"If Virtue and Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great security."
-- Samuel Adams

AZ State Rep. on Committee-Approved Eligibility Bill: “Issue needs to be addressed”

Yesterday, the Arizona House Committee on Government, chaired by Rep. Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley), voted to pass her introduced bill, HB2441, by a vote of 6-1 (with two Members absent). My original posting on this story contains the actual bill; in summary, the following is what the bill proposes to do:

HB 2441 provides a procedure for determining a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office.

History

United States Constitution prescribes all powers, rights and limitations to the executive branch of the federal government, stating “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  The Constitution further prescribes the manner for the election of the President and establishes the individual eligibility requirements for the office of the President.  The requirements includes that the individual be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old and have been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years (United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1).

Provisions

  • Requires that written notice from a national political party committee for a presidential candidate that is entitled to representation on the ballot be sent to the Arizona Secretary of State (Secretary), that contains the party’s nomination of candidates for president and vice-president.
  • States that within 10 days of the submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate which states the candidate’s citizenship and age.
  • Stipulates that presidential candidate affidavit include documents that prove:

Ø        That the candidate is a natural born citizen.

Ø        That the candidate’s age.

Ø        That the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in the United States Constitution.

  • States that the Secretary shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot if upon review of the affidavit and other documents submitted pursuant to this Act, the Secretary believes the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.
  • Makes a technical change.

I contacted Rep. Burges on the news, as it has been breaking out all over (TPM, LATimes.com, PhoenixNewTimes.com, SeattleTimes, Yahoo! News, WorldNetDaily, and AZStarNet), asking for her comments. She replied:

This appears to be quite controversial for many of our fellow opposite party members.   I don’t quite understand why they have such heart burn over a Constitutional issue such as this.  As state legislators, when we run for office we self attest that we meet all of the requirements to run for state office.  When our children sign up for sports, they must show a birth certificate.  When an individual goes for a job interview, they must take their birth certificate because an e-verify check is required, we need a birth certificate to obtain a passport.   This is the highest office in the land.  Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office.   How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?

This has been such a controversial issue that it needs to be addressed.   If not at the state level, where?  Several states such as Montana and Oklahoma have taken steps similar to Arizona’s legislation.

As longtime readers will note, I have been advocating actions such as this at the State level regarding eligibility enforcement for a long time. In fact, as AZStarNet reported, Rep. Burges is correct about several States looking at such bills. She responds to a lobbyist for the State’s Secretary of State who had this to say:

Matt Benson, lobbyist for Secretary of State Ken Bennett, said there are all sorts of problems with HB 2441 which now goes to the full House.

First, he said it likely would bring a challenge that Arizona was illegally imposing its own standards on candidates for federal offices. Benson noted that federal courts previously struck down an attempt by Arizona to limit the terms of members of Congress.

Burges responded that 10 other states are considering similar proposals. “So it’s not just Arizona,” she said.

Benson pointed out, though, that what Burges wants isn’t a simple matter of someone coming up with a birth certificate. It requires the secretary of state to examine documents proving eligibility and refuse to list that person on the ballot if there is “reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.”

He said that provides no clear guideline for his agency to determine if, for example, a copy of a birth certificate is legally sufficient.

Mr. Benson, with all due respect, sir, you’re ignorant of the law (as are many opposition commenters on this site). HB2441 in no way establishes new guidelines for presidential eligibility; it goes about enforcing laws that already exist. Furthermore, regarding the assertion that somehow this issue is tied to issues like term limits, I would invite everyone to click on the link to which I refer to my previous posting (top of this post) wherein I specifically go over how US Term Limits v. Thornton actually gives States plenty of leeway in determining the manner in which elections are held, to wit (from the Supreme Court opinion):

Moreover, petitioners’ broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers’ view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office. [emphasis added]

If you read the entire opinion from my posting, you will see that the opinion is correctly addressing the issue that States cannot impose new qualifications on candidates. Rather, and again, they have every right to impose those processes and procedures that enforce existing law.

