Birther Insanity In Arizona

As opposed to the other insanities demonstrated by Arizona, this is birther insanity:

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced. The proposal [. . .] was introduced yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

I hope it passes and then every GOP Presidential candidate is asked whether President Obama is eligible to be President. That will be fun to watch. The crazy in Arizona is unbelievable.

Speaking for me only

< Political Bargaining: The Budget "Freeze" Gambit | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • ot but important methinks (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    If you read the law (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    it's more draconian than simply requiring "proof".

    Arizona is trying to determine what other states have to include on their birth certificates in order to consider that person eligible for president.

    And the writer also goes on a rampage about how he thinks "natural born citizen" means having 2 parents that are both US citizens.  I wonder what he thinks of all the other presidents that come from immigrants.  I bet he doesn't have a clue.

    I would say its in the water (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    but there isnt any, right?

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    I try not to analyze insanity.

    A lot of (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    people don't know that the constitution says that you only have to be born in this country to be considered a citizen believe it or not.

    civics (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    needs to be a mandatory requirement to graduate high school

    how about history (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    we have the person giving a response the the president of the united states state of the union address who thinks the founding fathers got rid of slavery.

    I have an idea (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:01:24 PM EST
    Anyone running for congress/president should be required to pass the citizenship given to immigrants.

    works (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    for me.  but it would clean out the right wing.

    that's why (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    it works for me :)

    in all honesty though (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    when did it become cool to be ignorent?

    It reached (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    the apex with Bush.

    are you serious (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    the tea partiers make Bush look like freakin Edmund Burke.

    and unfortunately I dont think we have reached the "apex" yet.


    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    don't you think that Bush made being stupid a good thing? He's the first one that I can remember that embraced stupid as being a good thing. The tea party has taken that and run with it.

    like film generally (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    I think Bush was not so much an influence on his time as a product of it.

    the country is becoming stupid.  its been happening for most of my adult life.  IMO Bush was not stupid.  he just made a very lucrative career out of sounding stupid and making all the stupid mouth breathers out there think he was "just like them"

    while I would agree that the tea party certainly has taken stupid and ran with it, its roots go deep in our culture.


    The country - (none / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    by which I would mean the people - are not necessarily becoming stupid.

    I see us as becoming more and more numb as we sense our powerlessness to direct or even influence national policy.


    I would guess from that comment (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    that you are on a coast.  possibly not but certainly in an enclave of some sort.  I disagree.  the middle of the country is not only getting more stupid they are glorifying it.

    stupid is as stupid does.  as they say.


    There does seem to be a reward (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    for stupidity in recent years. Or, at least, not a disincentive. If we assume that each generation is not becoming more stupid in the womb--and I assume here that "stupid" as you have observed is environmentally influenced--what is the basis for this "spread of stupid" (or delighting in ignorance?) What do you think, Captain? Is this dumbing-down aspiration primarily prevalent in politics and the socio-economic spheres or what? And, mostly, why?

    one word (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:18:47 PM EST

    sorry that was a bit glib (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    but I seriously think that the rise in "creationist museums" and the like have made ignorance, if not cool certainly mainstream.

    and the implications of that has tentacles in everything.  everything.


    Offensive (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    I know many religious people, who are not only smart and well-educated, but kind and thoughtful people.  Oh yeah, there all liberal Democrats.

    I also know some self-professed atheists that are as dumb as a box of hair.


    talk to me (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    about this.

    and tell me it is not promoting and mainstreaming ignorance


    I'm not saying (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    That some vocal members of the religious right don't hurt their cause by being uneducated, but a blanket statement that it religion that causes ignorance is just plain wrong and offensive.

    Of course, I assume in that statement you are including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sihkhs, Wiccans, etc.?

    Making a statement that 95% of the people on the planet who believe and/or practice some form of religion makes them ignorant is a bit, um, misguided.


    I am sbsolutely (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sihkhs, Wiccans.

    I repost a quote I used earlier in the day.

    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    Steven Weinberg


    another thing (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    if there are so many smart religious people why are they not speaking up against this?

    loudly and constantly.  if my beliefs were being dragged though the muck I would be on the front lines.


    How do you know they aren't? (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    And why do I care what one physicist thinks about religion?  He's certainly entitled to his opinion, and I don't completely disagree, but I think it's a broad swath and pretty arrogant.

    I am not TRYING to be offensive (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    how about a link of a prominent religious leader calling the creations museum out? or even a minor one for that matter

    I was asked why I think the country is becoming stupid.  and I said what I think.

    something else I think, in spite of the good things organized religion has done, US civil rights etc, a very large majority of the most horrific things in the history of the planet and major majority of the push back against enlightenment and science have come from religion.

    it is as it always was.  since copernicus


    and I am used to being (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    in the minority.  quite comfortable with it actually.

    Interesting interchange, Capt. (none / 0) (#154)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:07:11 PM EST
    I do not agree that religion is the cause of stupid or ignorance. I do agree with a related notion that some have used so-called religious beliefs as a weapon. For instance, that very small group that seeks attention to their picketing funerals that are offensive to their hateful ways. IMO, society has always had these delusionary types & sects who seem to interject hatred in place of spiritual love. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the breadth of religious affiliations in the US, but I do believe that the underpinnings, the belief systems are generally premised in writing in spiritual compassion/love. Also IMO, to the extent that haters/cruel people/etc. are drawn to groups--whether religious, community, political and other orgs viewed as power groups--that situation does not define the belief system of the group. (Tho, if the infiltration is too severe and too extensive, the organization must address it or eventually be defined by it.)

