View Single Post
 
Old 04-15-2011, 11:25 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizzy View Post
Good morning
It looks like Arizona took the first step and will now require all presidential candidates to show proof of birth and citizenship before they can be on the ballot.
I bet Obama already has a team of lawyers looking for loop holes.
Bizzy
It has been reported that the adopted legislation modified the original language to allow lesser documentation, including a baptismal or circumcision certificate. The original Arizona wording stated that, "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." The language also went on to further state that, it also required attachments "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "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." It also required testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America." Also, "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." The bold text above (my doing) is what I consider to be the most important provisions.

While Obama may find a way to bamboozle his way past some of this, he clearly cannot contend that he "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America." He has already freely admitted that he was born with dual US and British citizenship, which automatically carries with it dual allegiance. There's no way he can escape this fact. Obama bots have attempted to confuse this issue by stating that since Kenya declared its independence from Britain, and Obama never affirmed his Kenyan citizenship, he automatically lost both his British and Kenyan citizenship, and that consequently was only a US citizen when he ran for election. Fact is, though, that is totally irrelevant, since the constitutional requirement for eligibility can only be met at the time of birth.

Presently, it is unclear as to how much of the original intent and language of the Arizona law remains intact. I'll be very interested to see the final draft. I do hope that it will still have the teeth to bite down hard on Obama's attemp to be included on the Arizona ballot, and that other states will rush to adopt similarly effective legislation before the 2012 ballots are made up. I won't put it past Obama and Holder to attempt to scuttle the new Arizona law as they did with the immigration law, or to at least tie it up in an extended federal court battle until after the 2012 election. Obama will do anything and everything he possibly can to avoid full disclosure.
__________________
 

Last edited by rickoff; 04-15-2011 at 11:40 PM.
Reply With Quote