Mr. Benson does have a point, however, with respect to admitting that there is no controlling legal authority that determines what — and to what extent — that said enforcement is to go. Perhaps this is why the bill purposefully leaves out that kind of scope: the bill makes it incumbent upon the SoS to make the determination.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

So, the question would be the following: If every major political party must submit a candidate qualification form to every State’s Secretary of State (or Commonwealth) wherein the candidate merely says that they’re qualified, how is it now that the respective SoS determines whether or not such a document is legitimate? Would you believe that most SoS’s rely upon the party apparatus to make this determination?

Quoting from Yahoo! News, since the bill’s next step is the full House, its passage is a real possibility:

state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. …

All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.

Of course, some politicos in the great State of Arizona are less than thrilled about such questions, including one incumbent Senator, John McCain.

CBSNews.com reported today that his campaign has devoted resources towards this over-a-minute-long ad against former GOP Rep. and radio talk show host J.D. Hayworth, Mr. McCain’s main challenge in the State’s primary:

Mr. Hayworth’s spokesman retorted:

Late Wednesday afternoon, Hayworth’s spokesman told Politico that the spot, “Identity,” reflected McCain’s “desperation.”

“I love the smell of 24-year incumbent desperation in the afternoon,” said Jason Rose. “He hears those conservative footsteps a comin’ and knows his political fate, like Gov. Crist, is a matter of time. And he knows full well it was J.D.’s job as a talk-show host to provoke discussion. Questions were raised on the air. They have been answered.”

What’s more, columnist Ann Coulter could even be construed to “get” the eligibility issue, even if only with respect to illegal immigration:

…Obama isn’t stupid – he’s not seriously trying to get a health-care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public “summit” with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health-care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.) [emphasis added] …

Cross-posted at FreeRepublic.com.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

27 Responses to “AZ State Rep. on Committee-Approved Eligibility Bill: “Issue needs to be addressed”

  • 1
    slcraig
    February 24th, 2010 22:35


    (The issue has come down to the difference between ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’ and are they synonymous or distinctive. If just having a US Birth Certificate is considered ‘enough’ then we ALL lose. My Birth Certificate has the birthplace of both my natural parents and therein is found the distinction.)

    As sent to Rep. Burgess;

    I am pleased that your Bill HB 2441 is advancing.

    However, I am disappointed that you have NOT included a ‘State’ definition for your State’s ‘understanding, meaning and intent’ of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of Natural Born Citizen.

    In its current construction the Bill is probably safe from litigation as to its Constitutionality in that it ONLY states the ‘language of the Constitution’.

    Unfortunately it is not the ‘language’ that is in dispute, but rather the ‘definition, meaning and intent’ that suffers from the lack of ‘Constitutional Interpretation.’ and your Bill suffers from the EXACT SAME deficiency.

    Without expressing the ‘intended’ definition your Bill ‘intends’ to apply then any ‘definition’ you apply under authority of the Bill is subject to challenge by ANY interested party.

    The Framing of the Constitution was NOT sausage making, but rather the exercise of intelligent men choosing from the best of the Laws that all of history had made evident to be compatible with the Establishment and Preservation of a Free and Secure Sovereign Republic.

    I see no shyness in the Constitution in facing the World as it was and of the World they wished for the posterity they envisioned in the words of the Preamble to the Constitution.

    I do see shyness in your Bill HB 2441.

    “But a state and the federal government each has
    citizens of its own, and the same person may be at the same
    time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a
    state. The government of the United States can neither
    grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which
    are not expressly or by implication placed under its
    jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are
    left to the exclusive protection of the states. U.S. v.
    Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L Ed 588
    [Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition]“

  • 2
    Linda
    February 24th, 2010 22:42

    I applaud to Burges for continuing to stand on our founding principles. The path she has taken with this legislation is exactly as the founders would expect it to be.

    The lobbyist for the SoS sounds like a cry baby lib who is in bed with ACORN. All he is bascially saying is: How dare we try and protect the integrity of our elections! How dare we institute the constitutional right of the state legislature to do that?

    As far as McCaint’s ad, well, it smells a lot like Daschle’s ads in 2004 and we gave him the boot, so buh-bye Johnnie, been nice knowing ya but its high time you retire to the pasture whence you rode in from. I here it has plenty of grazing ground for RINO’s.

    Ann was brilliant to put that jab out there. I have been hearing tiny blurps from a lot of beltwayers, including Levin, that were not happy when the ‘WON’ told us from his pulpit at the national prayer breakfast that we can question his policies, but not his faith or for that matter his citizenship. That was like a HUGE slap in the face to all the conservative pundits who had been chiding us and so it would seem that these constitutional lawyer pundits are rethinking the history of US citizenship laws wherein at the time of the adoption there was no such thing as dual citizenship and for that matter, the fact that laws put in place that children follow the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock have never been repealed. They know we are not going away, we are only gaining in numbers and it is futile for them to continue to chide us or ignor us. We are seeking a resolution to a very important constitutional issue regarding our national security and we will not give up until we have one.

    Yes, it’s taking time, but time is what we have and Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    Phil, Thanks for all you do & keep up the great work here at TRSOL.

  • 3
    elspeth
    February 25th, 2010 06:11

    Hahahaha.

    Full disclosure!

    I love how Rep. Burges says:

    How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?

    And, J.D. Hayworth is right about McCain’s despereation.

    Every time the opposition wants to make fun of “birthers”, they are actually bringing more attention to the problem (about time).

    The law is clearly stated with truth always winning in the end.

    If you haven’t anything to hide, you don’t hide anything.

  • 4
    CAL
    February 25th, 2010 10:22

    I do not get why Hayworth did a 180 on the eligibility issue, especially since it seems like lots of Arizona state reps are on board. I am glad though to see Coulter alluding to it, although it surprises me since she seemed pretty adamant that the whole issue was ridiculous when she was on Geraldo’s show about 9 mos. ago or so.

  • 5
    Reality Checkmate
    February 25th, 2010 18:57

    This ad is going to backfire on McCain. Remember he tried to use a non-binding Senate resolution to give himself the go ahead to run for president. So obviously the argument deserves debate. Time for the neo-cons to go. We need true conservatives and libertarians.

  • 6
    Phil
    February 25th, 2010 20:49

    Linda,

    Phil, Thanks for all you do & keep up the great work here at TRSOL.

    Thanks.

    And… I’m getting another wild hair again. I’m thinking of “Drudge-i-fying” my site, kind of a cross between DrudgeReport.com and TCOTReport.com.

    The site would be significantly faster to load, I’d “post” only headlines with links, and I’d probably “post” a lot more of what I get in my email that I currently do now.

    I haven’t decided, however, how I’d exactly archive what I put up, though I do have another web site that I could easily send those links to.

    The issue is that such a site — while easily readable — would not entail comments; I’d envision keeping some form of this current blog setup and linking to it to continue some sort of comment threading. I could definitely see creating headlines for comments made to posts.

    Anyway, I’m still thinking it through. I’d be able to cover a lot more stuff while maintaining my current archives and would be a lot easier to update.

    -Phil

  • 7
    Sue
    February 26th, 2010 10:09

    This may not be a very good day for Orly in many respects…her reply is due to the California bar regarding complaints filed against her, and then THIS!!

    02/26/2010 Appellant’s “motion for Leave of Court” to reinstate appeal is DENIED. JLE/SFB

  • 8
    CAL
    February 26th, 2010 10:34

    Phil,
    If you drudgified your sight, I would miss the comments you make in your posts and your tieing related news items together. I go to Drudge’s sight occassionally, but prefer sights like yours as I appreciate hearing the opinions expressed by those who run the sights.

  • 9
    Sue
    February 26th, 2010 11:43

    My previous post was regarding Cook v. Good.

    For purposes of completeness, Jack Ryan has loaded the full docket showing CLOSED (and motion to reopen denied).

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27517633/Cook-v-Good-11th-Circuit-Appeal-Docket-CLOSED

  • 10
    Phil
    February 26th, 2010 15:05

    CAL,

    Phil,
    If you drudgified your sight, I would miss the comments you make in your posts and your tieing related news items together. I go to Drudge’s sight occassionally, but prefer sights like yours as I appreciate hearing the opinions expressed by those who run the sights.

    Not to worry. This isn’t going away; it would simply occur under significantly more concise links.

    Remember, I’m not blowing away my massive archive.

    -Phil

  • 11
    Sue
    February 28th, 2010 02:47

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33621.html
    Conservatives target their own fringe
    By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 2/27/10 6:40 AM EST
    excerpt
    “Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

    “At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson.

    Ryun’s American Majority, a group that trains tea party activists and others around the country, has done much the same thing. Its website has moved to close its sessions to activists who identify themselves with the birther, truther or militia movements or the John Birch Society.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33621.html

  • 12
    Joe D
    February 28th, 2010 03:59

    I think one of the reasons that people are interested in this issue is because they feel that the law doesn’t apply to lawmakers. Almost every discussion about it always comes down to, how come I have to show mine but he doesn’t?

    Phil used to have a list of states that were trying to pass law or resolutions to have candidates show their docs. I believe OK came the closest to get something passed but it eventually failed.

    So why now? Why has this all of a sudden become an issue for AZ.

    Did AZ try to pass something awhile back and this is their second attempt?

    What is the timeline for this to get to the floor and then the AZ senate?

    thank you

  • 13
    Sue
    February 28th, 2010 06:10

    “Motion To Dismiss Taitz v. Obama

    Judge Royce Lamberth has not granted a hearing in this Quo Warranto case filed on January 27, with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. as plaintiff, with Christopher Earl Strunk seeking to intervene, although Taitz thinks a hearing has been scheduled for March.

    (She filed an absolutely lunatic Application For Preliminary Injunction with the DC court a couple of weeks ago in this case, but related to her California Bar Association investigations.)

    Judge Lamberth has been around this block with the American Grand Jury and Patriot’s Heart Network.

    Chances are good there will never be a hearing and Judge Lamberth will dismiss on paper. The Supporting Memorandum to the Motion to Dismiss filed yesterday sets out very clearly why. Interestingly, they give a most detailed survey of her dismal litigation history. Orly must be vexed to see that.”

    more here: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7864

  • 14
    Sue
    February 28th, 2010 06:26

    Did Orly Taitz, ‘The Worst Lawyer in History,’ File Her Bar Response Today?By Spencer Kornhaber, Friday, Feb. 26 2010 @ 2:22PM
    “The California State Bar doesn’t comment on whether it’s investigating an attorney for breach of professional ethics, but that doesn’t mean they don’t guffaw about it.

    We just called bar investigator Robin Littlefield, whom Orly Taitz herself said is looking into complaints against the Laguna Niguel anti-Obama attorney. As soon as we said the words “Orange County,” Littlefield started a slow, low laugh on the other end of the line.

    She knew why we were calling.

    That didn’t mean she could talk about Taitz. In fact, she couldn’t even confirm that she was investigating Taitz–even though Taitz herself has posted on her blog and filed court pleadings saying that Littlefield had contacted her.

    “If she wants to tell on herself that’s one thing,” Littlefield said. “But we’re not gonna tell on her.”

    Sounds like confirmation to us.”

    more here: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/did-orly-taitz-the-worst-lawye/

  • 15
    bob
    February 28th, 2010 14:38

    As state legislators, when we run for office we self attest that we meet all of the requirements to run for state office.

    To serve in the Arizona state legislature, there are certain citizenship, age, and residency requirements. Burges self attests to her eligibility to serve. Why is acceptable for Burges to self attest, but not Obama? Why does HR 2441 address only the presidency, but not the vice presidency, federal legislators, or state officials — such as state legislators like Burges?

    Oh: I wrote to Burges, and asked her to post her birth certificate online. Burges refused.

    When our children sign up for sports, they must show a birth certificate. When an individual goes for a job interview, they must take their birth certificate because an e-verify check is required, we need a birth certificate to obtain a passport.

    Burges may not be intentionally lying, but she’s surely mistaken.

    On the subject of bills surviving a committee, so did Hawaii’s vexatious requester bill. With this support.

  • 16
    Sue
    February 28th, 2010 15:14

    “Oh: I wrote to Burges, and asked her to post her birth certificate online. Burges refused.”