    The snarling angries, the know-nothings...they do appear from time to time in our society. Sometimes formally. But, without going too far with this, cockeyed optimist me thinks a bit about South Pacific's "You've Got To Be Taught?" What are we teaching...and who is teaching...who is setting the standards...and is everything acceptable? I believe that those questions may have some bearing on the perceived rash of stupidity.


    I would add something (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 08:23:03 AM EST
    to that root cause.  the republican party.  they have, and have had for years, a vested interest in keeping people stupid.  I believe their attacks on education are not simply budget battles but part of a coordinated effort to make as many people as possible as stupid as possible because stupid people are much more easily manipulated than informed ones.  if you doubt it check out thier base.
    that the republican party has become synonymous the christian right, which has a parallel interest, is not IMO a coincidence.

    dont misunderstand.  I do not think ALL forms of christianity are part of this.  there is a specific kind - and I believe you know the kind I am referring to - that is at fault.  unfortunately it happens to be one of the fastest growing reigions in the world.  fundamentalism.  fundamentalism is, at its heart, anti intellectual.  education and enlightenment are simply anathema to it. and always have been.  if you live anywhere besides the coasts you know this if you are honest.

    and I dont think that can be honestly argued.



    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:29:21 AM EST
     the Democrats have "come out" on the stupidity issue and joined their soul-brothers on the Right. "Dumb" serves pols of all stripes.

    btw (none / 0) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    its not a few vocal people.  the Creationist Museum is a mulit million dollar 70000 sq' facility that has had about a million visitors since it opened in 2007

    Television... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    the drug of a nation, breeding igonorance and feeding radiation.

    Can't say it better than the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy did...and that jam is pre-Fox News 1992.


    I hope this is a joke (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 08:47:20 AM EST
    because I am really sick of seeing TV blamed for stupidity.  there are stupid things on tv.  there are also lots of very interesting and educational things on tv.  stupid people are not stupid because they watch stupid tv.  they watch stupid tv because they are stupid.

    Ya can say the same for religion.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    stupid people are not stupid because they believe in the flying spaghetti monster, they believe in the flying spaghetti monster because they are stupid.

    I'm not saying it is the television set's fault, thats just a tool...but it sure helps to spread the stoopid far and wide.


    since you brought it up (none / 0) (#203)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    the FSM is less ridiculous than a old man with a beard sitting on a cloud because . . . .

    sorry (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:43:23 AM EST
    MORE ridiculous than

    however (none / 0) (#206)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    I would heartily agree that people are not stupid because the believe the earth is 6000 years old.
    they believe the earth is 6000 years old because they are stupid.

    Agree Bush not stupid (none / 0) (#169)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    at all.  I do think he is did not know a lot of history and other things I think a president needs to know as background to formulating policy and making decisions.  

    Right, he was sort of (none / 0) (#176)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    narrowly very smart in some of the dark arts of getting and wielding political power and manipulating people to get what he wanted.

    He's also quite charming (none / 0) (#194)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    I saw part of his interview by Matt Lauer related to Bush's book.  I was amazed at how charming he seemed.  The nation bought the charm -- the guy you'd want to have a beer with -- in contrast to Al G's somewhat dour, stiff and serious demeanor.  Charm will take you far.  

    I don't (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    think that Bush ever acknowledged that he thought he was stupid.

    In fact, it seemed to me that his obvious dumbheadedness was spun by the media into his having intuitive savvy. "Crazy like a fox" sort of thing.

    At the moment, I must confess that I can't judge the comparative intellects of Bush and Obama.

    Obama seems to have swallowed and identified with every bit of Bush's "wisdom."
    If he ever had more brains, I would not know it by his actions or by his speeches - the latter of which gets more and more pedestrian and cliché-ridden.


    like Bush (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    Obama is, so far at least, not so much an influence on his time as a product of it.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    you are being too kind to both of them.

    Bush was responsible for selling unspeakable violence to the American people. Even if he was just a puppet - he was an influential salesman and did the sh*t out of it.

    Obama too is a puppet - but also is influential in his role as salesman.

    They both are responsible for unnecessary carnage.

    Did you read about the fact that there have been more deaths by American troops from suicide than have resulted by combat?
    This has happened in the last two years.


    Do you have a citation (none / 0) (#170)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    for info on suicides?  Thanks

    Here ya go (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#175)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    Well. let's face it (none / 0) (#198)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    it takes more than I.Q.'s to think, behave, and act as a humane, mature, empathetic person.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    but it does not take religion

    I agree... (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    the "apex" (as in low point) has yet to be reached.

    Each time I think I have had a glimpse of the bottom, these people take us a notch lower than I would have believed possible.

    Now I have no expectations.


    really (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    at this point I am afraid of expectations.

    Don't confuse... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    cool with popular...ignorance is popular, but it will never ever ever be cool.

    It is hard to be cool (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    I have an idea... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    let anybody who is crazy enough to want these jobs run for them.

    Limiting the talent pool to citizens hasn't been working out so well...maybe we can even import some Indians to do it more efficiently for 1/4th the pay:)


    That (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    is my thought exactly.

    As you said, limiting the talent pool to American citizens hasn't worked out at all well.

    And another tangential thought:

    You mentioned Indians - from India.

    It has occurred to me that the American Indian - the Native American - is NEVER mentioned as a member of the American family.


    Imagine the nerve... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    it would take to ask a candidate of Native American ancestry for their "proof" of citizenship?  Iroquois can't even get passports for god's sake!

