• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

who will challange Az new election ?

Steve

Well-known member
it appears that legal teams are already writing briefs to challenge the law as soon the ink dries... why?

Final version

The final version of House Bill 2177 requires candidates for local, legislative, statewide or national office to provide the Secretary of State's Office with documents proving they meet the qualifications for the office sought. Those documents could vary depending on the office.

Presidential candidates must have their national political party send the secretary of state an affidavit from the candidate saying that they are natural-born citizens, have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and are at least 35 years old. The party must include documents proving that information, preferably a long-form birth certificate. If that document is not available, the candidate can provide at least two of the following: early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child, or an early census record.

Legal questions

Legal experts say bill supporters may have awhile to wait before they can celebrate. Federal lawsuits are expected to challenge the bill's constitutionality.

Under that portion of the Constitution, Hasen said, Arizona could be within its power.

But, he said, the problem may be the part of the Constitution that lists the set qualifications for president. He said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling said states don't have a right to add to those presidential qualifications.

"If Arizona passed a law saying the president has to be 50, that would be unconstitutional," he said. "So, the question is whether this is simply implementing the constitutional provision or whether it creates additional qualifications."

isn't it really just enforcing the Constitution?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Who will challenge it? The current Dept Of Justice, of course.

I don't see how the DOJ could have a leg to stand on, but all the judges who have heard the "Birth Certificate" arguments say that the "American Voters" have "NO STANDING" in that area either.

The Constitution means little to these people.
 

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
I'm no leagal expert but why couldn't Arizona make those requirements in order to have a name placed on the ballot in their state. It wouldn't necessarily say the president had to have certain qualifications to be president, just that he had to have those qualifications to be on a ballot in their state. If enough states could do that it would take care of the jerk we have in the white house.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Red Barn Angus said:
I'm no leagal expert but why couldn't Arizona make those requirements in order to have a name placed on the ballot in their state. It wouldn't necessarily say the president had to have certain qualifications to be president, just that he had to have those qualifications to be on a ballot in their state. If enough states could do that it would take care of the jerk we have in the white house.

I believe that is how the law is written, which from what I gather is totally within their rights.

But I would like to see the Feds. debate in a court of law that AZ. is somehow changing/enforcing the definition of Natural Born Citizen, because that would require them to provide evidence for the existing definition. :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
Who will challenge it? The current Dept Of Justice, of course.

I don't see how the DOJ could have a leg to stand on, but all the judges who have heard the "Birth Certificate" arguments say that the "American Voters" have "NO STANDING" in that area either.

The Constitution means little to these people.

so our Justice system will work to strike down a law that was made to uphold the requirements in our Constitution?


Every officer in the executive branch (and indeed all employees in the federal government, recite the following oath:

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."

can states call for the impeachment of the US Attorney General?
Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives, states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

well Arizona... it looks as if you have standing.. why let the Obama administration use the courts continue to fight against the Constitution.. fire the jerk's head of the Department of Justice and send Obama a clear message.. "we are fed up with the oppressive authoritarian rule of the your office..

any one know an Arizona legislator?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oh well. Brewer vetoed it.........................

I heard her explanation..

"As a former secretary of state, I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate

why have a secretary of state then?

if it is up to the people to decide if the person has the constitutional requirements for the office. then why have a board of elections.. or secretary of states.

if we are to decide then we should be informed your not doing your job...

unlike some who rely on elected officials and use the elected officials as their defense that a person is qualified..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Her veto can still be overridden and what she has given as her reasons for veto, it almost sounds like she would like to put the decision back to congress for the political reasons.

Why every citizen in the US is not calling for a Presidential candidate to verify his/her identity through a representative of the people instead of a partisan website, I will never understand.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
I'm surprised Hillary supporters aren't pushing this in more states. With him out, she would have the Democratic party locked.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
I'm surprised Hillary supporters aren't pushing this in more states. With him out, she would have the Democratic party locked.

How do you know Hillary supporters are not "birthers", they were the original "birthers"
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Her veto can still be overridden and what she has given as her reasons for veto, it almost sounds like she would like to put the decision back to congress for the political reasons.

Why every citizen in the US is not calling for a Presidential candidate to verify his/her identity through a representative of the people instead of a partisan website, I will never understand.

it looks as if Gov. Jindle has invited his legislature to draw up a law.. :lol:

once one state gets it on the books,.. and the Obama justice department lawsuits begin.. it would be the duty of all states to stand up for the citizens rights to fair LEGAL elections..
 
Top