Have a foreskin? AZ thinks your foreign!

[Elheru Aran]

That's what I was getting at. Circumision has nothing to do with *anything* that would make anybody a good President; it's almost exclusively done for religious reasons 90% of the time, 9% 'because that's what's done/it's healthier/bullshit reason', and 1% medical reasons. Those statistics are a wild-ass guess, btw, if you couldn't tell.

This law has no way to prevent anybody from just literally printing a certificate up from their computer and signing it themselves, or to keep Muslims, Jews, or brown people (which seems almost certainly to be the point of it) from running for office. It's stupid and pointless.

Give me a little credit here, Pezook...

[SCRawl]

Let's hope Jan Brewer has a little bit of sense and vetoes this if it passes the House.

Bitter experience has taught me that that hope is misplaced. She doesn't have the sense that [insert deity of your choice] gave a cabbage.

[Simon_Jester]

That's what I was getting at. Circumision has nothing to do with *anything* that would make anybody a good President; it's almost exclusively done for religious reasons 90% of the time, 9% 'because that's what's done/it's healthier/bullshit reason', and 1% medical reasons. Those statistics are a wild-ass guess, btw, if you couldn't tell.

Heh.

In the US it's probably skewed more like 9% and 90%, or possibly 19% and 80%; Christianity doesn't call for it and it's not a religious ceremony, but somehow it ended up being accepted that it was a good thing to do for medical reasons in general some time in the early to mid-20th century.

[PeZook]

This law has no way to prevent anybody from just literally printing a certificate up from their computer and signing it themselves, or to keep Muslims, Jews, or brown people (which seems almost certainly to be the point of it) from running for office. It's stupid and pointless.

Give me a little credit here, Pezook...

Yes, that is the actual problem: the point of the law never had anything to do with whether or not the potential candidate was cut or not, yet some people seem to think (maybe they are suggested by the thread title, whatever) that the bureaucracy would be at all concerned with the state of the candidate's penis.

They wouldn't ; The bill is concerned with where the procedure was done, under the assumption that a child circumcisied in the US is born in the US. So what don't you get? They won't let you just drop your pants for inspection because that's not the point. The idiot who included a circumcision certificate in the bill cared about the implications behind the procedure being done in the US, not the genital mutilation itself.

The bill is retarded enough without strawmanning it - it's just as bad as tabaggers going "Obama wants to kill your grandmother!!!"

[eyl]

One thing I don't get - can a state legislature actually bar a Presidential candidate from appearing on ballots?

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. Otherwise, presidential ballots would be swamped with non-credible minor third party candidates.

Since elections are administered at the state level*, the states are responsible for ensuring that vote fraud is prevented, that ballots and voting machines be functional, and for figuring out who goes on the ballot.

*(in the US, the vote for the president is made by electors appointed by the state, not by a federal tally of votes)

[TheHammer]

I think Elheru Aran's point is if this law was aimed at "Kenyan" Obama they did a piss poor job since they leave a loophole that 'secret Muslim" Obama is sure to be able to pass.

ie "secret muslim kenyan" obama can just NOT provide his Birth certificate and instead provide his circumsicion record. and still be eleible under this legislation.

Never the less, it seems pretty clear many people didn't read the article, or even bothered take a step further and read the legislation. The circumciscion certificate is one of a group of secondary forms of proof and is not sufficient proof of place of birth by itself.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.as ... ion_ID=102

the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:

(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.

(b) Hospital birth record.

(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.

(d) Early census record.

Interesting to note the religious significance of (a)... Christian and Jewish documents. Definitely could see elements of racism in that those are admissible, but in all reality producing b, c, and or d shouldn't be too difficult for most legitimate citizens. It is a pretty stupid and unneccessary law considering that if a "foreigner" did in fact try to run, the opposing party would no doubt expose this. I guess that's what birthers really don't get - The Republican party no doubt spared no expense in trying to find dirt on Obama during the '08 campaign and couldn't find anything. Thats why its so laughable what Trump is doing now, and why you bother to see legislation like this brought forward. Appeal to the lowest level intelligence I guess...

[Crossroads Inc.]

Turns out the whole thing IS MOOT
Our Gov, in a RARE moment of sanity vetoed the whole thing.

By David Schwartz – 2 hrs 21 mins ago
PHOENIX (Reuters) – Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed two controversial bills, one mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to run for president, the other allowing guns on college campuses, in a clear setback for conservatives who control the state legislature.

Brewer, who grabbed headlines a year ago when she signed a get-tough state law cracking down on illegal immigrants, vetoed the bills in an announcement late on Monday.

The so-called "birther bill," would have made Arizona the first state in the nation to require presidential candidates prove U.S. citizenship by providing a long form birth certificate, and other forms of proof including baptismal or circumcision certificates, to be placed on the state ballot.
"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 baptism or circumcision certificates' ... This is a bridge too far," she said..

A former Arizona secretary of state, Brewer said she did not support designating one person as "gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate," as it "could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions."

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The Republican-controlled state legislature passed the measure at a time when some foes of President Barack Obama, a Democrat question whether he is a native-born U.S. citizen. Real estate mogul and television reality show host Donald Trump is among those questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii.

Brewer also vetoed a bill that would have made Arizona the second state in the nation to allow an individual to carry a firearm -- either concealed or not -- in the public rights of way on higher education campuses, because it was "so poorly written."

Brewer said shortcomings in the bill included a failure to define "public rights of way" and the inclusion of state schools, where firearms are prohibited by federal and state laws.

Neighboring Utah allows firearms inside campus buildings.
Last April, Brewer caused a national furor when she signed the state's controversial crackdown on immigration, which required police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they detained and suspected of being in the country illegally.

Opponents of the law said it would lead to harassment of Hispanic-Americans, and the Obama administration argued the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government sole authority over immigration matters.

A U.S. federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of the law shortly before it came into effect last July. Arizona appealed the stay, but it was upheld by a federal appeals court in a ruling last week.

Arizona Sen. Steve Gallardo, an outspoken Democrat, said the governor realized that the bills would be bad for the state's image and had nothing to do with the challenges it faces.

"She know that these bills are not going to help with Arizona's image," Gallardo told Reuters.
"All they do is put us in the national spotlight and make us look silly. She's saying she doesn't want that to happen any longer."
(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor; Editing by Greg McCune)

Who would imagine that even THAT bitch has crazy limits.

[SCRawl]

I'm glad that Brewer proved me wrong, but there's still the possibility of the legislature overriding the veto. I think that they require a 2/3 majority to do that, and they might have the votes.

[Broomstick]

The stupid thing is that be requiring the candidate to be both a natural born citizen AND born in the US that would have disqualified John McCain from running - yes, he's a natural born citizen, but he was not born in the US he was born in Panama to American parents. The irony here are all those birthers screaming about Obama, who was definitely born in the US, and at the same time supporting McCain, who wasn't. Give it a rest, guys. It's like all those who whined about Bush W getting the election in 2000 by Supreme Court Decree - you may not like the decision, but it's decided. At a certain point you have to move forward.

[Tsyroc]

The stupid thing is that be requiring the candidate to be both a natural born citizen AND born in the US that would have disqualified John McCain from running - yes, he's a natural born citizen, but he was not born in the US he was born in Panama to American parents. The irony here are all those birthers screaming about Obama, who was definitely born in the US, and at the same time supporting McCain, who wasn't. Give it a rest, guys. It's like all those who whined about Bush W getting the election in 2000 by Supreme Court Decree - you may not like the decision, but it's decided. At a certain point you have to move forward.

What I don't get about the birthers is the fact that even if they can prove they are right Obama is already president. Are they hoping to get him removed from office, or at this point just hoping they can keep him from running for re-election? I'm guessing that if it were proved he were ineligible at this point that it would just end up making Biden president. It might give the Republicans some good momentum for an election or too but sooner or later people will get sick of them screaming about the same shit all the time and make them actually deliver on something other than keeping the lying foreign Dems out of office.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Well, one of the "Independent" candidates from California (for senator, I think) ran under a platform of opening a congressional hearing into Obama's citizen status, declaring Obama a non-citizen, deporting him immediately, and voiding every item of legislation enacted during his term. So I think some do intend to have him removed from office.

[Tsyroc]

Well, one of the "Independent" candidates from California (for senator, I think) ran under a platform of opening a congressional hearing into Obama's citizen status, declaring Obama a non-citizen, deporting him immediately, and voiding every item of legislation enacted during his term. So I think some do intend to have him removed from office.

Interesting. Being so fanatical about Obama's citizenship status and only wanting to deport him instead of throw him in prison in that situation. I would have thought they'd want to put him in federal prison for fraud, or being some sort of foreign agent or something.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It's because these sort of people don't actually care about Law in any real form, only about getting rid of the dirty filthy muslim atheist. The really "smart" ones know prosecuting him would be impossible, so better to just kick him out of the country.