    A pox on all this paper.


    great cartoon (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    sort of like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus.

    from wiki

    John Milton's Paradise Lost interprets this myth as a model for the birth of Sin from the head of Satan


    It used to be (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    Way back in the Pleistocene when I went to high school (at least, in my district).  We had to take a semester of civics.  And four years of history (two years of world history, and two years of American history).

    yup (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:31:07 PM EST
    but I recall learning some of this stuff much earlier. I even have the book reports! (mom saved them as they had A's on them and were some of my first 'illustrated works', lol!~)

    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:48:28 PM EST
    We also did a lot of this in what was called "Social Studies" in what was then called "Junior High School" (7th and 8th grades).  We learned about the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the Constitution, the War of 1812, etc, etc.  (We also had to memorize the Gettysburg Address, the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, and all four verses of "The Star Spangled Banner"- not that I think rote memorization is all that useful.)  We learned a lot about the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark, too, in both Junior and Senior High School (but this was in the St. Louis area, so this was particularly relevant to us.  Learned a lot about the early French here, too.)

    It used (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    to be when I was in high school. I guess it isn't anymore.

    me too (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:52:09 PM EST
    we are old.  

    nope (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    I never took it.

    I bet you took (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    Social Studies.  That's what it's called now.

    nope (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    I took U.S. history.  That's it.

    I had to pass a Constitution test (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    in the 8th grade, in Illinois. State Law. Wonder if they still have that?

    In Illinois, in the '60s, I had to (none / 0) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    pass tests on the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois State Constitution and flag etiquette in order to graduate from grade school. I had to take one year (8th grade) of what was called Civics. This was in addition to a class on U.S. History.

    To graduate from high school I, once again, had to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution, and complete one semester of a U.S. Government class. This, also, was in addition to a class on U.S. history.

    These requirements came about during the Joe McCarthy/Red Scare times. I don't know if any of this is still required. If not, maybe it should be.


    Do you still know the preamble by heart? (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    Pretty sure I do, back from memorizing it in 1972. along with the lyrics to American Pie.

    Ah, the young brain!


    Preamble to the U.S. Constitution? (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    Why yes, yes I do still know it by heart. Also, the Gettysburg Address and various prayers from my Catholic school girl days. Interestingly, I have far more occasion to recite the Preamble and the Address than I ever do the prayers. Oh, and I still know the proper way to fold the flag.

    Phone numbers? Not so much. Speed dial has proven detrimental to my formerly prodigious memory skills.


    Speaking of memory, I have long (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    thought that no matter how bad my memory may get as I age, I will still be able to, even if on my death bed, sing all the verses of that great pop hit I Got You, Babe.

    Do you know (none / 0) (#164)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:57:08 PM EST
    all four verses of "The Star Spangled Banner"?  Lord knows why we had to memorize them (in 8th grade), but I still remember them.  Also the Preamble, and part of The Declaration of Independence.  Whole gobs of other things.  Nowadays, the kids don't seem to have to memorize much- not even the multiplication table.  And yes, that makes me a geezer, I guess.  "You kids, get off my lawn!"  {Waves cane in the air}    

    Yes to all of the above! (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    I do believe the song lyrics will be the last to go. The only phone number besides my own that I know by heart is the number of the family that lived across the street where I grew up. The mother and one of the daughters still live there and I always see them when I am in town - don't have to look up the number! They have had the same number for at least 45 years now.

    We the People... (none / 0) (#160)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    Yes, thanks to Schoolhouse Rock!

    If they wanted to be honest (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    that could just change to a system that allows the state legislature to pick the electors.

    Is the Grand Canyon portable? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    I didn't think so.


    On the same Page, AZ (none / 0) (#168)
    by Erehwon on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 07:53:51 PM EST
    I have always wanted to go back to Page, AZ but looks like the wait might be forever ... unless or until demographics reduce the racists and increase the immigrants!

    May 2, 2011 (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    First Republican presidential debate.

    Get the popcorn ready

    Now that's what I call (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    "states' rights."  Who cares what the AZ Legislature decides re eligibility to be U.S. President.

    It's about (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    being on the ballot in Arizona.

    Actually is a "states rights" issue at first blush.


    I Have a Hard Time Believing... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    ... people won't write in a presidential candidate should they not meet whatever ridiculous notion a state may have ?  Are there people really going to pull the Palin lever because Obama isn't on the ticket (should it come to that in 2012)?

    It's pure non-sense, not because of this instance, but because the state some how feels that it can decided who is on a national ballot, essentially they could get anyone off the ballot with any 'legitamite' claim.


    People can write whatever they want (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    If the state election law doesn't recognize it, it really doesn't matter.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    right/wrong, just/unjust...not part of the equation.

    All that matters is legal/illegal.


    it effects who gets to be on the ballot (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    in AZ and no one is going to run with out being on the ballot in AZ.
    Actually getting a state to declare no one could get on the ballot if they took corporate money and not public funding, would put an end to many of our issues with electoral politics being about who gets the most corporate cash and subsequent offensive legislation.
    If we could get just one large or medium sized state to do that, problem solved.

    The AZ zoo (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    to include Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  And they say that none of this craziness  had any influence on the shooter in Tucson.

    Joe's not crazy (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    he is just a miserable mean old bastard.  It happens after so many years in law enforcement.  You just start hating people.  Most people retire at that point.  Joe has stayed to make others as miserable as he is.

    Too general. Not all law enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    officers deserve this tarring.

    He's a racist bastard (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    I am not sure why this is insanity (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    I think Obama was born an american citizen.  However up until now we have always had the choice between two white guys with blood lines stretching back to the 1600s-1800s.  For a lot of people Obama's father being a non citizen muddied the waters.  I see no reason not to ask for proof of being a natural born citizen if that is going to put people's worries to rest.

