Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tired_old_conservative

1. You missed the point. You said no state can ask for documentation in excess of what another state provides, and I’m responding that no state has provded ANY documentation for Stitch Lips. IOW, there’s no ‘excess’ to talk about because nothing has been provided to begin with. Keep up.

2. Any law citing the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC has a great chance of withstanding challenges based on ... what?? Hope and Change?? What else do you have that trumps the Supreme Court and its definition??


494 posted on 12/17/2010 12:21:40 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
“1. You missed the point. You said no state can ask for documentation in excess of what another state provides, and I’m responding that no state has provded ANY documentation for Stitch Lips. IOW, there’s no ‘excess’ to talk about because nothing has been provided to begin with. Keep up.”

Uh, no. You interjected yourself into a conversation you didn't bother to understand, and to which your pithy observations about what Obama or Hawaii has or has not provided to date are irrelevant. The conversation was discussing a hypothetical case where a state passes a law requiring a birth certificate to get on that state's ballot in 2012. At that point, a candidate would be obligated to request his state provide a certified copy to the questioning state.

Presuming the state can do so, what then are the limits on the requesting state's specifications? The only limit is that the requesting state's legislation would not be able to demand a level of detail beyond what the originating state provides to its citizens. The full faith and credit clause would require accepting the originating state's documentation. For example, if all they issue is a COLB, that's what you have to accept. If they provide either a COLB or a long form photocopy, then you can get the one you specified.

“2. Any law citing the Supreme Court’s definition of NBC has a great chance of withstanding challenges based on ... what?? Hope and Change?? What else do you have that trumps the Supreme Court and its definition??”

I don't think you are correct in your presumption of the Supreme Court definition you cite. I don't think your sentence says grammatically what it intended, either. In any event, I doubt that your personal belief will be upheld if ever put to the test. But if you want to know, get a state to legislate a requirement putting it to the test. Obama and the DNC will challenge it, and it will be ruled upon with subsequent appeals. Then the matter will truly be settled.

495 posted on 12/17/2010 12:38:40 AM PST by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson