Birther Bill Passes Arizona Senate

[heliochrome85]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel ... enate.aspx

as one commentor on Wonkette pointed out:
"When this is immediately declared unconstitutional (only the Constitution can set the qualifications for the office), the Arizona Senate will pass a Bill declaring the federal courts illegal.

They really should just come out with it, and pass a Bill that says "Whites Only."

lord.

[szh]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel ... enate.aspx

as one commentor on Wonkette pointed out:
"When this is immediately declared unconstitutional (only the Constitution can set the qualifications for the office), the Arizona Senate will pass a Bill declaring the federal courts illegal.

Strange bill for sure.

They really should just come out with it, and pass a Bill that says "Whites Only."

Now, this is a complete stretch, Helio. I am not sure why you felt that you had to go that far - I seriously cannot see that, even though I disagree with the bill itself.

Z

[heliochrome85]

i didnt say that, that was the quote that i referenced. but i find it interesting that since its birth, arizona was fine with the way presidential elections were handled. the first time we have an african american president, suddenly, there are huge issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED!

[stebo0728]

You have a point in that the demand for the birth certificate probably came from some last ditch honky effort to "put down the neggro". BUT

And please, Im no where near a birther, I really consider it non issue, BUT, why couldnt he just zip it on out at the start, shut them up, and move on. Did he WANT the publicity that the ordeal brought?

[heliochrome85]

You have a point in that the demand for the birth certificate probably came from some last ditch honky effort to "put down the neggro". BUT

And please, Im no where near a birther, I really consider it non issue, BUT, why couldnt he just zip it on out at the start, shut them up, and move on. Did he WANT the publicity that the ordeal brought?

he did, but they dont believe that he has provided them the real birth certificate.

PROVE TO ME THAT UFOS DONT EXIST!

[stebo0728]

You have a point in that the demand for the birth certificate probably came from some last ditch honky effort to "put down the neggro". BUT

And please, Im no where near a birther, I really consider it non issue, BUT, why couldnt he just zip it on out at the start, shut them up, and move on. Did he WANT the publicity that the ordeal brought?

he did, but they dont believe that he has provided them the real birth certificate.

PROVE TO ME THAT UFOS DONT EXIST!

I cant, I think they do

[szh]

PROVE TO ME THAT UFOS DONT EXIST!

Why?

Z

[szh]

i didnt say that, that was the quote that i referenced. but i find it interesting that since its birth, arizona was fine with the way presidential elections were handled. the first time we have an african american president, suddenly, there are huge issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED!

Tariq, this kind of "correlation" is way too simplistic - with only a single instance - to be afforded any serious argument. The logic simply does not make any sense.

Z

[telcoman]

i didnt say that, that was the quote that i referenced. but i find it interesting that since its birth, arizona was fine with the way presidential elections were handled. the first time we have an african american president, suddenly, there are huge issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED!

Isn't Arizona the state that refused to recognize the Martin Luther King holiday until they lost millions in convention bookings?

Telcoman

[IBCoupe]

See? When State (and Federal, dammit) Legislatures pass dumbass, patently unconstitutional laws, I say, "You know, nine unelected people in robes might not be such a bad system..."

[heliochrome85]

how exactly would you like to explain this recent trend of legislation Z? just happy chance? give me a break.

[szh]

how exactly would you like to explain this recent trend of legislation Z? just happy chance? give me a break.

I don't go around looking for conspiracies ...

Does not mean that I am fat, dumb and happy, either!

Z

[IBCoupe]

how exactly would you like to explain this recent trend of legislation Z? just happy chance? give me a break.

I don't go around looking for conspiracies ...

Does not mean that I am fat, dumb and happy, either!

Z

You're right. It doesn't mean that, but insuppose you think THAT'S just happy chance, too, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[szh]

I don't go around looking for conspiracies ...

Does not mean that I am fat, dumb and happy, either!

You're right. It doesn't mean that, but insuppose you think THAT'S just happy chance, too, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Well ... my problem with Tariq's post was that I think playing the "Obama Race Card" in this situation, without any rational evidence to back it up, was unwarranted and unacceptable. Just as unacceptable as the "Obama Muslim Card" (as Colin Powell put it, whether Obama is, or is not, a Muslim is simply irrelevant.

FWIW, I disagree with the birthers anyway. AFAIK, no one disputes that his mother was an American citizen. So, WHEREVER he was born, even if it was Kenya or China or Mars, by our rules, he is an American citizen by birth and therefore eligible for the office of POTUS. But, assuming that this AZ legislation silliness is due to his race is equally silly.

Z

[heliochrome85]

a s*** argument if ive ever heard one. just you wait. they are coming for you and me.

[stebo0728]

AFAIK, no one disputes that his mother was an American citizen. So, WHEREVER he was born, even if it was Kenya or China or Mars, by our rules, he is an American citizen by birth and therefore eligible for the office of POTUS.

Well its not QUITE that simple, depends on timing issues, which may be met I dont know, heres what Wiki says:

Birth abroad to two United States citizens
A child is automatically granted citizenship in the following cases:
*Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
*The parents are married
*At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth. INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and one of whom has had a residence."

The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.

Birth abroad to one United States citizen
A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (different rules apply if child was born out-of-wedlock)
*The person's parents were married at time of birth
*One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
*The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth
*A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

[szh]

a bullsh*t argument if ive ever heard one. just you wait. they are coming for you and me.

I don't think so ... on both points.

Z

[szh]

Stebo, we are not saying that Obama was born after 1986, are we?

If so, Obama would be ineligible for POTUS for an entirely different reason: age!

What were the rules before 1986 then?

Z

[stebo0728]

Woops, hehe, well he does look a bit young ... but my badz ...

Heres the 1952 to 1986 rules

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock):
*The person's parents were married at the time of birth
*One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
*The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
*A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
*the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
*the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)

[IBCoupe]

Right, so he's a citizen, wherever he was born. But we've got numerous forms of confirmation to show that he was born in Honolulu, so that's that. He's provided his birth certificate and there's mention of his birth in two Honolulu newspapers.

End of story.

[stebo0728]

Well if he WAS the subject of some conspiracy, then the evidence so far could be forged, but to believe that would take quite a stretch. But then theres the part where even if that were true, he's still a citizen via his mother, so really all conspiring was in unnecessary.

Really this amounts to the same sort of protest as the whole "Al Gore really won" sorta protest the other side threw around in 2000. Just something to banter about and waste time.

[IBCoupe]

Not to drag religion into this, but yeah, the conspiracy does seem kinda unnecessary, in much the same way that it seems silly for people to suggest that Jesus never existed. In the eyes of the Jewish faith, if we take the New Testament at face value, Jesus was such a crappy messiah that it would be pretty dumb to make him up.

/religion.

[AZhitman]

Isn't Arizona the state that refused to recognize the Martin Luther King holiday until they lost millions in convention bookings?

Telcoman

Yep.

You got a problem with that?

I know it's a stretch for you to actually do your homework, but if you had, you'd see that your position is lacking - Two points:

1) The people voted against it. Then again, what do you care about the will of the people?
2) There was a push for Civil Rights Day, which would have been more inclusive (and meaningful). AZ has a large Hispanic population. But you don't care about that either, do ya?

The bull**** thing about that whole controversy was how the voters were bullied. We had actually been selected as the site for the Super Bowl, then it was rescinded. That's a load of crap.

[C-Kwik]

The bull**** thing about that whole controversy was how the voters were bullied. We had actually been selected as the site for the Super Bowl, then it was rescinded. That's a load of crap.

How so? The majority of voters in AZ voted against recognizing the MLK holiday. I haven't found any information confirming your 2nd point, so I won't speak to it, but if the rest of the country (or major influences in it) are not pleased with it, they are going to vote against AZ's decision by keeping their money out of it. It apparently worked.

[AZhitman]

That it worked didn't make it right.

But, the morons who wanted it got their way. That just tells you one thing: The will of the people was ignored.

Maybe they should stay the hell out of our state's business and peddle their influence in their own state.

I remain opposed to it. No offense intended to Dr. King or his legacy, but Civil Rights Day would have been FAR more appropriate.

[heliochrome85]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

[AZhitman]

The sponsor of this bill is a mouthbreathing a$$.

The people panicking about it are damn near as stupid.

My only gripe is this: Don't we have important s*** to work on?

I will be sure to f*** with this retard's re-election campaign when the time comes.

[C-Kwik]

Maybe they should stay the hell out of our state's business

In a way, that's exactly what they did...

[srellim234]

AZ- I agree 100% with your Civil Rights Day over MLK Day suggestion. I believe MLK would have wanted it that way, too.

I disagree with a lot of your Super Bowl observations. The will of which people was ignored? The people of Arizona voted against the MLK Day. Their will was followed. Many people around the country had their will followed. The game was moved to a state that recognized MLK Day.

Paul Tagliabue, as commissioner of the NFL and CEO of that private business, made the decision to move it based on pressure from a lot of sources, both private and public. His right to do so. Would you rather have the government step in an dictate to the private business? I believe that goes against what the majority of the people on this forum preach.

As for feeling pressured to vote for the holiday, the people of Arizona still could have voted for your suggestion of a Civil Rights Day over an MLK Day. They could still change the current MLK Day with a Civil Rights Day using the premise that it's more comprehensive and inclusive. I believe that most of the country would be just fine with that. My guess is the only opposition would come from the reverse racists in this country (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. and their followers.)

[stebo0728]

AZ- I agree 100% with your Civil Rights Day over MLK Day suggestion. I believe MLK would have wanted it that way, too.

I concur. MLK and Jesus are the only 2 people who have their own holiday. I have for a while thought that MLK day should be a Civil Rights day, but, to be honest, it really is anyway.Even though it bears his name, alot of times it fades out to a general civil rights remeberance day. So why not call it as such?