Arizona Circumcision Law

[jp]

So proof of circumcision is acceptable proof of citizenship if one cannot provide their birth certificate. I can't believe this...so dumb. God Bless America, on the leading edge of misguided legislation.

Ariz. plows controversial ground with birther bill

 

[maxcok]

"Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, the bill's author, said the president's birth record wouldn't satisfy the requirements of his proposal and that Obama would have to provide other records, such as baptismal certificates and hospital records. But Seel said the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and instead was meant to maintain the integrity of elections. . . .

He said one fan of the measure is real estate tycoon and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who last month appeared on ABC's "The View" and called on Obama to "show his birth certificate." Seel said he discussed the bill with Trump last week, and "he liked it." Seel added that the measure was not intended as a snipe at the federal government. "I wouldn't say that, but I am proud of my Republican colleagues (who voted for the bill)," he said. "It was a good day for the Constitution."
​

It's ironic, though not the least bit surprising, watching these idiot Republiteabaggers brandish their pocket editions of the Constitution, while they enact legislation sure to face legal challenges on grounds that it's unconstitutional -- just as they did with their immigration bill. I hope they continue being "proud" of their moronic legislation and continue to marginalize themselves as the party of wingnuts, until the people finally wake up and see their agenda for what it is -- destructive, distractive, and pointless political grandstanding.

Seriously, is there any way we could just allow Arizona and Texas to secede, while still retaining New Mexico and the Grand Canyon?

 

[flame80]

I can say only one thing, President Obama show us your long form birth certificate!!!!! Only a liberal could have a problem with this.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I can say only one thing, President Obama show us your long form birth certificate!!!!! Only a liberal could have a problem with this.

Political affiliations aside, only a complete moron would talk about birth certificates in a circumcision law thread.

 

[maxcok]

I can say only one thing, President Obama show us your long form birth certificate!!!!! Only a liberal could have a problem with this.

I see you're back from your time away with your usual knee jerk partisanship and ideological idiocy. I could have sworn you were banned back in the beginning of March along with your accomplice Alt33 for being an obvious, insulting, foulmouthed, blatant troll in this thread, in this thread and in this thread, for examples. If weren't banned, you certainly were asking for it. Literally asking for it, in fact.

At any rate, the subject of Obama's birth certificate has been covered ad nauseum, with updates in your absence here. Please read the material in the posted links and try to catch up to reality.

Furthermore, the crafters of this legislation claim it has nothing to do with Obama, rather it's a Constitutional issue to guarantee the integrity of elections (allegedly). Which means, your statement puts you even further on the wingnut fringe to the right of the legislators who voted for it. Quelle suprise.

 

[maxcok]

Political affiliations aside, only a complete moron would talk about birth certificates in a circumcision law thread.

Sensationalist title aside, the bill really isn't about circumcision, and only mentions it tangentially. However, it is more evidence of wingnut illogic that circumcision records would be acceptable proof of US birth vs. Obama's verified birth records. The "birther" accusation, at least as far as I understand it, is that he was foreign born, but arrived in Hawaii a few days later. What would have prevented him from being circumcised days later on US soil? Everyone in this vast conspiracy would have known he was someday destined to be president and would therefore need to prove his "natural born" citizenship in accordance with future Arizona law.

 

[citr]

What the crap happened to Arizona? How does an entire state become so uniformly reactionary?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Sensationalist title aside, the bill really isn't about circumcision, and only mentions it tangentially. However, it is more evidence of wingnut illogic that circumcision records would be acceptable proof of US birth vs. Obama's verified birth records. The "birther" accusation, at least as far as I understand it, is that he was foreign born, but arrived in Hawaii a few days later. What would have prevented him from being circumcised days later on US soil, as everyone in this vast conspiracy would have known he was someday destined to be president, and would therefore need to prove his "natural born" citizenship.

I feel for the intellectuals in Arizona who are constantly being drowned out by stupid garbage like this. Even in the worst case scenario for Obama and the birthers win, his name doesn't get on the ballot in Arizona and he doesn't win the state. They would win a symbolic victory and prevent Obama from winning a state that no Democrat has won in the last few decades in a presidential election. All that for ten electoral points that Obama wouldn't need to be re-elected anyhow. Great strategy, birthers... NOT!

These birth certificate lunatics really have no clue just how moronic this non-issue really is. But hey, we've been trying to tell them that for three years now.

 

[arkfarmbear]

I think I will move to AZ. I think it would be fantastic to be the inspector(s) who has to take a look at a guy's dick and be sure it meets the legal requirements. I've not seen the point raised in this thread - forgive me if I missed it - but I know many men who were born at home. The aren't cut. How does the law handle that?

 

[maxcok]

I think I will move to AZ. I think it would be fantastic to be the inspector(s) who has to take a look at a guy's dick and be sure it meets the legal requirements. I've not seen the point raised in this thread - forgive me if I missed it - but I know many men who were born at home. The aren't cut. How does the law handle that?

You've gone completely off the rails here. Maybe you should read the OP's link before commenting.




p.s. OP, you deserve a smack for the spin you put on the topic. I hope you know better next time.

 

[LetsGo2007]

What the crap happened to Arizona? How does an entire state become so uniformly reactionary?

I would ask; How does an entire state become so uniformly Stupid!?

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

This will get fast-tracked through an appeals court system. Even our jacked Supreme Court has to concede that states do not have the power to restrict federal elections like the presidency.

 

[jimmenycricket]

I don't understand. Being born in the USA is not the only way a person is a natural-born citizen of the USA. If one or both of your parents are US citizens you are a US born citizen, even if you were born on the moon. So this fact makes Obama's place of birth irrelevant.

 

[Guy-jin]

What the crap happened to Arizona? How does an entire state become so uniformly reactionary?

It isn't "uniformly reactionary". There are many people against this kind of insanity in Arizona. To suggest that it takes uniformity for this kind of idiocy to happen is asinine.

 

[citr]

It isn't "uniformly reactionary". There are many people against this kind of insanity in Arizona. To suggest that it takes uniformity for this kind of idiocy to happen is asinine.

Obviously an exaggeration, good lord. Why is it so very strongly reactionary, mr. Asinine?

 

[maxcok]

This will get fast-tracked through an appeals court system. Even our jacked Supreme Court has to concede that states do not have the power to restrict federal elections like the presidency.

Well, Governor Brewer (R) has to sign it into law first, and at this point she's saying she "hasn't had time to study the issue yet", being busy with other state business. However, she's signed practically everything passed by the wacky legislature since taking office. We'll see.

I don't understand. Being born in the USA is not the only way a person is a natural-born citizen of the USA. If one or both of your parents are US citizens you are a US born citizen, even if you were born on the moon. So this fact makes Obama's place of birth irrelevant.

This actually seems to be true. The term "natural born citizen" has never been clearly defined by the courts, and never defined by the Supreme Court to my knowledge. However, it does seem to be a matter of settled law, so I don't see where the confusion is:

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online ​

​

..:thinking:

 

[houtx48]

I think Obama is just fucking with them now..............birthers=morons.

 

[arkfarmbear]

I know I've heard some of the right wing whining about foreigners coming to the US just long enough for the baby to be born here. The whiners were pissin and moanin because the baby was automatically a US citizen and inflaming others by trying to convince them that "them people" were taking away something that belonged to us.

 

[Cuddler]

This will get fast-tracked through an appeals court system. Even our jacked Supreme Court has to concede that states do not have the power to restrict federal elections like the presidency.

Let me start by saying I don't agree with the passing of this law. But...

Have you read the Constitution? Here's the section of Article II that deals with selecting electors (i.e., members of the electoral college). