From a news report.
On Thursday night Arizona’s birther bill passed through the House with a handy 40-16 margin. It was the final hurdle for the bill, which will require any presidential or vice presidential candidate to provide proof of their U.S. citizenship before they can be put on the state ballot.
Among the acceptable documents are a “long-form birth certificate,” an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, early census record or a postpartum hospital record given to the mother, Politico reported.
“This bill is not about Obama. It’s not about that,” Arizona Rep. Carl Seel insisted to CNN. “It’s about future elections and maintaining the integrity of the Constitution.”
Yeah, right. If you'll buy that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona. Anyway, Gov. Brewer had the good sense to veto it.
46 comments:
Surely, a professional philosopher ought to know that opposing the bill because it is (or may be construed as) "about Obama" is to commit some error of reasoning (more than one, doubtless).
Surely, a patriot ans constitutionalist would support the bill, regardless of whether it's "about Obama."
Surely, an Obama partisan ought to welcome the opportunity for Our Zero (Who art The Won) to prove his constitutional bona fides ... even if he has to be forced to do it.
I think the birth requirement is a mistake in the first place. So, if birtherism were true, then the right response would be to amend the constitution and get rid of the silly birth requirement.
And I would think this regardless of who was president. It's just silly and arbitrary.
I see no reason, for example, why Arnold Schwarzenegger should be barred from the presidency on this account.
I can see the pros and the cons in requiring being born in a country. However you can think of the extremes where some person has spend most of there life in the US and been a citizen for most of that not being able to lead their country and compared to a person born there but spending most of their time overseas. if its about perceptions of loyalty then shouldn't there be a residency requirement too?
I wonder wether people would have preferred to have Arnold Schwarzenegger or Warith Deen Mohammed as president.
Is it only the US that has this requirement? In Australia one we don't have a president and two our head of state is for all intents and purposes a foreigner, 'Long live Queen Bess, long may she reign over us.'
Someone sufficiently foreign would be unelectable anyway. So why the rule?
Yeah, right. If you'll buy that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona. Anyway, Gov. Brewer had the good sense to veto it.
How could it really affect Obama anyway? I mean, clearly he has his birth certificate and was a US citizen. Right?
Someone sufficiently foreign would be unelectable anyway. So why the rule?
And why do we have these pesky laws forbidding politicians from accepting large gifts? No one would ever vote to elect a corrupt politician anyway. Seems pointless.
The Arizona law required a long form birth certificate, while Hawaii only has a short form birth certificate. It was written in a way that would give Obama trouble. The point of my comment was to underscore Seel's duplicity.
However, I don't see why someone like Schwarzenegger shouldn't be President. In fact, before Obama was a candidate, Arnold was considering running, and wanted an amendment that permitted him to do so. In the case of corrupt politicians, we don't normally elect them if we know they're corrupt (there are exceptions). we would still want to know the candidate's history, and if the candidate spent most of his life in a foreign country, that would I think be a problem. But it's a democracy, and we should be able to elect whoever we want for President.
But it's a democracy, and we should be able to elect whoever we want for President.
Does "it's a democracy" also mean that we should be able to pass laws barring whoever we wish from the presidency?
I'm troubled by an argument that sounds suspiciously like "Obama didn't break this law, and even if he did it's a stupid law and we should just ignore it anyway."
Obama is a foreigner. He's practically Mexican.
Not ignore the law, just change it. What is suspicious about saying both that a law was not broken, and that the law is a bad one that should be changed.
Not ignore the law, just change it. What is suspicious about saying both that a law was not broken, and that the law is a bad one that should be changed.
And what if Obama was not born in the US after all? Frankly, I don't even know what to make of such a claim myself one way or the other, so don't take this as me suggesting it's likely.
But again, what if? And instead of trying to think about that in terms of responses, I'll ask a more moot question: Should Obama have run for office if he knew he was not eligible?
>I think the birth requirement is a mistake in the first place.
You are entitled to that belief but of course it can only be repealed via the Constitution Amendment process.
Politically this is silly since I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and I also believe He uses the birther "controversy" as a distraction so he can paint his opponents with a wide brush for being lunatics for believing this nonsense and to distract from the fact he suchs out loud as a President.
OTOH practically the Bill can't hurt.
edit "Sucks out loud" etc
Sucks as bad as my spellling.
Edit "Sucks out loud" etc...
Sucks as bad as my spellling.
I can see the point of saying that the Constitution is what it is, and a Presidential candidate has an obligation to not knowingly violate it. It seems a tad far-fetched to say that Obama uses the birther controversy, however. I don't think he ever talks about it. And you had a majority in the Arizona legislature voting in a birther bill that deliberately makes it impossible for his credentials, which seem perfectly good to me (why does the form have to be long, for crying out loud), I think belief in Obama as foreign-born is pretty widespread, in spite of the evidence. They've done polls of Republicans, and there are are high percentages of them who answer yes too "He is a Muslim" or "He was foreign-born."
>It seems a tad far-fetched to say that Obama uses the birther controversy, however.
I think he clearly does. Never let a good crisis go to waste. It a combination of that plus I think he resents(somewhat justly) being asked for his Birth Certificate.
No doubt he thinks "Why don't white people have to show their BS when they are President. Plus McCain was born in Panama!".
A little of A & a little of B.
Who cares about the long form? But, can we at least see his college transcripts? Hell, even I needed to show them before I could get hired.
But, transcripts would be facts about this inexperienced unknown. America doesn't want a lot of facts about him. What we want are endless bromides strung together with perfect inflection so we can feel good while we go off the financial cliff together. Facts about Obama are like budget cuts--designed to harm and possibly even kill.
"I think the birth requirement is a mistake in the first place."
I disagree -- but it DOESN'T MATTER which or whether one of us is correct; for it is a matter of what the Constitution requires and demands.
Didn’t someone famously say something to the effect that those who will not honor the least requirement of the law are most unlikely to honor the major? Is that not what we see being played out in our national life for at least this past century?
"So, if birtherism were true, then the right response would be to amend the constitution and get rid of the silly birth requirement."
Translation:
1) I [VR] think that the specific Constitutional requirement is silly;
2) A certain recent presidential candidate notoriously did not demonstrate, and has adamantly refused to do so, that he meets that particular Constitutional requirement to hold the office of the presidency;
2a) In response, the Arizona Legislature created a bill to force *all* future presidential candidates to demonstrate their Constitutional bona fides;
3) I [VR] think that the actually-existing Constitutional requirement should be ignored – even now – in anticipation of the “right response” of repealing it.
Logical implication: I [VR] do not respect, nor obey, the US Constitution.
JE XVI: "if its about perceptions of loyalty then shouldn't there be a residency requirement too?"
Mr Elwood, meet
US Constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The issue is not that Obama was or was not born in a foreign land, the issue is that WE DO NOT KNOW that he *does* meet the Constitutional requirements to occupy the office of President of the United States. The issue is that WE DO NOT KNOW that he really is the legal President.
The US is in the midst of an on-going Constitutional crisis -- intentionally brought about by one man and his ideological fellows -- and nearly everyone is in favor of "resolving" it the manner guaranteed to further weaken, if not finally eviscerate, the Constitution.
"The Arizona law required a long form birth certificate, while Hawaii only has a short form birth certificate."
That your side can't keep its story straight ought to give an honest man pause. For three or four years now, the Obamanation have been claiming that his campaign has made available the so-called long form. Now, suddenly, you all are claiming that a long-form for Obama isn't evn a theoretical possibility.
VR: "The Arizona law required a long form birth certificate, while Hawaii only has a short form birth certificate. It was written in a way that would give Obama trouble. The point of my comment was to underscore Seel's duplicity."
