[jogiba]

The Arizona proposal would require political parties and presidential candidates to hand in affidavits stating a candidate’s citizenship and age and to provide the candidate’s birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates don’t have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

In Arizona, presidential candidates will have to provide proof of birth ? or circumcision | Political Insider

[ihasa]

There's an impressively 'multilevel' quality to this particular piece of retardedness.

On the face of it, it's reasonable to ask for proof of birth-country or citizenship status, when there is a constitutional requirement for the President to be a 'natural born citizen of the US'.

But

1) Are you really telling me these things aren't currently checked at any stage by the candidate's political party?
2) Even if these things weren't checked, the media would soon uncover any lies about place of birth. It wouldn't be possible to get all your family, friends, aquaintances etc to lie on your behalf.
3) Why are they proposing this now, what's with the timing? Nothing better to think about?
4) The evidence they are calling for in terms of proof of birth-place frankly looks pretty lax. A baptismal certificate is lot less authoritative than the evidence the current Pres has already provided, for example.

Perhaps he would have got away with providing his Muslim circumcision certificate? Just kidding!

Call me sceptical, but it looks to me like the Arizona law makers have wasted time and tax payers money on legislation which has no practical use except to appeal to whip up a bit of support from 'less thoughtful' voters... i.e. birthers

[normhead]

appeal to whip up a bit of support from 'less thoughtful' voters... i.e. birthers

Surely they wouldn't stoop so low?

[GeneV]

Of course, AZ can wallow in the definition of a "birth certificate" as well.

[ihasa]

Well Norm, they're the ones who keep saying they're against wasting taxpayer money and insisting they're not into 'partisan politics'. And I haven't heard any 'mainstream' republican concerns about Obama's nationality. Hmmm. *What to think!*

[Parallax]

Interesting that some of the documents that will suffice as proof of citizenship to allow someone to run for President, aren't sufficient proof to obtain a drivers' license.

[seacapt]

You guys have one track minds. This isn't about Obama vs. Birthers.
Fake ID is a big business in states with large illegal immigrant populations ie. AZ ,FL,TX etc. Birth certificates , baptizimal records and circumcission records are verifiable because the hospital , church or temple would have corresponding original data on file usually with hand and foot and finger prints.

[Ratmagiclady]

It's a 'church over state' sort of move, made seem less so by using the example of circumcision records, (not to mention trying to encourage the practice itself, for that matter, if people's public records and even birth certificates are to be in dispute regarding someone's very identity, but church records are to be taken as 'official,' they probably figure it'll keep people traumatizing sex organs at birth or something. Not saying it really *would,* but certain types just seem to think that way: they think cervical cancer is a small price to pay if they can say *some* cases of HPV being sexually-transmitted might somehow deter girls from premarital sex. )

It's also a way for some privileged classes to be protected from some 'unintended consequences' of any anti-immigrant/birtherist measures... and putting that power in the hands of churches.

Personally, I think the whole practice is pretty barbaric when it's not something someone chose for himself, (Well, barbaric if it's not *cultured:* actual Jewish guys I've known had it all in a context of it being affirmative *of* their culture and belonging and positive things and seem OK: a lot of other dudes react kinda defensive-traumatized sometimes. If someone's OK, they're OK, but context is important, and I think some of the context in the West of making the practice widespread on whatever rationalization is *not* a good context, but one about *shame and 'dirty' and people starting off messed up about sex from infancy. It's like the difference between if a gal got facial scars as a sign of womanhood in her tribe, or if she got them from some dude with a hot knife marking 'ownership' or something. )

I'd never have it done to any infant of *mine,* of course, but it's kind of a 'men's mystery' and like with the other side of reproductive issues, my only place is to say it ought to be up to the person it's done to, not imposed or pressured, or certainly not made in any potential necessary for one to have a legal identity in their own country.

Also of course, it makes another de facto 'religious test for office,' and favors certain kinds of religions: those who keep such records and 'mark' people from birth. (Not that they aren't often *good* records, as any genealogist will tell you, but still, if I'd been destined to be some Republican 'birther,' *my* birth certificate, the actual document, wouldn't go into enough detail for some of these ...'birthers.' The city seal and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution make it legal, not a church's say-so. )

[Wormtographer]

This continuing birther (tea bagger) stuff has nothing to do with proof of place of birth or any other matter at all--except one.

The big elephant in the room that everyone barely even bothers to deny anymore--it's so plainly obvious.

What birthers want is proof of whiteness before you can become POTUS.

Even a gold-plated birth certificate verified by the Bush family and the GOP admin together aren't going to make Obama any more white...that's the real birther problem.

[ihasa]

You guys have one track minds. This isn't about Obama vs. Birthers.
Fake ID is a big business in states with large illegal immigrant populations ie. AZ ,FL,TX etc. Birth certificates , baptizimal records and circumcission records are verifiable because the hospital , church or temple would have corresponding original data on file usually with hand and foot and finger prints.

Well if it's nothing to do with birthers, the timing is pretty remarkable. Fake ID may be an issue for employers etc, but I would have thought this law is superfluous for presidential candidates etc. And do churches really keep repositories of personal data like finger prints etc? Sounds creepy.

And check out the comments under the news report! You better tell this person it's nothing to do with birthers:"Praise the Lord that some state finally has the guts to to find out once and for all if this President and all future Presidents are constitutionally qualified to hold the office".

Personally, I think the whole practice is pretty barbaric when it's not something someone chose for himself,

'Ceremonial' circumcision is a disgrace to so called 'civilised society', in my opinion. We should know better!

[seacapt]

Why not try reading about the bill instead of the heavy spin headline or highly opinionated yellow journalistic article posted in this thread?
AZ wants all politicians not just Pres candidates to prove legal citizenship in order to be on state ballots. Sounds pretty simple to me .

[seacapt]

And do churches really keep repositories of personal data like finger prints etc? Sounds creepy.

Hospital birth records have foot /hand prints. The whole thing about certain church or temple records is verifiabillity . These are being offered as acceptible alternatives to birth certificates.

[GeneV]

Why not try reading about the bill instead of the heavy spin headline or highly opinionated yellow journalistic article posted in this thread?
AZ wants all politicians not just Pres candidates to prove legal citizenship in order to be on state ballots. Sounds pretty simple to me .

Are you talking about HB 2544 or 2177? Both have the language below. Either way, it has "birther" written across it in large letters, since the new language appears to apply to presidential candidates and talks about the infamous "long form" birth certificates which may or may not be common, official or even available in another state.

16-507.01, to read:

START_STATUTE16-507.01. Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications

A. 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.



B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1. An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.

2. A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America.

3. A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate's places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.

C. If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state.

In addition to being a big wet kiss to the birther gang, AZ seems to be adding requirements not in the U.S. Constitution in an effort to exclude a specific candidate. Some of the requirements, such as the requirement of proof of residence the preceding fourteen years are perversions of constitutional requirements. I wonder if Ike could have been on the AZ ballot in 1952 under this law?

[ihasa]

Thanks for fetching up that info Gene.

I'll admit I hadn't seen the actual statute.

However it looks like I wasn't the only one!

[gokenin]

What birthers want is proof of whiteness before you can become POTUS.

.

This kind of comment is completely out of place, Why is it wrong that we actually require a native born citizen to lead our country? The color or gender of the person doesn't matter what matters is that they be a native born citizen as required by the constitution.