# Now Arizona proposes letting states decide Presidential candidate eligibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063 "2010-04-23T01:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/41 "2010-04-23T15:33:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In fact, let me go one step further. Tell me what law it is you think they’re going to use against Obama. Write it down and post it. > > But keep this in mind. It has to apply to all candidates. So invent a law that some right winger can enact that will target Obama. Show me a procedure that both Obama and Palin can follow - but that Palin will pass while Obama will fail. You are right of course. The literacy tests they used in the south were applied equally to blacks and whites alike. Juries never convict black people using different criteria than they do for white people and judges do not impose longer sentences. Imagine that the Arizona SoS says Obama is not eligible and the state AG and the State Supreme back him up. Obama takes it to the US SC where one of two thongs happen: the SC says it does not have jurisdiction over who a state puts on its ballot, or it rules in favor of Obama and we now have an example of the Federal govt, run by a black man, forcing a state to put a black man on the ballot. That’ll go over well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/42 "2010-04-23T15:33:21Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Everybody who thinks that Obama is not a US citizen, US born, that this might possibly be a good idea, or that it isn’t about racism are screaming idiots. Quite true. Nevertheless, as **friedo** pointed out, the proposal is perfectly constitutional. Due to some obsolete quirks in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/43 "2010-04-23T15:38:24Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > All kidding aside, comparing McCain’s birth to Obama’s shows how selective the birthers are. McCain was born at a U.S. Navy hospital in the Panama Canal Zone. I don’t know what authority even issues the birth certificate under those circumstances, or who could now confirm its authenticity. > > (While I was checking my facts for this post, I discovered that McCain’s mother is still alive. She turned 98 in February. Good for her, and I hope she is in fine health.) There is a case in Oregon where a couple had a child at a military base overseas. The base was closed soon after and the records were lost. The child now has no proof of US citizenship and has been having trouble getting a passport. Couldn’t find a link to that case, but look at [these](http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/naturalization-citizenship/4260-birth-abroad-us-citizenship.html). ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/44 "2010-04-23T15:54:45Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Ah, but you’re assuming that those DAs would be moral, ethical, apolitical professionals. Wisconsin has a DA that wants to sue to stop Healthcare Reform, would probably jump at the chance to run for governor on a Tea Party ticket, and would love to get some free publicity by denying Obama’s citizenship. Nitpick – it wouldn’t be the DA’s, it would be the Secretaries of State, who are usually less politically ambitious than DA’s. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/45 "2010-04-23T16:20:33Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Nitpick – it wouldn’t be the DA’s, it would be the Secretaries of State, who are usually less politically ambitious than DA’s. [I beg to differ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris). They’re just less competent. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/46 "2010-04-23T16:32:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The Arizona legislature would establish a procedure on determining a person’s birthplace. Despite some paranoid suspicions, this procedure is not going to be _“the candidate must be white”_ or even _“the candidate must be a Republican”_. No, it will be something like _“The candidate must produce a notarized copy of the document recording his birth that was in use in the state of his birth at the time it occurred. This document must be submitted to the office of the Secretary of State no later than six months prior to the election. The Secretary of State will review said document and issue a statement affirming or denying its validity within thirty days of receipt of said document.”_ Etc etc etc. It will have to be an actual specifically outlined process - something that every candidate’s staff can read and comply with. Because keep in mind that the same law is also going to be applied to McCain or Romney or Palin. > > So what is the Arizona Secretary of State going to do? Stand out in front of his office with the press gathered around and tell them that he’s decided that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States? Ten minutes later, Obama’s lawyers are filing a lawsuit saying that they complied with the written procedures and that the Secretary of State has knowingly failing to perform the duties of his office. The SoS is not an idiot - he knows he will lose that case and be fired and probably brought up on criminal charges. He’s not going to volunteer for self-destruction. > > Or will the SoS try to obfuscate? Maybe claim that he needs a second copy of the document or a copy of a newspaper account or a signed statement from the doctor? Again, birthers can move the goalpost like this but court officers cannot. The procedure for establishing citizenship will be outlined in the law and the SoS will not have any leeway in following it. > > So the SoS will have to stand there and state that _“Yes, I have reviewed the documents and Barack Obama had legally demonstrated that he was born in the United States and is eligible to be elected President.”_ > > And the relatively sane right wingers know all this. If they have an agenda it’s hoping that this issue will fire up the left. They’re hoping that people fight this proposal and defeat it. Because then they’ll win. They won’t have to establish any legal system like they proposed and they can fall back on to rumors. They can start whispering _“Obama’s supporters fought against a simple test of proof of citizenship. Why? Because they must have something to hide! They didn’t want Arizona to enact a citizenhip test because they knew Obama would fail it!”