As quoted in your very own OP: "Among the acceptable documents are a “long-form birth certificate,” an early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, early census record or a postpartum hospital record given to the mother, Politico reported."
Really! You ought to stop listening to "liberal" talking-points before they curdle your mind.
2) A certain recent presidential candidate notoriously did not demonstrate, and has adamantly refused to do so, that he meets that particular Constitutional requirement to hold the office of the presidency;
Please. Obama has already provided more evidence of his citizenship than any other president before him.
Joel, there are (at least) two points here:
1) Your response does not address what I *actually* wrote, despite that you quoted it, but rather talks past it (apparently intending to distract the unwary, as has been so common all along in this matter);
2) Your assertion is false even in what it does explicitly assert.
Ilíon said...
... the issue is that WE DO NOT KNOW that he *does* meet the Constitutional requirements ...
If *you* do not know, it is from a refusal to accept the obvious. His birth certificate was placed on the web, there are the birth announcements, the secondhand testimony of the delivering doctor, the assurance of the Hawaiian Department of health director, etc. There is no reliable, contrary evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. People who decide things based on evidence know Obama was born in the USA.
The US is in the midst of an on-going Constitutional crisis
Well, flakes like Peter Berg don't have enough authority to cause a crisis, fortunately.
For three or four years now, the Obamanation have been claiming that his campaign has made available the so-called long form.
A truly content-free claim. There is no such thing as "the Obamanation", so you could use such a term to pick an ignorant numbskull who doesn't know the truth and pretned they represent it. Of course, the campaign actually made the birth certificate available, a copy was posted online, and non-partisan political observers have handled it. I expect none of that to persuade you, but your pretense that there is insufficient evidence betrays either ignorance or unwillingness to face the truth.
When does wanting a constitutional amendment amount to disrespect for the Constitution?
Is there anything in the Constitution about what evidence is sufficient to establish American birth? Does native birth have to be established beyond reasonable doubt? It seems very clear, at least, that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Birthers just lost Jan Brewer, who was former secretary of state, and also Michelle Bachmann.
I looked up the claim that Bush once said that the Constitution is a god-damned piece of paper, but factcheck.org says that the evidence that he said that isn't very good. The fact that we don't like some political leader is not sufficient justification for thinking that every negative rumor about said leader is true.
I think Obama's US birth IS beyond reasonable doubt, but even if it weren't, I don't think such a standard of evidence is required. I don't think a law that imposes exactly the standard of evidence that would be difficult for Obama to meet is an honest attempt to secure the integrity of the Constitution.
Victor
I am 110% in support of your perspective. No amount of double-talk by Carl Seel can disguise the motivation for such a Bill.
Does anyone here really think that the media and other investigative sources would allow anyone, anyone, to become the POTUS without a valid birth certificate?
It is comforting to know Governor Brewer had the upright decency and moral fortitude to see right through this scam.
>Does anyone here really think that the media and other investigative sources would allow anyone, anyone, to become the POTUS without a valid birth certificate?
For once I agree with Paps the Atheist Fundie. If the Obummer where really born in Kenya, Lady MacBeth(aka Hillary) would have outed him long ago. Plus why would the election commission under Bush let him get away with it? They would have outed him as soon as McCain's poll numbers started to dip.
>It is comforting to know Governor Brewer had the upright decency and moral fortitude to see right through this scam.
No she did it for political reasons because she doesn't want to be saddled with this crap. Just like the Obummer fired VanJones for his Truther freakyness.
In principle there is nothing wrong with the Law itsdelf & it's not going to prevent the Obummer from running for Prez or by itself keep him from being re-elected.
He was born in American. The big commie lefty is the true President of the USA.
End of story.
Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg & Ann Coulter have bagged on Birthers.
He was born in the USA.
