Arizona has lost it's marbles. House passes prelim "Birther" bill

[Deadgnome]

Source: Azcentral.com

The so-called "birther bill" won initial approval from the House of Representatives on Monday, advancing legislation that would require presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate before they can make the ballot in Arizona.

The legislation originated from a fringe group that believes President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore ineligible to be president.


Rep. Judy Burges amended Senate Bill 1024 to include a requirement that Arizona's Secretary of State inspect a presidential candidate's birth certificate before that candidate could qualify for the ballot.

Similar laws have been proposed in Oklahoma, Florida and Missouri. None have been signed into law...

Link: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/19/20100419birther-bill-arizona-approved-by-house.html

Actual text of provision:

Forty-ninth Legislature Burges
Second Regular Session S.B. 1024

BURGES FLOOR AMENDMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1024

(Reference to Senate engrossed bill)


Page 11, line 23, before "When" insert:
"A."
Between lines 34 and 35, insert:
"B. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT POLITICAL PARTY'S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE‑PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
C. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL REVIEW THE AFFIDAVIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE AND, IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT."
Amend title to conform



JUDY BURGES


1024-f1-burges
4/8/10
11:35 AM
H:jmb

Link: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1024-f1-burges.doc.htm

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/19/20100419birther-bill-arizona-approved-by-house.html

---

It's just Arizona's week this week, huh? First the nasty immigration bill they passed, now this.

[onehandle]

1. Concealed guns for all. Birther bill. Sounds like a swell state. nt

[graywarrior]

2. I'm sick of nuts

[BOHICA BAT]

41. Sick of nuts?

gaywarrior, maybe you should try the opposite sex.

[newtothegame]

3. Sounds reasonable going forward. It's in the constitution folks. nt

[Deadgnome]

5. In some regards, yes

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

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."

Link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

But nowhere does it say that a state must adopt laws dealing with this issue. I've actually always wondered how they properly decided this. From what I'm aware of it doesn't lay out the party/parties that should be verifying this in the Constitution. I just find it odd (for obvious reasons) that this is an issue now, some 200-odd years later.

[jberryhill]

16. "I've actually always wondered how they properly decided this"

Depends on who you mean by "they".

Under the Constitution, electors are chosen by the states.

Roger Calero, the Socialist Workers Party candidate for president in 2008, appeared on some state presidential ballots. He is a native of Nicaragua. He is a permanent resident of the US, and not even a citizen.

[leftynyc]

34. I find it "interesting" that

this comes up when there is a black Democrat in office. This bill fools nobody.

[newtothegame]

36. Thanks for your "concern." nt

[dorkulon]

37. Yes, I'm sure this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama at all.

:sarcasm:

[leftynyc]

38. You think it's merely a coincidence

that it wasn't until 2010 and 43 Presidents later that someone was asked to product a birth certificate? Is that your lame argument?

[newtothegame]

43. Who cares?

Whether you like the timing or not, it’s still probably not a bad thing.

[jenmito]

44. Yeah-who cares? They're just racially profiling the current President to TRY to find him

ineligible, which he's NOT. They're trying to get him out of office any way possible. He already provided his birth certificate. Some people will never accept him as legitimate.

[totodeinhere]

40. You and I both know that the only reason they are doing this is to try to embarrass Obama.

If a Repug were in the White House right now, this bill would never happen.

[CreekDog]

42. Affidavit from the party of citizenship is not in the constitution

by the way.

[Froward69]

4. The desert sun has effected their

ability to think clearly...

[quiet.american]

6. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Isn't this already done in one form or another.

Arizona's going as batpoop crazy as Texas.

(Yes, I know there are good Texans, here. Not talking about you.) :)

[jberryhill]

26. Normally it is done by affidavit, by those states which require it

You'll notice that this legislation is an amendment to their existing affidavit requirement, but I think some folks are suddenly shocked that the Constitution assigns the function of selecting electors to the states in such manner as state legislatures may direct.

It's silly, and the motivation here is offensive, but it's pretty mundane relative to the existing ballot access provisions.

[butterfly77]

45. Add Oklahoma to that..

look at their senators two nutcases..Inhofe and Coburn.

[Arkana]

7. Let them go ahead and do it.

Obama's provided a birth certificate and therefore should be able to get on the ballot in Arizona.

[Kdillard]

8. Exactly that will drive them even crazier than they already are if that is possible.

[Alexander]

9. Glad I got out of that right-wing hellhole cesspool.

I've never seen so many stupid people concentrated in one place as I did when I lived in the Phoenix area.

[City Lights]

21. !

We wasted five years there, and were so disgusted by the time we left that we have no desire to ever set foot in AZ again. Not even to visit some wonderful friends we made when we lived there.

[Phx_Dem]

10. Absolutely batshit crazy. Apparently, they've forgotten about

Arizona's own presidential candidate, John McCain, who was actually not born in the U.S.

So embarrassing to live in such a batshit crazy wingnut state. :blush:

John McCain says, about the state immigration bill that allows police to target "illegals" or anyone they perceive as maybe being illegal: "Illegal immigrants are intentionally causing car accidents." If that wasn't so pathetically sad, I'd laugh.