_ > > And you guys are falling for it. If this was 1992 and Arizona was proposing a law requiring all Presidential candidates to pass a marital fidelity test, then I’d say yes, Democrats need to fight this proposal. Or if it were 2000 and some state was proposing a test that candidates have never used illegal drugs - then yes, the Republicans would want to fight that. But this proposal is not like those. Obama is a natural-born citizen and has no reason to fear any test of his citizenship. Stop acting like he needs protection from this. > > Let Arizona establish a citizenship test so Obama can take it and pass it. Turn Obama’s birth into a non-issue. But that’s just it; nowhere have I read anything that the proposed legislation would set down on paper any set of standards. As far as I can tell, it simply gives each state’s SoS carte blanche authority to decide whether he or she thinks the presented proof of citizenship is adequate or not. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/47 "2010-04-23T16:34:44Z")
One problem with any proposed law is, the democratic and republican candidates are not actually officially known until the party conventions, in August. Any law would have to factor this in. And what about the candidates for vice president? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/48 "2010-04-23T16:38:14Z")
I think that the challenge to the Constituionality might be that the law is too vague in that it doesn’t describe what the Secretary of State would use to consider the validity of a candidates nationality. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/49 "2010-04-23T16:40:12Z")
Well, under the Full Faith & Credit Clause a certified copy of a birth certificate should be plenty. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/50 "2010-04-23T17:17:50Z")
> [@](#): > > You are right of course. The literacy tests they used in the south were applied equally to blacks and whites alike. Juries never convict black people using different criteria than they do for white people and judges do not impose longer sentences. Actually that’s a good example of what I was saying. The law was written “neutrally” - everyone whose grandfather hadn’t been a registered voter had to take a literacy test in order to register. So while it was neutral in theory, it actually worked against blacks in practice. So using this example, somebody invent a similar procedure that would prevent Obama from being a candidate while allowing Palin or some other Republican to be able to pass. And it has to pass a reasonable test of constitutionality - so nothing like a “No Hawaiians” rule. As for those of you who are saying that “they” will just do whatever they want, you’re approaching crazyland. You’re sounding like those people who claimed that Bush was going to cancel the election and declare himself President-for-Life. People may write the laws to suit their purposes and bend them when they can get away with it but our government still remains within the rule of law. If there was some secret conservative illuminati council that had the power to just do whatever it wanted, Obama would never have been elected in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/51 "2010-04-23T17:27:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, under the Full Faith & Credit Clause a certified copy of a birth certificate should be plenty. That would not be enough for Senator John McCain. In his case, you’d need evidence that at least one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, and had resided in the United States for a sufficient amount of time before his birth. So evidence might include his mother’s birth certificate, or his father’s birth certificate together with his parents’ marriage certificate. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/52 "2010-04-23T17:30:19Z")
Don’t candidates register in New Hampshire or something before the primary process starts? Just have them show a passport or birth certificate at the time and trust some clerk to know how to wield a rubber stamp. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/53 "2010-04-23T17:52:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Don’t candidates register in New Hampshire or something before the primary process starts? Just have them show a passport or birth certificate at the time and trust some clerk to know how to wield a rubber stamp. Nah, you can’t expect the good folks of Arizona to trust those whacky New Englanders in NH. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/54 "2010-04-23T18:11:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But keep this in mind. It has to apply to all candidates. So invent a law that some right winger can enact that will target Obama. Show me a procedure that both Obama and Palin can follow - but that Palin will pass while Obama will fail. A law that allows the state SecState to decide, based on his own discretion, whether a given parcel of evidence passes muster or not. What do I win? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/55 "2010-04-23T18:27:37Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A law that allows the state SecState to decide, based on his own discretion, whether a given parcel of evidence passes muster or not. Furthermore, that the only avenue of appeal is to the Governor and that the state courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. I’m not familiar with Arizona’s constitution, but there are plenty of areas in which the legislature can preclude the courts from judicial intervention. Since this would be an inherently political question, strong arguments could be made that courts–state and Federal–should not and cannot exercise their authority. Of course, if you have enough **activist** judges on the court that might not matter. (For example, look at what the activist judges did in _Bush v. Gore_). Just because you claim to vest sole authority in the SoS does not mean that a court can’t inject itself into the process. I think this is shitty political move. While it’s Constitutionally permissible for a state to set requirements for appearance on the ballot, this is disturbingly targeted. Its consequences could be Constitutionally devastating. ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/56 "2010-04-23T18:38:48Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > There you go. Thank you, I was going to ask him if he had read the rest of my message. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let Arizona establish a citizenship test so Obama can take it and pass it. Turn Obama’s birth into a non-issue. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As for those of you who are saying that “they” will just do whatever they want, you’re approaching crazyland. You’re sounding like those people who claimed that Bush was going to cancel the election and declare himself President-for-Life. People may write the laws to suit their purposes and bend them when they can get away with it but our government still remains within the rule of law. If there was some secret conservative illuminati council that had the power to just do whatever it wanted, Obama would never have been elected in the first place. I think the disconnect is, you think that just because the SoS of Arizona says yes, he has a birth certificate, the whole thing will blow over. If that were the case, it would have blown over already. If the Arizona law is constitutional (which I have no opinion on, I am not a constitutional scholar) then I have no doubt that Obama will show the same copy of his birth certificate to the SoS and it will be accepted. And the birthers will still not accept that he is a US citizen. It is not about proof or reality to them. They are no more rational about it than an evangelical Christian who believes in creationism. Their newest martyr is the LTC that is being court martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq, because he supposedly does not believe that Obama is an American. (My first question to him would be, in the 15 months that Obama has been President, have you obeyed any other orders from superiors? If so, what is so special about these orders that suddenly you think they are illegal? Of course, I am not a lawyer. The important thing is he gets convicted and punished.) This guy is throwing away almost 2 decades of service, because he is apparently buying into a completely irrational belief. Why do you think any of the others that share that belief will react any differently? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/57 "2010-04-23T18:56:38Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > There is a case in Oregon where a couple had a child at a military base overseas. The base was closed soon after and the records were lost. The child now has no proof of US citizenship and has been having trouble getting a passport. > > Couldn’t find a link to that case, but look at [these](http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/naturalization-citizenship/4260-birth-abroad-us-citizenship.html). Interesting. I was born overseas while dad was in the Air Force (both of my parents were and are US citizens). To get a replacement copy of my birth certificate I just write to the US State Department. There are family stories about the paperwork my folks had to fill out after my birth, and the signature on the original form is 2-3 months after I was born - but it is all recorded through the State Dept. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/58 "2010-04-23T19:02:17Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Furthermore, that the only avenue of appeal is to the Governor and that the state courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. I’m not familiar with Arizona’s constitution, but there are plenty of areas in which the legislature can preclude the courts from judicial intervention. Since this would be an inherently political question, strong arguments could be made that courts–state and Federal–should not and cannot exercise their authority. That seems to me to be a particularly stupid idea. For a start, a state governor is almost always identified with one of the major political parties, and hence would appear to be inherently biased against candidates from other parties. In the second case, it is possible that the Governor herself or himself might be a candidate in the presidential election, and hence have to rule on their own eligibility, or the eligibility of rival candidates. I don’t even see it is a “inherently political question” – just a simple question of constitutional interpretation, and applying the words of the constitution to particular candidates. The High Court of Australia seemed to have no trouble in settling a question about the citizenship of a candidate for political office in [Sue v. Hill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_v_Hill). (In that case, the question was the meaning of “a foreign power” in s. 44 of the Australian Constitution: the court held that the United Kingdom was a “foreign power”, and hence that a dual U.K.-Australian citizen could not be a member of the Australian Senate.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/59 "2010-04-23T19:09:36Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > That seems to me to be a particularly stupid idea. For a start, a state governor is almost always identified with one of the major political parties, and hence would appear to be inherently biased against candidates from other parties. In the second case, it is possible that the Governor herself or himself might be a candidate in the presidential election, and hence have to rule on their own eligibility, or the eligibility of rival candidates. All the more reason to require sitting Governors or congressmen to resign their seats upon accepting a nomination for higher office. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063/60 "2010-04-23T19:42:50Z")
Sigh. My state is doing a lot of politically dumb shit lately. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-arizona-proposes-letting-states-decide-presidential-candidate-eligibility/537063.md?page=4)