Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Arizona birther bill passedFollow

#52 Apr 15 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Elinda wrote:
I don't get it. Arizona has no jurisdiction over non-Arizonians.


Before reading further, you don't vote in a national election. The only actual national election is the vote cast by the Electoral College. When you vote for Senator or Representative, you are voting within your district or state to send a representative of your district or state to Congress. When you vote for president, you're voting within your state to elect Electoral College representative from your state who will then vote for President.

The states decide the rules for their elections (within certain restrictions of course). They absolutely can set eligibility requirements for a name to appear on the ballot. And given that what they're asking is pretty easily within the bounds of the requirement for the office itself, it's unlikely that this requirement can be successfully challenged (but I'm sure that wont stop some from trying).

Personally, I think it's a great idea. More states should follow suite. Since the federal government has shown no interest in closing this potential loophole, the states absolutely can and should step up to the plate and do it themselves.


But to respond more directly to your post. This doesn't affect voters outside of Arizona. What it means is that any candidate for president who hasn't provided those credentials cannot appear on the Arizona ballot (and presumably would also be barred from write-in as well). Meaning that if (for example) Obama doesn't provide this information to Arizona he automatically can't get any EC votes from that state. The sticky point is that as I pointed out earlier, you don't vote for the candidate. You vote for an EC member from that candidates party. All the Dems would have to do to circumvent this would be to put "Democratic Party Candidate" on their application and tell people to vote for the Democratic party candidate. The Arizona law presumably can't bar the Electoral College from voting for whomever they wish, so there is a loophole there I believe.


EDIT: Having thought about it a bit more (and read through the rest of the posts), they'd have to come up with an actual person to put on the ballot (since that person would have to present a birth certificate as well). As someone pointed out earlier, they could just put a proxy in place and have people vote for that person. The question is how much this would be seen as just more ridiculous twisting of the rules to avoid presenting a full legal document which most people would assume should be required as proof anyway.

It's a good approach because it doesn't specifically say "We're looking at you Obama!", but if every other candidate on the ballot in AZ (hah! Except maybe one other IIRC) files a full complete form birth certificate and appears by name there, and Obama doesn't, but he instead has some other person stand in for him, a whole lot of people will start to wonder wtf is up with that.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 2:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Apr 15 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I don't get it. Arizona has no jurisdiction over non-Arizonians.


Before reading further, you don't vote in a national election. The only actual national election is the vote cast by the Electoral College. When you vote for Senator or Representative, you are voting within your district or state to send a representative of your district or state to Congress. When you vote for president, you're voting within your state to elect Electoral College representative from your state who will then vote for President.

The states decide the rules for their elections (within certain restrictions of course). They absolutely can set eligibility requirements for a name to appear on the ballot. And given that what they're asking is pretty easily within the bounds of the requirement for the office itself, it's unlikely that this requirement can be successfully challenged (but I'm sure that wont stop some from trying).

Personally, I think it's a great idea. More states should follow suite. Since the federal government has shown no interest in closing this potential loophole, the states absolutely can and should step up to the plate and do it themselves.


But to respond more directly to your post. This doesn't affect voters outside of Arizona. What it means is that any candidate for president who hasn't provided those credentials cannot appear on the Arizona ballot (and presumably would also be barred from write-in as well). Meaning that if (for example) Obama doesn't provide this information to Arizona he automatically can't get any EC votes from that state. The sticky point is that as I pointed out earlier, you don't vote for the candidate. You vote for an EC member from that candidates party. All the Dems would have to do to circumvent this would be to put "Democratic Party Candidate" on their application and tell people to vote for the Democratic party candidate. The Arizona law presumably can't bar the Electoral College from voting for whomever they wish, so there is a loophole there I believe.


EDIT: Having thought about it a bit more (and read through the rest of the posts), they'd have to come up with an actual person to put on the ballot (since that person would have to present a birth certificate as well). As someone pointed out earlier, they could just put a proxy in place and have people vote for that person. The question is how much this would be seen as just more ridiculous twisting of the rules to avoid presenting a full legal document which most people would assume should be required as proof anyway.

It's a good approach because it doesn't specifically say "We're looking at you Obama!", but if every other candidate on the ballot in AZ (hah! Except maybe one other IIRC) files a full complete form birth certificate and appears by name there, and Obama doesn't, but he instead has some other person stand in for him, a whole lot of people will start to wonder wtf is up with that.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 2:33pm by gbaji


Are you trying to derail the thread into a debate on how stupid the EC is in the first place? You probably don't think it's stupid because it hooked W up with a cushy job for four years (i say four because W won the popular vote for his second term).

Edit: Oh crap! It worked!

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 5:51pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#54 Apr 15 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Are you trying to derail the thread into a debate on how stupid the EC is in the first place? You probably don't think it's stupid because it hooked W up with a cushy job for four years (i say four because W won the popular vote for his second term).