    Interesting. The way birthers talk, they carry their birth certificate at all times because you just never know when you are going to have to show your birth certificate to someone. ROTFL.

  • 17
    Phil
    February 28th, 2010 16:11

    Sue,

    “Oh: I wrote to Burges, and asked her to post her birth certificate online. Burges refused.”

    Interesting. The way birthers talk, they carry their birth certificate at all times because you just never know when you are going to have to show your birth certificate to someone. ROTFL.

    I would hope only for those running for Prez ;)

    -Phil

  • 18
    Slamdunker
    February 28th, 2010 18:58

    CAL says:
    February 25, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I do not get why Hayworth did a 180 on the eligibility issue, especially since it seems like lots of Arizona state reps are on board. I am glad though to see Coulter alluding to it, although it surprises me since she seemed pretty adamant that the whole issue was ridiculous when she was on Geraldo’s show about 9 mos. ago or so.

    [SD] Today Coulter and Levin, tomorrow Limbaugh, Hannity and by the grace of God Beck and O’Reilly.

  • 19
    Sue
    March 1st, 2010 03:56

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/02/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-26-feb-2010.html

    “And there is nothing on that list that would disqualify Obama.

    “This is the highest office in the land. Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office. How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?”

    They’re not offensive provided that the requirements are applied equally across the the board and are not used to single out any one person or ethnic group And it’s quite obvious that Rep. Burges is doing this specifically to single out Obama – even though under both US State Department guidelines, DHS guidelines, and State of Arizona guidelines, his Hawaiian COLB is proof positive of his citizenship requirements.

    This sounds more like an attempt to challenge any COLB presented to try and get “discovery” – and would fail under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

  • 20
    Sue
    March 1st, 2010 04:45

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/
    “Okubo responds to public outcry for investigation
    RELEASES REDACTED PRINT-OUTS OF HAWAII BIRTH INDEX, WHICH IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS PROVE ONLY ONE THING
    by John Charlton”

    The list shown is a print out from the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program, not Certification of Live Births. Certificates of Hawaiian birth, if I understand correctly, were available from 1911 to 1971 for people who were born in Hawaii but whose births were not registered normally. Barack Obama’s birth was registered in the normal way. He would not show up in that index. Whoever requested that data either requested the wrong thing and was sent exactly what they asked for, or, knew there was a difference and is trying to perpetrate a fraud on people who don’t know the difference. With these people, it’s hard to know.

  • 21
    Phil
    March 1st, 2010 08:01

    Sue,

    “This is the highest office in the land. Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office. How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?”

    They’re not offensive provided that the requirements are applied equally across the the board and are not used to single out any one person or ethnic group And it’s quite obvious that Rep. Burges is doing this specifically to single out Obama – even though under both US State Department guidelines, DHS guidelines, and State of Arizona guidelines, his Hawaiian COLB is proof positive of his citizenship requirements.

    This sounds more like an attempt to challenge any COLB presented to try and get “discovery” – and would fail under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

    I don’t think you’d be convinced that the sky was blue if you thought it was green (without looking through a prism).

    Of course a COLB could be used for the purposes you’ve just laid out, but that has never been the point, and you’ve been around my blog long enough to know better. We’re talking about presidential eligibility, not procuring a driver’s license. You don’t have to be a natural born citizen to drive in America; you have to be one to be President, however.

    And as far as your assertion that somehow Rep. Burges’ intentions are meant to “single out Obama” is completely unfounded on the evidence and is really nothing more than a smear attempt on your own part.

    If you weren’t so harmless with your commentary, I would think once again about banning you for being completely uncreative even in your smear attempts. At least when “real” opposition commenters make seriously good arguments, they aren’t completely and totally pulling things out of their collective buttocks with no evidence to substantiate what they’re saying.

    But, of course, opinions are like buttholes — everyone has one.

    -Phil

  • 22
    Sue
    March 1st, 2010 15:18

    Phil,

    Sue,

    “This is the highest office in the land. Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office. How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?”

    They’re not offensive provided that the requirements are applied equally across the the board and are not used to single out any one person or ethnic group And it’s quite obvious that Rep. Burges is doing this specifically to single out Obama – even though under both US State Department guidelines, DHS guidelines, and State of Arizona guidelines, his Hawaiian COLB is proof positive of his citizenship requirements.

