The US 2012 Elections Thread / American Politics Discussion

[lx_theo]

This is America.
If you ain't Christian, you dun belong here.
I'm talkin' to you, God-hatin' atheists!
(and Muslims, and Jews, and Wiccans, and Hindus, and Buddhists)

Well good thing I'm an atheist.

Last time I checked, I'm only a little evil. In fact, its a bit odd I believe in chivalry. *sigh*, but thats a bit off subject.



It does seem really Unconstitutional because of that, though.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I thought that the state of the presidential candidate already did this...
Ps: I'm a Republican and even I think this piece isn't good...at least it's better than some loony laws out there...trust me on this...

 

[The Trotsky]

No, not going to trust you on this. What law is more ridiculous than this? (I mean a real, legitimate law, not ones like not walking a horse backward in Michigan or whatever, but laws with actual consequences)

 

[Alice]

I'm sorry if this is a bit elitist, but I sure as hell trust the powers that be to be able to confirm that our President, the most powerful man in the world, is born in our country, more than I trust the unfounded suspicions of hicks and dumb people.

You have a point, but how do you know that the powers that be are actually trustworthy to begin with?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

WHAT?!


So... mad... trying... to... contain... rage... against... Republicans... and... overused... ellipses...

The law isn't saying that candidates have to be Christian in order to get ballot access in Arizona. It's just allowing the use of baptismal certificates as proof of birth citizenship. A birth certificate should be enough, given that it is the original or a certified duplicate from the appropriate government entity.

 

[The Trotsky]

You have a point, but how do you know that the powers that be are actually trustworthy to begin with?

Please, spare me the conspiracy theories and anti-government sentiment. I believe fully that the most powerful government in the world is able to take care of itself and the people it is elected by with accuracy and efficiency

 

[Livewire]

The law isn't saying that candidates have to be Christian in order to get ballot access in Arizona. It's just allowing the use of baptismal certificates as proof of birth citizenship. A birth certificate should be enough, given that it is the original or a certified duplicate from the appropriate government entity.

They're using a Christian religious document as a binding legal document. That is so irrevocably tasteless and inappropriate it's sickening. Not to mention unconstitutional.

What if a candidate was Jewish, or another religion which doesn't observe the baptism practice? Unbelievable.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

They're using a Christian religious document as a binding legal document. That is so irrevocably tasteless and inappropriate its sickening. Not to mention unconstitutional.

What if a candidate was Jewish, or another religion which doesn't observe the baptism practice? Unbelievable.

Those documents should suffice. Baptismal records may be religious, but they also are a record that contains vital statistics about a person. I don't see how this in unconstitutional? How does using these documents for a secular purpose establish a government sponsored religion? I can name cases where religious symbols were used for secular purposes and the Court found it perfectly valid.

 

[The Trotsky]

Those documents should suffice. Baptismal records may be religious, but they also are a record that contains vital statistics about a person. I don't see how this in unconstitutional? How does using these documents for a secular purpose establish a government sponsored religion? I can name cases where religious symbols were used for secular purposes and the Court found it perfectly valid.

I am in shock right now, but I actually agree with you on this. I find the inclusion of religious documents tasteless, but totally valid (within the realm of this invalid, ridiculous law of course)

 

[Melody]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/arizona-birther-citizenship-bill_n_850189.html

Pretty much, this bill (if signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer) would require Presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. in order to appear on the ballot there.

What are your thoughts on this?

A. Huffington Post is what the name implies, they huff and exhale a lot of hot air.
B. Federal law trumps state law. If Obama and his party wanted to be a jerk, he could challenge this in Supreme Court, or push forward legislation that supersedes and invalidates the law.
C. Arizona is like a child testing it's limits. Please Arizonans, vote for a more sane governor...this is what happens when you let a right wing nut into an office like that, they troll the entire country for attention by passing laws on issues that are hardly relevant to the current state of the union. Basically you let these nutters into office and they're determined to leave behind as much poo as the people will allow. They need to be stopped and put into check.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A. Huffington Post is what the name implies, they huff and exhale a lot of hot air.
B. Federal law trumps state law. If Obama and his party wanted to be a jerk, he could challenge this in Supreme Court, or push forward legislation that supersedes and invalidates the law.
C. Arizona is like a child testing it's limits. Please Arizonans, vote for a more sane governor...this is what happens when you let a right wing nut into an office like that, they troll the entire country for attention by passing laws on issues that are hardly relevant to the current state of the union. Basically you let these nutters into office and they're determined to leave behind as much poo as the people will allow. They need to be stopped and put into check.

I don't see what the Supremacy Clause has to do with this. This law isn't attempting to trump federal law, so the issue of supremacy isn't an issue. What law would Congress pass? Will they pass legislation that says that you don't need to be a natural-born citizen to run for President? They can't do that. The most they could do is take the regulation of ballot access away from the states (and the lawsuits will follow). Right now; however, ballot access is regulated by the states, not the feds.

I am in shock right now, but I actually agree with you on this. I find the inclusion of religious documents tasteless, but totally valid (within the realm of this invalid, ridiculous law of course)

We agree on something? I'll mark this date in my blog!

 

[lx_theo]

Those documents should suffice. Baptismal records may be religious, but they also are a record that contains vital statistics about a person. I don't see how this in unconstitutional? How does using these documents for a secular purpose establish a government sponsored religion? I can name cases where religious symbols were used for secular purposes and the Court found it perfectly valid.

True, I agree with you there. But after the immigration bill they passed, I can't make myself trust Arizona on this matter. If you, or anyone could, find the documentation for it that outlines acceptable forms of proof to see if it really applies to any religious document that provides data that can be used as evidence, I'd like to see it.

 

[Melody]

I don't see what the Supremacy Clause has to do with this. This law isn't attempting to trump federal law, so the issue of supremacy isn't an issue. What law would Congress pass? Will they pass legislation that says that you don't need to be a natural-born citizen to run for President? They can't do that. The most they could do is take the regulation of ballot access away from the states (and the lawsuits will follow). Right now; however, ballot access is regulated by the states, not the feds.

That is exactly what I was implying they would do. Because once they took that power away from the states, that would essentially be the Supremacy clause IN ACTION.

I don't know if there are any existing laws on the federal books to prevent this kind of horseplay at the state level so I initially mentioned Supremacy in case something is on the books, hidden in some obscure bill. You seriously never know what these politicians sneak in to laws these days unless you watch them 24/7

I believe the Supreme Court would side with the government if it passed through Congress...Arizona would have time enough to fight it on that particular stage if Obama must pass a new law.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That is exactly what I was implying they would do. Because once they took that power away from the states, that would essentially be the Supremacy clause IN ACTION.

I don't know if there are any existing laws on the federal books to prevent this kind of horseplay at the state level so I initially mentioned Supremacy in case something is on the books, hidden in some obscure bill. You seriously never know what these politicians sneak in to laws these days unless you watch them 24/7

I believe the Supreme Court would side with the government if it passed through Congress...Arizona would have time enough to fight it on that particular stage if Obama must pass a new law.

They could try to, but then 10th Amendment lawsuits would flow from more states than the health care lawsuits. This would be a tough one for the feds to justify, since it is so rooted in our legal traditions that ballot access is regulated at the state level. The courts balance the supremacy issue with the 10th Amendment issue to make their decisions. Everything the courts do is a balancing act, pretty much.

And, P.S.
The majority of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees.

 

[Steven]

The majority of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees.

Hopefully not for long. >:)

May the Democrats rule with their iron-fist obvious communism!

Obviously I am being sarcastic and mocking the more..dramatic republicans.

 

[lx_theo]

Other than the questionable religious parts of the bill, the only real thing that comes to mind with this is how absolutely pointless it is. Its really just a political attack on Obama, really.

Even if, say, Obama wasn't a US citizen (I really hope no one here actually thinks that), how much more difficult could it be to corrupt on a state level with forged or whatever documents than it would be on a federal level. Sure, its more, but it doesn't even seem like much of a deterrent for what its trying to stop.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Hopefully not for long. >:)

May the Democrats rule with their iron-fist obvious communism!

Obviously I am being sarcastic and mocking the more..dramatic republicans.

None of those conservative justices are retiring anytime soon. They only way they're going is they keel over. And with the Senate being only slightly in the Democratic majority now, Obama will be hard pressed trying to get a liberal, activist judge confirmed.

 

[Melody]

They could try to, but then 10th Amendment lawsuits would flow from more states than the health care lawsuits. This would be a tough one for the feds to justify, since it is so rooted in our legal traditions that ballot access is regulated at the state level. The courts balance the supremacy issue with the 10th Amendment issue to make their decisions. Everything the courts do is a balancing act, pretty much.

And, P.S.
The majority of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees.

Republicans they may be, but the Judges on that bench are not the Right Wing Nut Reps. that rule the roost in Arizona. That being said, for a Supreme Court Justice, party is not much of an issue, and they have been known to rule counter to how a typical Republican would. I couldn't cite cases at you, I'm not a lawyer, but I am certain it's happened before in some previous recent rulings.

Ok, the 10th is a valid argument. I'm a little rusty on how that's worded so I'll give you that point...but I still think that if such a law makes it through Congress, they will feel more inclined to side with them. The Congress is split. Republicans own the House, and Democrats own the senate in numbers as far as I know...so any law that passes through that mixed bag really stands on it's own two legs in my opinion.

 

[twocows]

Vetoed.

The governor thought this was stupid. So did I. I like her line: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state." Neither did I, Jan, but people are more paranoid than I initially thought.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Republicans they may be, but the Judges on that bench are not the Right Wing Nut Reps. that rule the roost in Arizona. That being said, for a Supreme Court Justice, party is not much of an issue, and they have been known to rule counter to how a typical Republican would. I couldn't cite cases at you, I'm not a lawyer, but I am certain it's happened before in some previous recent rulings.

Ok, the 10th is a valid argument. I'm a little rust on how that's worded so I'll give you that point...but I still think that if such a law makes it through Congress, they will feel more inclined to side with them. The Congress is split. Republicans own the House, and Democrats own the senate in numbers as far as I know...so any law that passes through that mixed bag really stands on it's own two legs in my opinion.

The Court doesn't care about who controls Congress.

This is the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So the Court would need to find that the Constitution delegates ballot access to the federal government in order to justify such a law.

Vetoed.

The governor thought this was stupid. So did I. I like her line: "I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state." Neither did I, Jan, but people are more paranoid than I initially thought.

Well, this is a development. There still is a possibility that the birthers will override the veto. I knew Jan was a reasonable lady; as she's always been.