Replaced by a competent, sane official, who vetoed a birther bill and a classroom firearm bill. Is this finally a sign of moderation in a state that has handed the Latino vote to Democrats for the next 50 years? Or will the legislature overturn the vetos? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19arizona.html
FTA I am dumbfounded. This is the kind of stuff The Onion would cook up. Can the Republican party get any more delusional?! Granted, the level of competency among politicians is generally lower at state and local levels of government, but this is just straight up insanity. It's like they're trying to be a party of white religious extremists. And this is coming from someone who is proudly baptized and circumsized. I'm happy to show proof...
I don't really have any problem with the birther bill. It is kind of sloppy that our Constitution has these requirements to be President and no mechanism for testing and enforcement. And, providing a birth certificate is not a high barrier to entry for anybody with Presidential aspirations. The certificate of circumcision business is a silly red herring. That's an alternate if no birth certificate can be found. How often is that going to come up? Never. And, I have no problem with the Secretary of State being the gatekeeper. They'd have a hard time making a partisan decision about allowing someone on the ballot over a birth certificate. Besides that, there's already all kinds of controls already on who gets to be on the ballot. Right now, only Republicans and Democrats are routinely allowed on everywhere. The criticism I do have of this and every birther argument, is that a passport should be ample proof of citizenship. But, requiring a birth certificate or passport or some other evidence is not an unreasonable requirement.
The bill actually passed both the House and Senate with a veto-proof majority - will be interesting to see if they try to override the veto or just let it go.
Except that this is a state putting its own eligibility requirements on a federal office. The Constitution allows this as presidential elections are really 50 separate state elections but I don't think it is a good idea for an individual state to put in its own requirements for a presidential candidate. Also in regard to a situation like with Obama where you have Hawaii has different laws than Arizona regarding the treatment of a birth certificate these requirements in my opinion would violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
It wouldn't really be their own requirement, just mechanics on executing what is spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not sure if it'd be any more appropriate, for example, for a federal department to certify their satisfaction of the requirements when it is the states' elections. And, they already put plenty of requirements on running anyway. It's not like Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Brian Moore all got on the ballot in all 50 states during the 2008 elections. Probably something like an affidavit from an appropriate representative of the state of birth should also be acceptable. I don't doubt that the forms of acceptable proof were carefully tailored to force Obama's hand; they should be liberalized to what actually makes sense to prove natural-born citizenship; but I don't see a problem with having a process in place.
Actually it would be their own requirement as there is no onus on the rest of the states to follow. Further AZ cannot determine how the Constitution is interpreted. They can choose how to run their own election, as I noted in my post, but while that may be Constitutional I don't think it is a good idea. We have a process in place already that is the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution that in this regard says that each state should honor the legal proceedings of the other state. In this particular case we are talking about what constitutes a legal birth certificate and under Hawaii's law Obama's documentation is legal so AZ should recognize that to begin with. If this is a problem regarding how to define the term "natural born" in the Constitution that is a matter for the USSC and not for AZ. Just to follow up on a related tangent this is what got AZ in trouble over their illegal immigrant enforcement law. The way that law was written put AZ authorities in the position of determining and enforcing immigration issues when that is the purview of the Fed.. AZ can put limits on who they give state benefits too based on their immigration and / or citizenship status but they cannot decide who is a citizen or here legally.
If it becomes an issue of Constitutional interpretation, there'll be a suit and the Supreme Court can decide. But, the Constitution itself only provides guidelines and does not specify any mechanics for any implementation. The Full Faith and Credit Clase is not a process, it's just a directive. Legislation needs to be made to carry out any of the directives of the Constitution. Someone needs to actually do the paper-work. And given the election structure, the state-level seems to me the most logical. I agree with you that AZ should defer to Hawaii on Obama's citizenship. But, does Hawaii have a mechanism in place to vet their natives when they declare their candidacies? I don't think they do. And what about when someone is born a US citizen on foreign soil and runs for president? Whether they are 'natural-born' hasn't been firmly concluded, but they wouldn't have a native state to vouch from them. The 50 Secretaries of State will have to decide whether to put that person on the ballot (and the first that says No will eventually have to argue that position to the Supreme Court). Can you imagine a major party candidate born on foreign soil running and every state automatically putting his name on the ballot because he's supported by a major party? The SC won't hear the case until either a state or an opponent challenges the candidacy.
True AZ could just go ahead and pass a law and then see if there is a challenge, that is pretty much what happened with their immigration enforcement law, but that seams like a waste of time and one that will generate political bitterness when there are Constitutional problems already known. You are right the Full Faith and Credit is a directive but as it is a Constitutional directive its not up to the states to decide to individually interpret it with legislation that will conflict. Further the requirements for President are also a Constitutional directive and while the states could decide who is qualified to run in the state's presidential election ultimately that falls on the Fed, which is also bound to recognize an individual states legal procedure. Except that goes against the Full Faith and Credit clause. AZ may not feel that HI has a proper mechanism to vet their natives but they under Full Faith and Credit they are bound to recognize that. Using another example there are a lot of corporations who incorporate in Delaware. Other states may feel that Delaware's liability laws are too lax but they have to recognize the Delaware incorporation. Under the argument that AZ is putting forward we could go back to a pre-Civil War or even Articles of Confederation era where different states refuse to recognize the legal proceedings of other states. That actually would be a situation with Jon McCain and under that situation I guess the Supremacy clause would take precedence. You are right that "natural born" hasn't been fully defined but I would still say that is a matter for the USSC to decide and not an individual state. I strongly doubt that an opposition candidate and party wouldn't put a challenge before the USSC if the situation arises where natural born is an issue for a candidate. I wouldn't doubt that federal courts and the USSC wouldn't hear it on an expedited basis if a situation like that arises. In the meantime though as we saw with John McCain that wasn't an issue.