    Yes, it is clearly insane (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    You do realize that there was some question about the citizenship of at least one of the white guys who was actually elected President, right?

    ]How the heck do you know this! (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    History major, probably (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    Tutoree asked me if any U.S. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    President resigned.  I sd., Nixon.  Which turned out to be correct--the only one evah.  

    even I (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    knew that.

    Did you know Nixon was the only (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    Pres. who resigned?  

    yeah (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    wasnt he?

    Yes. VPs--a different story. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    And the first AA president (none / 0) (#156)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    was Harding.  Or was it Jefferson?  And if so, then one of their parents was not a citizen, either, under the laws for slaves.

    (Actually, the evidence on Harding is somewhat persuasive.)


    Dunno about Harding -- (none / 0) (#178)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    a recent biographer, one John Dean, from Harding's neck of the woods originally, wrote in his book, iirc, that he tended to doubt it, and saw it as a mischievous item that got out there for political reasons.

    And I thought re TJeff that was all about mistress Sally Hemings, no?  Who herself may have been only 1/4 black, according to TJ.


    See (none / 0) (#186)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:53:56 PM EST
    the link.

    Where were the parents of (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    Michael Dukakis born?

    INteresting. Dad was 16 when (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    he immigrated.  Graduated from Harvard Medical School 12 years later.  The American Dream.

    Right. Exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    Ran for president as a major party candidate; no one questioned his "citizenship" by birth, despite having two immigrant parents.  White guy, even though suspiciously short and swarthy, if you ask me ....  Res ipsa loquitur.

    well (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    I do remember Loretta Lynn at a Bush rally complaining that she "cudnt even purnounce his name"

    Scandalously . . . (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by rea on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:25:52 PM EST
    Dukakis' parents were Lesbians.  You can look it up.  :)

    Best Ouzo in the world (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    At least, in my limited experience, with which some others appear to agree.

    Ah, a lawyer (none / 0) (#159)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    Not having followed the "birther" story, I tried to educate myself as to President Obama's birth qualification. Googling, and reading so many articles simply made things more confusing.


    What is the official "proof" that President Obama is qualified vis-a-vis the birth reuirement?

    (I accept that he is, just don't know the basis.)


    As I recall, the legal authority (none / 0) (#165)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 07:16:22 PM EST
    vested to make this determination is the keeper of the records, the Secretary of State of Hawaii, who vouched for Obama's birth there.  The reason for that is such records are under privacy laws  and not to be released by the state, only by the subject of the record.

    And as I also recall, the record is not actually a birth certificate, though, but a "certification of birth" used to record births at later dates, when there was not a birth certificate issued on the date by a hospital or other institution charged with doing so.  

    So this only further fueled the birther controversy -- although if such a certificate is to be doubted, then a whole lot of Americans similarly recorded may be able to get out of military service, taxes, who knows?  Anyway, that's my recollection without wading into the cesspool that would come up if I googled for this.  Others here well may have better recall.


    Gee, thank you (none / 0) (#167)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    I can understand the "certification of birth" as I am a naturalized citizen and have no documentation from the past. I had to go through quite a thorough application to receive a "certificate of citizenship" when I applied for a passport.

    And yet, one person's "word" seems pretty thin gruel to guarantee citizenship for such an important post.

    Again, I'm sure Obama's qualifying citizenship has been proven, otherwise he would have been successfully challenged by now. But Googling the subject, I haven't found the "smoking gun" proof yet.
    Example: One site stated that by the laws in effect at the time of his birth he is ineligible because:
    a. his father was a foreign non-citizen, and
    b. his mother hadn`t been a citizen for the requisite 10 yrs, having given birth to Obama at a very young age.

    ( why do I feel like a troll?)

    I'll just keep digging


    You are veering very close to troll territory. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    You might want to be more discriminating in your choice of sites to trust.

    On your points a and b:

    a) Obama was born in the United States. U.S. law does not require, nor did it require at that time (1961), that either of the parents be American citizens for the child to be a citizen. That his father was not a U.S. citizen was and is irrelevant to Obama's citizenship.

    b) See above response. Also, since Obama's mother was born in the United States (Kansas) she was a U.S. citizen. That whole "required to be a citizen for 10 years" is just a lie.

    There is no question that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. Hawaiian state records confirm his birth in Honolulu. So, really, let it go.

    Unless you are trolling, in which case please read the TL commenting rules.


    Troubling (none / 0) (#181)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    That we are even talking about this manufactured "issue" at TL, isn't it? My own hope is that this is as far as the highjacking goes. 'Agree with your perception here, casey.

    That's it; he was born in Hawaii (none / 0) (#188)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 01:37:47 AM EST
    citizenship is automatic.

    However, I don't appreciate the adolescent implications in your response. When asking an honest question violates commenting rules I won't need you to "let it go."


    I obviously misinterpreted your (none / 0) (#189)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 03:14:57 AM EST
    comment. I apologize.  The points you highlighted in your comment have been flying around the  toobz for more than 2 years now. They've been shown to be false so many times. I guess I've just reached the limits of my tolerance for all this birther cr@p. And so I was a bit rude to you, and I should not have been.

    Thank you for that (none / 0) (#195)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:18:14 AM EST
    You know, with all that mind-numbing racket flying around in our 24/7 media your mind just has to go on auto-pilot, ignoring so much crap (the birther issue being one.) As I said, I ignored it so long, but as BTD posted, it keeps coming back. Anyway I figured, "lemme get to the bottom of this," it shouldn't take long, and I sure didn't want to wade through the billion tons of verbiage on the 'net, so I guessed (rightly) that the folks here could "bring me home" real quick.

    Appreciate your analysis, and comments.


    Yes, there were questions (none / 0) (#179)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    that actually had some grounds about the requirement that the American parent had been a citizen for 10 years, in part because she still was not legally an adult at the time or something. But if that had mattered, I'm sure that the birthers would have headed that way instead of being stuck on a birth certificate or certification of birth or whatever.

    I do not think that his father's status is a factor, at least from what I've seen that looks solid (yes, some url here sent me off to some site where a birther was screaming that both parents had to be U.S. citizens).  I think that only one parent had to be a citizen for a certain number of years . . . and there have been a number of presidents, as I recall, whose male parentage was somewhat in question, at least by the media in their day.  And again, there never has been doubt that Obama's father was not a citizen, so that would seem to have been just the thing to send birthers bonkers.  

    And for me, the question becomes:  Even if the birthers are right, who wants to go there?  Invalidating every presidential signature for the last two-plus years?  Another impeachment?  This is not what this nation needs.  Really, what is the purpose?  Who is behind this and why?  Not that I'm a conspiracy nut, but why does this keep coming back like a bad meal?


    the parent's status (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by CST on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    is completely irrelevant.  Citizenship by birth was granted to the child regardless of what the parent's citizenship was.

    This has been brought up a lot with the right wing with regard to the 14th amendment, where the wingers are trying to say it was only intended to allow the children of slaves to be citizens.

    In the supreme court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898 (well before Obama's birth) the citizenship status of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents was challenged, as Chinese could never become citizens at that time, due to the chinese exclusion act.  The supreme court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, since he was born in the United States, despite the fact that neither parent was a citizen, nor could they ever become citizens.

    Case closed.


    No reason to question his (none / 0) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    citizenship, as he was headed for a rout.

    So you're saying... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    Mike Dukakis was the Greek manchurian candidate?  And the Kenyan succeeded where he failed?

    Kidding, kidding:)


    oh man (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    now I am visualizing that creepy "mom" seen from the movie with Dukakis.

    I may been to bleach my brain.  again.


    Thank goodness... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    for that goofy tank photo and Willie Horton, eh?  We really dodged a bullet there:)

    Well Except that the Proof has... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    ... been available long ago.  The proof just doesn't seem to be enough.

    So you are saying that because Obama is black, the concern is legitimate, we only check certain types for identification ?  To me, either you check all or your check none, no cherry picking becuase someone doesn't like his race or his fathers citizenship.

    It will provide some good humor when they check Giuliani, Mittens, Palin, or the Hucksters credentials.  That is if they bother.


    nope (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    I didn't say anything about Obama being black.  I said he wasn't a pasty faced white guy with hundreds of years of american lineage on both sides of the family.  It would be no different if his father was Swedish and blonde.
    It is amazing that you scratch an Obama supporter and they cry "racist".  Thanks for proving that once again.  I'd almost forgotten.

    And BTW, some people don't think the proof was good enough.  You can have that argument with them. They are still American citizens.  They get to have the laws they want in their state.
    The state of AZ has decided that going forward they want proof.  So what?  This isn't


    damn lap top (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    i wanted to say this is not just about Obama.  It's about clarification in the future.

    it is (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:13:48 PM EST
    about Obama

    yup (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    the "immigrant" parent line doesn't fly.  We've had 7 presidents with immigrant parents.  Both of Andrew Jackson's parents were immigrants.

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    but that was a long time ago and every one had immigrant parents back then.

    I know some of the people will never be satisfied but Obama is the first President in a long time that has had a non citizen parent and you wouldn't believe the number of people who don't know that you only have to be born in the country to be a citizen.


    did you ever happen to check out (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    Bubbas mom?  I think she was an actual alien.  as in from another planet.  no human could survive with those eyelashes.

    Who cares really whether (none / 0) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    those people that you talk about are ever satisfied or not. They are losers in every sense of the word.

    Well (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    these are apparently mainstream Republicans now and they are going to be running the country so unfortunately, I wish they could be ignored. And Obama wants to cut deals with these crazies.

    No (none / 0) (#187)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 10:15:04 PM EST
    The Republicans with whom he made deals with do not care whether the President was born in Timbuktu or Mars as long as they got their tax breaks. These Republicans also generally welcome immigrants (legal and undocumented) and globalization because of their own economic interests.
    The President stood up to the xenophobic part of the Republican party and told them directly that he wants passage of the Dream Act.

    That (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 06:03:39 AM EST
    is not standing up to the GOP on the Dream Act and if Obama couldn't get it passed in the lame duck session, it's going exactly nowhere.

    Ryan wouldn't say the birthers were crazy so that's where I'm getting my impression of the GOP from.


    I have been hearing from (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    my lame a$$ relatives for a couple of years now that their irrational hatred of everything related to this administration has nothing to do with Obama or his race.

    I have had it.  I have recently started calling them on it.  I expect fewer christmas cards next year.


    Obama... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    and an unhealthy infatuation with paper.

    Since my mind always wanders to the innocents harmed by dumb laws and proposed dumb laws, what happens if this garbage passes and an American citizen is denied a rightful place on a ballot because some bueracrat f*cked up/lost/misfiled their birth records? And the more obssesed we become with paper, the more f*ck-ups that will occur.

    Sh*t I'd prefer the honor system to this proposal.


    "honor system" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    in politics?

    this is the comment of the day


    yeah... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    maybe politicians isn't the right group of people to experiment with bringing the honor system back in style, but I still would like to see it make a comeback...before they ask for any more paper to get an on-the-books job:)

    Arguing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:31:45 PM EST
    with crazy people is never a smart thing to do.

    if you wrestle with a pig (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    you get dirty and the pig has fun they say.

    Niave Much ? (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    First I didn't call you a racist in the same way he didn't say Obama was black.
    That was a joke.

    I never said you were racist, the implication was that asking the black man for proof and not the white men is racist, because it is.  Rationalze all you want, it still boils down to different rules for different races.

    And yes, it would be way different if Obama had white lineage, anyone making a different claim is either very naive of lying.  No one questioned McCain, even though he wasn't born on US soil, you better believe if Obama was born on a military base in Panama this same non-sense would be happening.

    No proof for believers will ever be enough, does that mean the rest of us have to bend to their will, apparently so if you live in Arizona.

    What's next, seriously, what will the next Democratic Party's President have to endure from the idiot brigade ?  Between Clinton and Obama one would think it just can't go no lower, but it will.

    Arizona should not have the right to decide who is on a national ballot, period.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    McCain was questioned on his citizenship.

    By Who ? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    See (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:39:31 PM EST

    I think it was more in 2000 - but it WAS questioned.


    not seriously (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    No one who is really "serious" questions Obama's birth either.

    possibly (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    but surely you are not suggesting that McCains questioning was even approaching what has gone on with Obama.

    The McCain issue was one of mild whimsy (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    and amusement....All Dems said he was a citizen....

    There was no cottage industry of birthers surrounding McCain.....


    There was no internet then (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    or at least, the internet did not contain all the info and there weren't nearly as many people harnassing its power. So who can say if there wouldn't have been some crazies out there who would have carried the theme of "McCain isn't a citizen."  (Also to be fair, McCain's situation is a bit different, as it was a matter of where HE was born and the fact that Arizona, as opposed to where his parents were born).

    I'm not suggesting anything.  I told you, I'm staying out of this argument.  The question was "When was McCain's citizenship ever questioned?"  I answered that.


    If there would have been any (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    they would have been Bush supporters in those Republican primaries. If Rove thought the birther issue would get traction on McCain, he would have used it.

    I recall a lot of coverage in 2008 (none / 0) (#157)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:28:20 PM EST
    about McCain's birthplace, and that it actually resulted in some ruling about military service.

    And didn't (none / 0) (#172)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:16:04 PM EST
    Hillary and someone else sponsor a bill to enable McCain to run for Pres even though he was not born in the U.S.?

    Hillary and Obama (none / 0) (#174)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:31:53 PM EST
    sponsored a Senate resolution clarifying that McCain was eligible to run for Pres.  McCain was born on a U.S. Navy Base outside the U.S. and evidently thus a "natural born citizen"; the resolution was sponsored to put to rest any doubt about McCain's citizenship and eligibility to run for Pres.

    Let's Not Forget... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    ... these are the exact same clowns that wanted to remove the birth qualification back when they wanted Arnold as PUTUS.

    But it's not about the black man, no way, no how, right ?


    Feeding conspiracy trolls and nuts (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    never works....They are never satisfied.

    Obama produced a document that is accepted by the State Department....Case closed.

    A lot of nuts are  American citizens....doesn't mean we have to respect their rantings....


    "the laws they want" (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    I don't believe that they can impose additional state requirements beyond the Constitution in a federal election. For example: In Colorado a few cycles back, there was a movement to limit terms; that movement succeeded for state offices...but, the movers could not extend the limitation (try as they might) to federal officeholders such as members of Congress. Should the State (Arizona) contend that it is not changing the Constitution, but only requiring "proof" that constitutional requirements are met for purposes of printing ballots, I would think that an "impediment" argument is in order. Why? Because the determinor of eligibility status resides in the certification process for "electing" the President by electors and, then, the House of Representatives. (Heck...even Bush v. Gore might be cited in yet another way. Hoo, ha!)

    Seriously, the attempt by one State to evaluate and negate the determination of another of the several States has a "full faith and crdit" question and more to it.

    And, in addition, the sun must be too hot in Arizona these days. Evidence of global warming as well as social nuttiness.


    Ooooookaaaay (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    You REALLY want to go there? REALLY?

    Maybe Hillbuzz is the site for you, not TalkLeft.


    Last State to Enter the Union (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    Behind Alaska and Hawaii, Arizona was the last state to enter the union, around 1910 if memory serves me right.

    I just find it amusing that the last continental state to enter the union is so rabid about qualifications.

    Don't think republicans really care about answering questions about Obama's birth rights, a vote is a vote is a vote.

    this was in red headlines (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    Arizona... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    sure is obsessed with their precious papers, ain't they?  You'd think birth certificates and licenses and such bleed and eat and cry and love and stuff.  It's just a piece of paper!

    Governing like this is a better argument for anarchy than any anarchist could ever make.

    huh (none / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    it's just a piece of paper that proves you are or are not eligible to be president of the USA.  Pretty important paper I would say.

    Your response really was a very pretty side lateral arabesque though.  Natalie Portman would be proud.


    It proves nothing... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    You want a birth certificate?  Give me a name, d.o.b., and birthplace I'll have one for ya in a couple days...with raised seal.

    Papers don't prove births...babies do.


    Babies may prove birth (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    But they don't prove citizenship.

    NOT that I am getting into this argument - just making a point of fact.