Is that honestly what you got out of that? Because that's a bit insane. I'm not making any judgment about the process at all. I'm just clarifying how the process works in the context of the topic of this thread.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 15 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
EDIT: Having thought about it a bit more (and read through the rest of the posts), they'd have to come up with an actual person to put on the ballot (since that person would have to present a birth certificate as well). As someone pointed out earlier, they could just put a proxy in place and have people vote for that person. The question is how much this would be seen as just more ridiculous twisting of the rules to avoid presenting a full legal document which most people would assume should be required as proof anyway.

Yeah, it was a joke. I mean, they could technically do it (and note the italics there), but no one was seriously suggesting that they would.

I assume they'll run out the clock to the last minute, letting you and the rest of the Birthers work yourselves into a lather and then hand over whatever they need and leave you guys looking stupid. I assume the whole reason they haven't bothered yet is because it's more beneficial for them to watch a select group of wingnuts embarrass the party and turn on their own more rationally minded fellows at the moment. For all the "But why hasn't he??" wailing, the real question is: Why WOULD you when you don't have to and can instead watch Republicans spend time and money on this rather than anything fruitful? When the time comes, you say "Oh, yeah. There ya go" and leave them sputtering and saying "But... but... but...!!"

A select group of Republicans have caught on to this and tried to warn the rest but, happily, most of you are still barking at the shadows and chasing your tails :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Apr 15 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Are you trying to derail the thread into a debate on how stupid the EC is in the first place? You probably don't think it's stupid because it hooked W up with a cushy job for four years (i say four because W won the popular vote for his second term).


Is that honestly what you got out of that? Because that's a bit insane. I'm not making any judgment about the process at all. I'm just clarifying how the process works in the context of the topic of this thread.


Eh, can't win them all.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#57 Apr 15 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, you don't even have to put "Democratic Party Candidate". You could slap any eligible name on there in the Democratic Party slot (provided owner of said name met the qualifications) and just have the College delegates cast their votes for Obama. The Electoral college is a federal procedure and the AZ rules don't apply once the Democratic or Republican electors have been chosen.

Again, purely in the theoretical. No one is actually going to do this.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 5:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Apr 15 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I use the EQ Classic stylesheet and have no idea what you people are talking about.
Ditto.

This is a true instance of blissful ignorance.
#59 Apr 15 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
*
123 posts
I've been thinking about birtherism recently and part of me wonders: what if Obama himself (or someone on his side) that started it as a distraction, or seeing how it was a distraction, they decided to run with it?

Think about it. If this was really bad for Obama/the left I think the media would probably try to keep hush hush about it. Instead they have no problems with it and are using it to make fun of people.
#60 Apr 15 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
KingWinterclaw wrote:
Think about it. If this was really bad for Obama/the left I think the media would probably try to keep hush hush about it. Instead they have no problems with it and are using it to make fun of people.

The crazier the conspiracy, the more genius Obama appears.
#61 Apr 15 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,733 posts
I bet Biden thought of it. He's not really sleeping all the time, he's thinking up genius new ways to troll.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Apr 15 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
That should pass the mustard right?


Pass muster, you yutz.

<3



Edited, Apr 15th 2011 4:37pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#63 Apr 15 2011 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
At this point isn't it a little pedantic to even care if he was born on US soil? He was raised as a US citizen and spent most of his life here. Most of us don't know for sure where we were born. We don't remember-- could all be a conspiracy cooked up by our parents! If your parents revealed to you tomorrow that you weren't actually born on US soil, would you consider yourself any less a US citizen? And if so, aren't you retarded?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#64 Apr 15 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
Kachi wrote:
Most of us don't know for sure where we were born.
I find that a little hard to believe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Apr 15 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Most of us don't know for sure where we were born.
I find that a little hard to believe.


You don't remember it do you? Don't you think that's awfully strange for you to not remember your own birth? The most important day of your life!? It's all a hoax, perpetrated by your parents to ensure your U.S. citizenship! Where's my tinfoil hat?!
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#66 Apr 15 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Kachi wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Most of us don't know for sure where we were born.
I find that a little hard to believe.


You don't remember it do you? Don't you think that's awfully strange for you to not remember your own birth? The most important day of your life!? It's all a hoax, perpetrated by your parents to ensure your U.S. citizenship! Where's my tinfoil hat?!


This is exactly why we need time travel...
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#67 Apr 15 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
Not so much remember, but I know I was born at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhatten. Of course, I am one of those egotistical highly proud Eyetalian New Yorkers. So might be an exception to the rule. I just find it hard to believe people wouldn't know where they were born.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Apr 15 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Not so much remember, but I know I was born at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhatten. Of course, I am one of those egotistical highly proud Eyetalian New Yorkers. So might be an exception to the rule. I just find it hard to believe people wouldn't know where they were born.


