for “natural born citizen” will be an ambiguous term to many people.
I am not a lawyer.
But,...
It would seem that if BHO was a legit NBC, his lawyers would have been instructed to show the Judge the COLB and dismiss the case, instead of spending $$$ on fighting the “standing” issue.
Some believe that the Arizona bill does not appropriately address the “natural born Citizen” requirement. This is not true.
First, we have to understand that sometimes compromises are needed in order to make something work. Clearly, this current bill is much better than not having anything at all in place which is what happened with the 2008 election.
Second, the Arizona bill says that the presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen.” It does not say that he or she must be a “citizen.”
It will be up to the Secretary of State to apply the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen,” just like the SOS must determine if the candidate is at least 35 years old and has been a resident of the U.S. for a minimum of 14 years.
Also, the law gives a citizen of Arizona standing to contest the decision of the Secretary of State.
In conclusion, we have made tremendous headway.
I stand by what I have written. And, obviously, the “compromise” of which you speak was to remove the requirement that a candidate provide parental information. Even though the term “natural born citizen” is clearly defined historically, much of the argument over the issue today centers around the lack of understanding about the term. Rather than assuring future candidates will truly be natural born citizens, the bill, as it stands, allows for “creative interpretation.” Arizona had a chance to nail this issue, and they failed.
Is it a Soros SOS in AZ.?
Will this bill kick in by the next election?
You know that we both agree on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But that is not the point here.
Would you rather want some proponents of the bill to have insisted that the bill must define a “natural born Citizen” which would have resulted in Arizona passing nothing or accept what we have now?
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.