Proving they are the craziest state: Ariz. Legislature OKs presidential 'birther' bill

[liberal N proud]

PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state's ballot.

Arizona would become the first state to require such proof if Gov. Jan Brewer signs the measure into law.

Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the author of the bill, said the bill wasn't about opposition to Obama.

"This bill is about the integrity of our elections," Seel said.

<snip>

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.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42602561/ns/politics-more_politics/


We have definitely gone off the deep end now!

[DrDan]

1. I next expect some DUers to demand birth certificates of all children

born to candidates and potential candidates to elected office to insure they did indeed give birth to those children.

Some here are equally as bad as those RW birthers.

[drm604]

2. Really?

I assume that you're referring to the stuff about Sarah Palin, which I agree should be beneath us; but I really think it's a false equivalence. Yes I've seen people asking questions, but they don't strike me as anywhere near as rabid as some birthers.

[DrDan]

4. yes - we should absolutely be above this

she is not even a candidate. The more we ignore her, the better.

[drm604]

5. But why bring it up in this thread?

It serves no purpose to bring it up here other than to set up some kind of false equivalence.

[DrDan]

6. I see an equivalence - that is why I posted it

[treestar]

3. what proof would they require?

It would be ironic indeed if Obama's BC were enough.

[msanthrope]

7. Arizona: It's a Dry Hate. n/t

[rufus dog]

8. I am stealing this one

A dry heat - that is classic

[msanthrope]

10. Good, 'cause I stole it! n/t

[bigdarryl]

9. STUPID FUCKS this will be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

when it hits the courts

[Avant Guardian]

11. The supreme court is controlled by kooks

[jberryhill]

13. Um, no, the conduct of presidential elections is delegated by the Constitution to the state

What the state cannot do is to require more of candidates than the Constitution requires.

What will end up in federal court is a situation in which AZ impermissibly prohibits a candidate from getting on the ballot.

Several states, such as New Jersey, already do this, which is why they did in the 2008 election deny ballot access to a third party candidate who was not born a US citizen.

But, please, go ahead and explain what is unconstitutional here.

[jenmito]

12. Like the "liberal" Joe Scarborough said this morning, paraphrasing,

"This will guarantee Obama will be on the ballot, since his COLB IS the official birth certificate in Hawaii."