We only know where we are told we were born...my parents are liberal (ie. liars) and documents can be forged.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#69 Apr 15 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,733 posts
I'm just going on record and mentioning I realize I've gotten myself wooshed, and my defense is the second Indiana Jones movie just came on.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Apr 15 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm just going on record and mentioning I realize I've gotten myself wooshed, and my defense is the second Indiana Jones movie just came on.


That's one of my top four favorite Indiana Jones movies!
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#71 Apr 15 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
39 posts
Just when I thought that my state couldn't pander to idiots more I click this thread.

I think I'm gonna go down a pint of ice cream...
#72 Apr 15 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
SwiftAusterity wrote:
Come on, you don't actually need to prove your side of an argument. Just prevent the opposite side from disproving it. how do you think religions have survived this long


Are you some ******* child of Alma's, or did you just discover that you can change the colors of the words in your post?

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 9:45am by Belkira


I already received my taxes..... I have no children.
#73 Apr 15 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, it was a joke. I mean, they could technically do it (and note the italics there), but no one was seriously suggesting that they would.


I got that. I was just examining all the possibilities there as well.

Quote:
I assume they'll run out the clock to the last minute, letting you and the rest of the Birthers work yourselves into a lather and then hand over whatever they need and leave you guys looking stupid.


Sure. But it's a win-win for the right though. As someone pointed out (and I think you and I have both discussed this aspect in the past), the whole "birther" thing is a great gimmick for the left and it's certainly possible that the whole reason for the legal actions is specifically so they can stretch this thing out and allow their surrogates in the media to make fun of conservatives over it.

This puts a hard clock on that though, doesn't it? Either he has to do something absurd (like use a proxy), or he has to provide the documents. The birthers get what they want and the GOP gets the issue put behind them and the Dems lose the free jokes on cable TV.

And if along the way, this creates a process which strengthens the constitutional requirements for holding the office of President going forward (which has been my reason for caring about this issue), then the American people all win as well! It's a good thing IMO.

Quote:
A select group of Republicans have caught on to this and tried to warn the rest but, happily, most of you are still barking at the shadows and chasing your tails :)


I don't think anyone is really unaware of that aspect of the issue Joph. This resolves the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Apr 15 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Kachi wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Most of us don't know for sure where we were born.
I find that a little hard to believe.


You don't remember it do you? Don't you think that's awfully strange for you to not remember your own birth? The most important day of your life!? It's all a hoax, perpetrated by your parents to ensure your U.S. citizenship! Where's my tinfoil hat?!


This is exactly why we need time travel...


China just banned time travel, and if they control the entire world in the future, then no time travel would exist. Therefore there would be no way to come back from the future to change the banning of time travel by china, or preventing them from taking over the world, and preventing time travel.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#75 Apr 15 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,733 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm just going on record and mentioning I realize I've gotten myself wooshed, and my defense is the second Indiana Jones movie just came on.
That's one of my top four favorite Indiana Jones movies!
Note that I don't even consider the fourth movie in the top four.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Apr 15 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Kachi wrote:
At this point isn't it a little pedantic to even care if he was born on US soil?


There is that pesky Constitution though.

Quote:
He was raised as a US citizen and spent most of his life here.


Except for that time where he lived until the age of 10 in Indonesia of course. But other than that, he was raised as a US citizen and spent most of his life here. How much of your cultural and social identity had you formed by age 10? A good amount, right? Obviously, this doesn't disqualify him legally, but your statement isn't really accurate.


Quote:
Most of us don't know for sure where we were born. We don't remember-- could all be a conspiracy cooked up by our parents! If your parents revealed to you tomorrow that you weren't actually born on US soil, would you consider yourself any less a US citizen? And if so, aren't you retarded?


But it's not how you consider yourself. If that turned out to be true, you would legally not be a US citizen. And that *does* kinda matter.


And at the risk of spinning this off on another tangent, the purpose of that restriction really is to ensure that the person holding the office of President does not have conflicted loyalties. The assumption being that someone born in the US and raised by US parents would be most likely to hold strictly US loyalties. I would assume that had Obama been raised in Hawaii his entire life and not lived for more than half of his first 10 years on foreign soil being raised by a foreign stepfather, nobody would care that much about the actual birth documentation. But the combination of someone who lived a large portion of his formative years on foreign soil and any question at all about his birth certificate lends more people to want to take a closer look. He clearly doesn't match the spirit of the law as written, but it's not that spirit we apply. So any possibility that he also doesn't meet the letter of the law is going to be examined and explored.


And despite some craziness over this issue (on both sides), the request for examination of the full documents is not really unreasonable. Not for such an important position in our government. And kudos to Az for finally doing the right thing. I mean, it would have been nice for Obama to do the right thing three years ago, but he chose to make political hay out of it instead, so it falls to someone else to take action. And this action by Az is exactly the right thing to do. The courts have failed us on this, so it's time for someone to pass a law.

Edited, Apr 15th 2011 6:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 87 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (87)