    Again my point... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    proof of citizenship in the form of a piece of paper is no proof at all...it's just a piece of paper, any skilled forgery artist could do it.

    iow, there are citizens who can't "prove" it, and there are non-citizens who can produce "proof"...so wtf is the point, lets call the whole thing off and just require a sworn statement that the candidate is an American citizen...the honor system.


    Ah, but (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    You want everyone to live completely off the grid - you are not a good sample my friend!

    Ya got me there... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    but this is one of those moments when I kinda feel on the ball...when the many flaws in "papers please" are exposed, when the tangled web of overlegislation reaches a new tangled low, when the curtain is pulled back and we see the Wizard is some little dude pulling levers.

    clearance with the same piece of paper proving my birth as he did. What's the big deal?

    Exactly my point... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    what is the big deal?

    More paper, more problems I say...we need to chill on all the paper checking, not go crazier...its just paper.  

    I mean if the handjobbing of banksters the past 2 years not proof enough the guy is as American as Apple Pie?  


    I didnt have a birth cert (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    until I was 16 and got my first job.  and the one I have has my signature on it.

    its never been questioned.  but this I have never ran for president.


    but but (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    I have a birth certificate from the day I was born.  Doesn't that mean everyone does?!?!?!

    This might be one of those - you have to be over 35 to be eligible for president.  But you have to be under 40 to have proof of eligibility.


    In my case, (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    you have to have at least 40 proof to prove eligibility.

    Personally, (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    I could not care less where a potential president was born.

    If he or she was competent, caring, innovative, personable intelligent and capable of loving someone - I would gladly vote for that person wherever they came from.

    I just don't get the jingoism of all this.

    It's not (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    Just about patriotism - it's about Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Notice it was written in the original constitution, and not even in an amendment, so the founders considered it pretty important.

    Again - NOT getting in this argument about Obama specifically.


    I get this (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    but I think its stupid.  
    if someone is smart enough and able enough to run for president with a chance of winning who the hell cares where they were born.  and why do they care.

    I agree that it is jingoism at its worst.


    Work to call a constitutional convention (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    That's the only way it's going to change.  

    Of course, then why can't I be Queen of England?


    I'll tell you why (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    you can't be the Queen of England.

    Because I am the Queen of England.


    big deal (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    Im the Queen of Illinois

    FWIW (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    John Dean agreed with you.

    (And notice who brought up the idea for an amendment in 2003 to get rid of the provision).

    The fact that public servants like Henry Kissinger, and Madeline Albright can serve as Secretary of State, but not President of the United States, is inane. And the fact that Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't run for president is outrageous.

    It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution, and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple.

    What is most remarkable about this provision is that it has taken so long to remove it. There is hope, however.

    This week the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a constitutional amendment that would remove the naturalborn qualification. On July 10, 2003, Senator Orrin Hatch (R. UT) introduced the proposed amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 15.

    His proposal did get a day of hearings (which are available online at the Judiciary Committee's site, and include a statement by FindLaw columnist Akhil Reed Amar). It is not clear how seriously this matter - which has been raised in a rump session - is being taken. But even having the amendment considered is encouraging.

    The Hatch proposal is very simple:

    SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

    SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    Let's not change a thing. Kissinger? (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    The Governator?

    Sec of State (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    3rd in line of succession, don't forget.  Theoretically feasible  - at least more so than say the Sec. of Education becoming president.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    I was thinking the same - Kissinger? Arnold?
    It would be worth rewriting the constitution just to bar these bozos.
    Make it unconstitutional for anyone with more than one syllable in their last name to be president. Oops - that would let Bush in and Roosevelt out... no good.

    But how about Ghandi?

    I think we could have profited - and still could profit by - a Gorbachev presidency.

    As kdog as mentioned, limiting the talent pool to American citizens hasn't worked out so good.


    In the article (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:27:18 PM EST
    he also mentions Madeline Albright and Jennifer Granholm (again - one who can't run and one who theoretically could have become POTUS through no action of her own).

    Some history:

    However, the "natural born" Clause's origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

    The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

    Article II has a number of absolute qualifications: It also requires that presidents be at least thirty-five years of age and a United States resident for fourteen years. Accordingly, the natural born citizenship requirement has been treated as a similar absolute. And this requirement has remained the law of the land, notwithstanding the fact that the Founders' fear of undue foreign influence soon proved itself baseless.

    Of course (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    Why stop there?  Why have the age requirement?  Why not let a 16 year old run for POTUS?

    this reminds me of the gay marriage (none / 0) (#111)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    slippery slope arguments.  No one is marrying a dog.

    Age is an entirely different thing from nationality.  The logic behind the age requirement was that by 35 you will have to have proven your own mettle to a certain degree, you can't just win based on who your parents are.


    actually (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:32:53 PM EST
    I have considered marrying my dog but I would have to do it in Mass.  cause I would marry the male.
    Daisy could be a brides maid.  once I decide who the bride is.

    may I go OT for a minute (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    since there are no recent opens to tell a great story.  a friend on another blog just bought the boat of the man whos little girl was killed in Tuson.  I thought it was a great story:

    we bought the boat. and it was a blubberfest. i couldn't control myself. we were tooling around the water and Dallas says, i haven't used it since my kids and grandkids were here over xmas- and his voice cracked. that's all it took for me to start babbling and blubbering. the name of the boat, btw, is DUGOUT. i'm honored to own Christina's boat. we talked about her more than the boat. he said everyone called him from barry to the PM of T&C and he's still receiving sacks of mail. he said his family is very close and they'll get through it. he's a hell of a nice guy. so i made him cry. i'm a real peach. we're going to name it "Christina."