You people are refusing to reason properly; you are engaging, at minimum, in question-begging. Now, one has learned to expect such behavior of One-Brow and Papalinton and BenYachov, but Victor Reppert, too? And self contradiction? I've pointed out a few of the self-contradictions of your "argument" ... and you refuse to correct your thinking. And you refuse to engage what I have actually said, preferring instead red herrings.
This is just another example of what I had tried to warn you about so long ago (and the reason I generally no longer read or comment on your blog) -- you allow your "liberal" politics of over-rule your reason, such that yoiu will say *anything* to defend a point or claim that the "liberal" consensus has settled upon.
How is your behavior with respect to "liberal" talking-points different from the behavior of some internet 'atheist' with respect to the foolish things they say?
====
On the other hand, didn't some fool recently assert something to the effect that when one finds oneself agreeing with a(n irrational) atheist (such as Pap. generally presents), one ought to know one is in deep trouble?
>On the other hand, didn't some fool recently assert something to the effect that when one finds oneself agreeing with a(n irrational) atheist (such as Pap. generally presents), one ought to know one is in deep trouble?
Doesn't apply here. Besides Paps isn't agreeing with me. I am agreeing with him. This props him up by definition.
Having Chuckles on the other thread agree with you OTOH drags you down bro.
From Ilion
"You people are refusing to reason properly; you are engaging, at minimum, in question-begging. Now, one has learned to expect such behavior of One-Brow and Papalinton and BenYachov, but Victor Reppert, too? And self contradiction? I've pointed out a few of the self-contradictions of your "argument" ... and you refuse to correct your thinking. And you refuse to engage what I have actually said, preferring instead red herrings."
I guess even dinosaurs are entitled to voice their opinion while they continue to exist among us.
I did actually say that I could understand the idea that, however the constitution ought to read, it does say what it does, and hence you can't answer the claim that a President isn't eligible because he wasn't born here by saying the Constitution should be amended.
There are two interesting issues here. One of them has to do with the fact that the Constitution requires that the President be native-born, but doesn't give any standard of evidence for showing that the President was native-born, so what evidence should be sufficient?
The second is whether one could discover a President to be ineligible in virtue of his not being native-born and then amend the Constitution to make an "honest President" out of him. Does the "ex post facto" prohibition prevent this?
The Constitution does *not* say that the President must be "native-born;" it says "natural-born." It has to do with one's citizenship status at birth, which is in part inherited from one's parents.
John McCain is not a "native-born" citizen, for he was not born on US soil. But, he is a "natural-born" citizen, for both his parents were adult citizens of the US at the time of his birth.
Chester Arthur was born on US soil. But, there were questions as to whether he was a "natural-born" citizen, for it was alleged that his father (a Canadian) had not yet acquired US citizenship at the time of Arthur's birth.
Barack Obama's father was not a US citizen, and his mother was a minor. Thus, it matters where he was born.
It is an interesting thought experiment. What would happen if it was discovered the President where Constitutionally invalid?
But it is only a thought experiment. Obummer was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't he was the son of an American woman & would either be a automatic citizen or a legal resident by virtue of his mother & he would have become a citizen after a period of time.
No birther has ever shown me one case where the gov of the USA has ever deported the infant son of an American woman even if he wasn't a citizen back then.
Thus Obummer's Mum had no motivation to fake a US birth. Unless she had Jedi Powers and threw the Force forsaw her son's nomination to be the Democratic Candidate.
Birthers, Truthers and New Atheists are irrational.
Can any Birther fruitbats produce one shred of Evidence Stanly Obummer's Mun spent the majority of her son's infancy dodging INS agents?
This is stupider than any of Paps' lame non-arguments against Theism.
Finally even if the President produces a "Long Form" the Birther fruitbats will just say it's a forgery. They will claim he had plenty of time to make one up from scratch.
Bottom line. If he wasn't born in the USA. Lady MacBeth Hillary would have outed him.
He the President. Get over it!
Both Truther's and Birthers come from the same place.