And crazy Sheriff Joe says, "Illegals are killing cops!!" Really? I guess cop killings are no longer reported in the newspaper as I haven't seen any stories about cop killings and I read the paper every single day, without fail (though I don't know why, it's a rag).

[Deadgnome]

12. Yeah...

I caught that one on HuffPo earlier. That was a weird little exchange.

[struggle4progress]

11. Arizona seems increasingly confused about the line between state and federal authority

What's up next? Arizona directs Arizonans in service in Iraq not to come home until find Saddam's missing WMDs? Arizona directs NASA to start a Mars colony before 2020?

[jberryhill]

15. The Constitution Delegates To States The Manner Of Choosing Presidential Electors

Ballot access is determined by state law.

Now, if a state denies access for an improper reason, you have a federal issue.

I want to see the heads explode when this thing is passed, and President Obama appears on the 2012 AZ presidential ballot.

And, btw, if the AZ secretary of state applies the idiotic "two citizen parent" theory of the birthers, that sucker is going to be in federal court on an emergency injunction faster than you can say "Orly Taitz", and be smacked down pronto.

[struggle4progress]

17. Whether or not someone is a born citizen of the US is a matter under

the US Constitution, not a matter under the laws of Arizona

[jberryhill]

18. If someone is denied access to the ballot, yes

However, the federal government didn't kick Roger Calero off of a single state ballot, and he's not even a US citizen.

And here is the point. By design, the federal government does not dictate who cannot run for president.

The point you are missing here is that the federal government cannot say "No, person X cannot be on the AZ state ballot." The Constitution is absolutely clear on who is responsible for choosing electors.

It becomes relevant when the state says, "No, person X cannot be on the ballot." At that point, if X is eligible to be president, and the other ballot access provisions are not unreasonable, then you have a federal rights issue.

The requirements to be a presidential candidate on the ballot is, in fact, DIFFERENT in every state. Number of signatures, time for filing, fees, etc. You seem to think this is not the case, but it is indisputably true. The requirements to be on the ballot as president in MA is not the same as it is in CA.

So, you explain this to me - Why was Roger Calero, a native citizen of Nicaragua, kept off of some state ballots when he ran for president on the Socialist Worker's Party ticket in 2008? Some states put him on it, and some states didn't allow it.

It's easier to look at this in a stepwise fashion.

1. States determine who goes on the ballot (That's what the Constitution says)
1(a) anyone improperly denied in violation of their rights can bring
a federal suit to get on it

2. People vote for Electors.

3. Electors vote for President

4. Electoral vote is determined by joint session of Congress. A written objection by at least one Rep and one Sen. is required to challenge that vote.

At that point, it goes like this:

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

The discussion here is back at point 1. No, the federal government does not say to a state "You can't put that person on the ballot for president", and the federal government does not impose any requirement on who a state may put on their ballot. A federal court CAN require an improperly excluded candidate to be put on a state ballot, but not the other way around. Which is, precisely, why Roger Calero was a presidential candidate in some states the last time around.

And, if you think about it, we don't WANT the federal government to be able to tell a state they can't put someone on the ballot.

(and if I get real lucky tonight, I'll dig up the reference to the Federalist Papers on that point)

The federal government here acts like a one-way gate. They can REQUIRE a qualified candidate to be on the state ballot, but they can't tell the state NOT to put someone on the ballot.

But do go back and see where I said "Now, if a state denies access for an improper reason, you have a federal issue".

[Deadgnome]

19. Very interesting....

I posted this in hopes I could gain some more understanding of this issue, as I can admit I don't know much about the legalese with regards to this situation.

[struggle4progress]

22. Your "one-way gate" theory is nonsense: surely a requirement in the Federal constitution

is enforceable by at least one federal branch; otherwise, it is meaningless. So the gate must swing both ways. No ever ever took Calero's ticket seriously; it never earned more than 9K or 10K votes total in all states combined; but had any other candidate for the office chosen to waste time by challenging Calero's eligibility for office in Federal court, the challenge would have certainly prevailed

[jberryhill]

23. Yes, you are applying a birther legal theory here...

The Constitution EXPRESSLY says:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The federal government CANNOT do that, because the Constitution REQUIRES the states to do that.

Show me one instance in history where the federal government told a state "you can't put this person on your ballot". I can show you plenty where the federal courts said "you can't exclude this person from your ballot".

The ballot is a creature of state law, because the Constitution makes it so. This is intentional, because the framers would have rejected the idea of the federal government telling the states who could not run. Think about that for a moment.

You are confusing the question of "who can run" with "what are the requirements to be president.". The Constitution does not set a requirement for who can run. For example, if I am 34 years old, I can run for president. If elected, my birthday better be before January 20 of the following year, or I'll have to wait (see the clause I quoted above)

Now, yes, birther lawyers file lawsuits on this topic because they think that every Constitutional provision is subject to enforcement by a federal court. They are wrong. The election of president is controlled by the numbered chain of steps I mentioned above, and after noon on January 20th, the president can only be removed by resignation, impeachment, death, or the disability process described in Amendment 25. In other words, even if a president were found to be 32 years old, he or she could not be removed from office by a court ruling.

Now, I want you to consider the requirements of Electors. Notice that federal officials are EXCLUDED by the Constitution from being electors. Hence, not only does the Constitution require states to select electors, but it prohibits federal officials from being one.

Federalist 68 puts it this way:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."

The entire point here was to prohibit federal interference in whom the states may select as electors. Congress only makes an appearance at the end of the show, when they confirm the electoral vote and debate objections, if any.

[struggle4progress]

24. No, it's not the birther theory: part of it is, however, what several judges

have told the birthers in their lawsuits, namely, that candidates probably have standing to challenge other candidates' qualifications, though private citizens do not have standing

Nor are you correct that the entire question devolves into state law. Beyond the judiciary, there is certainly potential for Congress to interpose itself. See US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15, which permits Congress to consider whether an electoral vote was "regularly given by" an elector "whose appointment has been lawfully certified." It is quite unlike that an elector pledged to and voting for someone known to be constitutionally ineligible for the office would be considered to be "lawfully certified" and voting "regularly"

Both of these mechanisms would presumably be in play were there a serious candidate, who was not a born citizen

[jberryhill]

25. You proved my point...

Yes, Congress can judge the regularity of THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE. You are almost home... Now, where do those electors come from and who chooses them. I know you can get this.

If you follow the process described in the Constitutuion, it may dawn on you that Congress receives the electoral college vote quite a while after the states have decided who is on their ballot and have selected their electors. Upthread, I numbered the steps for you.

The discussion here is about getting names on the state ballot and conducting the popular election - all of which is done by states. Congress receives the electoral college vote AFTER the states conduct their elections (again, since the states are required to determine the manner in which they do so).

You really don't want the Supreme Court deciding state election results, but I thought we learned that lesson the hard way already.

Where a federal court will step in is if the AZ secretary of state denies recognition of a Hawaiian birth certificate as prima facie evidence of birth as a US citizen. Because at that point, you have a violation of the full faith and credit clause. Ditto if some whackadoodle argument is used to claim something other than birth as a US citizen is required, since then you have a 14th Amendment violation.

This law is silly, but is probably the least onerous of requirements to get on the ballot. Seriously, you should look at what states require to be a presidential candidate. The requirements in New York are insane. It is a real eye opener to find out the kind of machine you need to get on the ballot in a lot of states. This thing is hardly a blip on the screen in comparison.

[wilt the stilt]

13. The Race war is on

It is pretty unbelievable what electing an African American president will do to people.

[WeDidIt]

14. Doesn't affect Obama

Un der the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, the Secretary of State for Arizona has no choice whatsoever but to accept this document ans 100% proof that Barack Obama is a Natural Born citizen:

[Dr Fate]

28. Exactly- he has one. I dont get it. What a waste of time. n/t

n/t

[Blue_Tires]

29. i have the strange suspicion that once that form is waved in their faces

for the millionth time, they will "tweak" the provision to require something completely different (and imaginary), and the revisions will only apply to Obama...

You know their legal wordsmiths are working on that now...

[treestar]

32. There are already nuts who claim that Obama's BC is a fake

They'll just create an issue around that.

[Orangepeel]

20. I don't care if a state passes a law requiring proof of eligibility

before any candidate can be on their ballot. Why not?

But once proof has been provided (say, the governor of the state in which that candidate was born has verified it), everybody ought to shut up.

[treestar]

31. True, and they are including age

Another thing we've never required proof for.

We've just never required proof for it. Though persons running for President are usually famous enough and their history is out there and it is known.

What might really need proof is candidates for Congress or local offices. People who are less well known; you'd think AZ would be more concerned that everyone who runs for Senate proves they are at least 30 and a resident of the district for however many years, etc.

[political_Dem]

27. There's a couple of things the Birthers forget when they pass laws like this.

One day, such legislation comes back to bite them in the ass. Case in point: John McCain.

Secondly, with the passage of this bill, they are turning their back on the immigrants who join the RNC once they've fully achieved the "American Dream".

Bills like this hurt their own before such legislation hurts any of us. I wonder what loopholes are going to be used to get their own candidates out of hot water.

[treestar]

30. They put their bills in all caps

Somehow that adds to the crazy.

[southernyankeebelle]

33. Its time to boycott AZ. Does anyone know of a facebook page we could go to sign up?

[HCE1947]

35. Keep encouraging these lunatics!

The American people now seem to realize that these people are nutcases, ones who are on the fringe. The more they pass bills like this, the better chance the Dems have in NOvember if they can make the case against the Tea Partiers and similar groups.

[Phx_Dem]

39. To be fair, the State of AZ never had any marbles to begin with.

We were the last state to recognize MLK Day after years of refusing to do so, and the last state to implement Medicare. President Johnson signed Medicare into law in July 1965, but it wasn't accepted in Arizona until 1982.

[SpartanDem]

46. You know what? I'm glad they did this

becuase I can't wait until 2012. Obama gives the birth certificate and the AZ SOS can't doing anything, but accept it watching teabagger heads explode will be fun.