    Dallas Green, one time Cubs general manager (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    is Christina's grandfather. Always seemed like a tough guy to make cry, but of course that would do it. Just so sad for all of those families, but especially hers.

    I would argue (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    35 is way too young to take on such a responsibility.  Back in the day the country was founded, 35 was a wisened old statesman - today, 35 doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the experience you need (yes, you really do!) to take on the job.

    well you are probably right (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    and that's why we have elections.

    No 35 year old has ever been elected president.


    I believe that (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    Martin Luther King was under thirty five when he brought about positive change in the US against tremendous odds.

    Malcolm X was also under 35 when he was making some of the most brilliant speeches ever made by a public figure.

    I would gladly have voted for either of them.


    Many people can give great speeches (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    It's not the same thing as leading a country and crafting policy.

    I think that's been proven recently.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    Bush was over thirty five and he won on his family name. His own merits were non-existant.
    So did Jeb.

    And on and on.

    And in the case of Obama - he was over thirty five and had accomplished virtually nothing. He was plucked from relative obscurity by the powers that be to be the new face on the box of cornflakes. And he has sold a lot of boxes for them.


    I never said it was foolproof (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:37:58 PM EST
    Bush was also governer of Texas.  He had his own record by that point.

    It is a safeguard, no a silver bullet.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#122)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    but he got the steppingstone governorship from family connections.

    I have (none / 0) (#112)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    known some sixteen year olds who would do a better job.

    Let them speak and let's find out.


    Now we're talking... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    but what would they drink during banquet toasts at the WH?

    We'd have to repeal our joke of a drinking age too...I like where this is heading:)


    Comparing longevity then and now (none / 0) (#158)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    let's require that candidates for president be at least 60.

    Dean isn't arguing (none / 0) (#123)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    that non citizens should be able to be president. He's saying that naturalized citizens (e.g. Kissinger, Schwartzenegger) should be able to run in addition to natural born citizens.

    I guess technically (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    Obama isnt even naturalized by birther stadards.

    I think (none / 0) (#201)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    the "native born" thing will atrophy and die in the not too distant future. Of course, that will be when the R's have a foreign born candidate they just luuuuv.

    A birthplace is absolutely necessary (none / 0) (#166)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 07:19:19 PM EST
    for us to know, or where would we foresee the siting of the Obama Presidential Library?

    (Those usually are in birthplaces, but I would not be surprised to see his located in Chicago.)


    Many libraries are not located (none / 0) (#177)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    in the relevant president's birthplace. Lincoln's is in Springfield, IL, but Abe was born in Kentucky. LBJ was born in the Texas hill country; his library is in Austin. George H.W. Bush was born in Connecticut; his library is in College Station, TX. George W. Bush was born in Connecticut; his library will be in Texas.

    I think the criteria used for siting a presidential library has more to do with where a president's political life played out than it does with where a president was born. For example, Truman's is in Independence, MO, just outside Kansas City, which is where his political life was rooted. FDR's political life was rooted in New York; his library is at his childhood home of Hyde Park, which is in New York.

    So, establishing Obama's library in Chicago would be right in keeping with tradition.


    Yes, so I said (none / 0) (#185)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:52:49 PM EST
    usually.  (I read a list somewhere that indicated that most are in birthplaces.)

    A lot of it depends on the donors, it seems, and Obama's donors will be more Chicago-based, I bet.


    There's also a case to be made (none / 0) (#196)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 09:21:46 AM EST
    If the University of Hawaii should bid on the library.  It would be a veryunique opportunity to have a presidential library in Hawaii.  

    No more Democrats running in red states? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mitch Guthman on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    It will be an interesting test of the supremacy clause when this get before the Republicans on the USSC.  I assume they will uphold it because it will keep Obama and future Democrats off all ballots in Arizona and the states in the deep south which, I suspect, will follow Arizona's lead. 

    Here is a sort of thought problem for today:  If enough red states enact these sorts of law (and presumably enforce them in a way that generally keeps Democrats off their ballots) then other states will likely follow and the court will find a way to strike down blue state birth certificate requirements whilst upholding red state ones. In effect, then, the Republicans will have made themselves the permanent ruling party. 

    Under those circumstances, would states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey be willing to remain in the Union?  I'm not sure, especially because many people in those states are already unhappy because their votes count for less, because they get back far less than they pay in federal taxes (but most red states receive far more).  It's worth remembering that the Northwest and West are very rich, with strong economies and even the Midwest is still a rich area in many respects. 

    By contrast, nearly all red states have very weak economies that survive only by virtue of the welfare payments that their representatives in Washington D.C. are able to extract and because they are in a currency union with many rich states (which provides them with significant benefits). 

    So, since the issue of slavery is no longer involved, I say that we should either expel the southern states and other red states (or at least call their bluff when they talk about succession). Let's see how they do with their low tax, limited government philosophy when the welfare checks from California,etc stop coming. 

    It is (very remotely) possible that if this Arizona law spreads and is upheld, it could be the thing that fractures the union. In which case, the red states can truly live the libertarian dream (but without being able to mooch of the rest of us). 

    Wasn't McCain born in Panama Canal? (none / 0) (#98)
    by smott on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    AZ going to toss him out too?....

    See comment #53 above (none / 0) (#150)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    and responses to it.

    Sorry late to the party (none / 0) (#182)
    by smott on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 09:30:38 PM EST

    1877 (none / 0) (#161)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    I'm reading two books about 1887 and it's deja vu all over again...

    why not end this (none / 0) (#207)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    Why doesn't Obama just give permission to the governor of Hawaii to release all documents concerning his birth to the NY Times.  That would lay all this to rest.