They both hated the results of the last election. They both hate the President who is their political opposite. They both live in a fantasy land where they dream the President really stole the election and one day he will be exposed as the Supervillan he really is. Then the evil Bush/Obama will be led out of the Whitehouse in handcuffs to be shot. While President correct ideology flies in to save the day and save America.
Cue up the Hallelujah Chorus!!!
Ilíon said...
You people are refusing to reason properly;
Proper reasoning means accepting the conclusions of the evidence offered. There is no reliable evidence that Obama was born outside of Hawaii, there is ample evidence he was born in Hawaii. Your generic complaint, refusing to deal with the actual evidence, is as intellctually dishonest as you have ever accused anyone else of being.
Well it seems Obummer has released his Long Form Birth certificate.
He was born in the USA in Hawaii!
Now what Birther fruitcakes? You gonna finally shut the Hell up so REAL CONSERVATIVES can take Obummer out in 2012 without you tin foiled hatted Chuckleheads embarrassing us?
I am on the warpath now!
BenYachov,
We both know that if you're not quite a fool, you put on a very good impersonation.
But, let us suppose that Obama (notice, no sad and pointless name-puns) really has released the information he *should* have released four years ago, and which he has spent some millions of dollars over the past three years keeping hidden.
Now, if you reall were a conservative, much less a Real Conserevative (tm), why are you not outraged that Our Zero, Who are The Won, has spent at least four years and millions of dollars hiding the information the Constitution requires him to provide the citizen-electors? Why are you not outraged that "liberals" and pseudo-conservative, such as yourself, imagine they have the right to denigrate the people (some of whome are even Democrats and/or "liberals") who simply are asking that the Constitution be respected and followed? Why are you not outraged that some foolish appointees to the federal courts have ruled that we, as mere citizens of the United States, have no standing to petition the courts to order that the actual written provisions of the Constitution of the United States be upheld and enforced?
No matter what pseudo-justification you may provide in answer to those and related questions, it reflects no better on you than on they other persons in this thread who at least realize that they are in the "liberal" camp.
of course, that was supposed to be "Our Zero, Who art The Won"
Shoot one of my idiot filters just evaporated. It was pretty useful.
Ilíon said...
But, let us suppose that Obama (notice, no sad and pointless name-puns) really has released the information he *should* have released four years ago,
He released his birth certificate in 2008. Why should it have been in 2007?
and which he has spent some millions of dollars over the past three years keeping hidden.
A falsehood, based on assuming the total amount his campaign spent on lawyers has gone to "hiding" something he revealed in 2008.
Now, if you reall were a conservative, much less a Real Conserevative (tm), why are you not outraged that Our Zero, Who are The Won, has spent at least four years and millions of dollars hiding the information the Constitution requires him to provide the citizen-electors?
Why should he be upset at alternative-historical fiction?
Why are you not outraged that some foolish appointees to the federal courts have ruled that we, as mere citizens of the United States, have no standing to petition the courts to order that the actual written provisions of the Constitution of the United States be upheld and enforced?
That Orly Taitz can't manage to put together a decent legal case is not the fault of the courts. It's fault of reality interfering with her paradigm.
Ilíon
To believe this absurdity I have to believe Obummer's mum somehow knew in 47 years her baby boy would become POTUS and needed to start way back then creating a phony Paper trail. Jedi Farseeing Powers?
I have to believe INS agents(or whatever) back in the 60's spent their days hunting down the infant children of American women sired by foreign nationals born on foreign soil in order to kick them out of the USA.
I have to believe Lady MacBeth Hillary's attack dogs & professional dirt diggers missed digging up evidence he was born in a foreign land.
I have to believe Old Dude & his running mate the honorable Gov Sarah Palin's campaign dirt digger missed it.
I have to believe the Election Commission under a Republican President missed it.
If I can believe that bullshit then THE GOD DELUSIONS's brain dead arguments aren't much of a stretch now are they?
Forgive me for not being an idiot.
Post a Comment