    This sounds more like an attempt to challenge any COLB presented to try and get “discovery” – and would fail under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.””

    “Of course a COLB could be used for the purposes you’ve just laid out, but that has never been the point, and you’ve been around my blog long enough to know better. We’re talking about presidential eligibility, not procuring a driver’s license. You don’t have to be a natural born citizen to drive in America; you have to be one to be President, however.”

    “And as far as your assertion that somehow Rep. Burges’ intentions are meant to “single out Obama” is completely unfounded on the evidence and is really nothing more than a smear attempt on your own part.”

    “If you weren’t so harmless with your commentary, I would think once again about banning you for being completely uncreative even in your smear attempts. At least when “real” opposition commenters make seriously good arguments, they aren’t completely and totally pulling things out of their collective buttocks with no evidence to substantiate what they’re saying.”

    But, of course, opinions are like buttholes — everyone has one.”

    The above was not MY commentary but rather an excerpt from BadFiction as I clearly cited in my comment which you did not include when you republished the comment.

    “Sue says:
    March 1, 2010 at 3:56 am
    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/02/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-26-feb-2010.html

    “And there is nothing on that list that would disqualify Obama.

    “This is the highest office in the land. Our Constitution clearly defines the qualifications to run for this office. How can meeting these requirements be offensive to anyone?”

    They’re not offensive provided that the requirements are applied equally across the the board and are not used to single out any one person or ethnic group And it’s quite obvious that Rep. Burges is doing this specifically to single out Obama – even though under both US State Department guidelines, DHS guidelines, and State of Arizona guidelines, his Hawaiian COLB is proof positive of his citizenship requirements.

    This sounds more like an attempt to challenge any COLB presented to try and get “discovery” – and would fail under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.””

  • 23
    Phil
    March 1st, 2010 15:40

    Sue,

    Do a better job of separating out what you’re quoting versus what you say. It gets very confusing when you explicitly double-quote some sentences and not others and then respond back acting like everyone should have obviously gotten what you meant.

    Besides, folks like you take life so darn seriously it’s hard to get around these kinds of miscommunications, so I’m having to spell it out for you.

    Again, in the past, I seem to recall that you’re a bit of a farmhand or have a farm. You spend a considerable amount of time on the Internet to be involved full-time on a farm.

    -Phil

  • 24
    Sue
    March 1st, 2010 15:47

    Phil,

    “Do a better job of separating out what you’re quoting versus what you say. It gets very confusing when you explicitly double-quote some sentences and not others and then respond back acting like everyone should have obviously gotten what you meant.”

    Go back and check my original post. I did not say anything. I posted BadFiction’s link with an excerpt.

    “Again, in the past, I seem to recall that you’re a bit of a farmhand or have a farm. You spend a considerable amount of time on the Internet to be involved full-time on a farm.”

    And?

  • 25
    Matters of Religion Should Never be Matters of Controversy for Tea Party Protesters – The BOPAC Report « “The BOPAC Report” & Larry Sinclair’s Allegations – ZachJonesIsHome
    March 1st, 2010 19:54

    [...] are introducing legislation that will require candidates to submit proof that they are in fact eligible for the office they are seeking (i.e. being a ‘natural born citizen’). We will see soon if our Federal Courts [...]

  • 26
    Phil
    March 1st, 2010 22:27

    Sue,

    “Again, in the past, I seem to recall that you’re a bit of a farmhand or have a farm. You spend a considerable amount of time on the Internet to be involved full-time on a farm.”

    And?

    Let’s just say I know dairy farmers, to be specific, and they don’t take the kind of time that you appear to have to peruse the Internet. They’re actually out working their farms and have become very good at it.

    But hey — it’s your time.

    -Phil

  • 27
    Sue
    March 2nd, 2010 06:10

    “Let’s just say I know dairy farmers, to be specific, and they don’t take the kind of time that you appear to have to peruse the Internet. They’re actually out working their farms and have become very good at it.”

    It depends on what their job is on that dairy.

    “But hey — it’s your time.”

    Exactly.