What’s Wrong With Arizona?

Filed in National by on April 21, 2010

It’s all about paper in Arizona – Immigration documentation and Birth Certificates.

PHOENIX — The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection. The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.”  Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

Arizona has gone birther.  Georgia heard testimony from a woman who claims the Department of Defense put a microchip into her vaginal-rectum area.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new Republican Party.  And I’m really not sure how you combat crazy at this level.


About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Set aside the Obama question for just a minute (the evidence IS overwhelming that he is a natural born citizen) — is it unreasonable to require a candidate for office to prove their constitutional eligibility for that office as a condition of their being permitted on the ballot?

  2. Joanne Christian says:

    Who knows where this is going, but, a college application my child did this year required “birth certificate, or proof of citizenship”–never saw that before. And it wasn’t Arizona.

  3. You show your proof of status for all jobs, like Obama has done all his life. Obama holds a U.S. passport, which requires proof of birth as well. That’s why this is ridiculous.

  4. anon says:

    Well if they allowed the “Panama John” McCain on the ballot, they don’t really have a leg to stand on.

  5. skippertee says:

    WOOOHOOO! The WIld West is coming back to ARIZONA!! YIPEEEE! Carrying concealed guns are OK come August! As long as you’re 21 and NOT a felon. Whisky,women,six-packs and shootin’irons! Man,that’s livin’!

  6. JustMe says:

    Serious question: What’s the prevailing opinion here as far as requiring citizenship (or green card/work visa) as a precondition of employment? Full disclosure, I don’t think either party has any interest in actually doing anything about illegal immigration but for different reasons.

  7. skippertee says:

    I’m movin’ there!I’m gonna raise me some free-range chickens.At spring time,I’ll hire me a bunch of midgets to round ’em up on my pygmy ponies and put the Triple XXXbar-K brand on ’em.We’ll eat the ones who don’t survive the brandin’ and pass the snakehead whisky around as the sun sets in the west. AAAHHH! I can smell the burnt feathers now.Man,that’s livin’!

  8. Exactly anon, we all roll our eyes about requiring it for all candidates. Somehow this was never an issue until Obama became a candidate. White men are taken at their word by the general public when they say they’re American citizens. The other eyerolling thing is that all these documents were released to the public and certified by the state of Hawai’i TWICE and still Moose makes statements like this:

    the evidence IS overwhelming that he is a natural born citizen

    It’s hedging. The question is closed. People who pretend it isn’t are silly and people who pretend this has nothing to do with Obama are not believable.

  9. anon says:

    Let me be a liberal contrarian and say I don’t see anything wrong with it. The Constitution allows the states to conduct their elections as they see fit, within certain parameters, which I don’t see violated by the Arizona proposal. Now the law should be worded so they have to accept a legally issued document such as Obama’s passport or Hawaiian birth certificate which we have all seen posted on the Internet, and don’t set up some kind of forensic office to challenge the authenticity of legal documents. But other than that, what’s the problem?

  10. anon1 says:

    The question stands: Is this a reasonable requirement going forward? I say yes.

  11. P.Schwartz says:

    actually anon, a congressional committee investigated “Panama John’s” eligability before the election and determined that he met the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

    So UI, Congress investigated the white guy, but took the (half) black guy at his word.

    the google quize question of the day, what other president faced questions about his eligability and was determined, by historians, not to meet the requirements of eligability ?

  12. pandora says:

    Geez, they took the black guy at his birth certificate.

    Do you even realize how much you reveal about yourself with your comments, Schwartz?

  13. Nice try. The panel took McCain at his word where he was born (Panama) and investigated whether that qualified as a natural born citizen since he wasn’t born in the U.S. The difference here is that a bunch of yahoos say Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. despite the fact that he was and no amount of evidence is good enough for them.

  14. Geezer says:

    An easier question: How do you spell eligibility? Good thing for you the literacy tests have been abandoned.

  15. Good grief! Leave it to UI to take a statement of what the evidence shows vis-a-vis Obama’s citizenship as evidence to be a denial of what that evidence shows.

    The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Apollo XI went to the moon, landed, and returned. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Oswald acted alone in his murder of JFK. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Osama was behind the 9/11. The evidence overwhlmingly shows OJ killed Ron & Nicole. None of those is a denial of what is affirmed or indicates that I harbor doubt about the proposition affirmed, and neither is the statement I regarding Obama’s birth and citizenship.

  16. P.Schwartz says:

    Yes, Pandy, I realize that my comment reveals that I am willing to stoop to UI’s level in responding to her silly statements.

    and UI, you are wrong again. The committee reviewed documentation regarding the location of “Panama John’s” birth and the age, citizenship and occupation of his parents at the time of his birth. Why did they do this? Because Dems were mumbling about McCain not meeting the eligability standard long before Obama was a serious contender. No congressional committee reviewed Obama’s eligability.

    Since UI is convinced of Obama’s eligability, the AZ bill will not be an impediment to Obama’s riding a unicorn to relection in 2012.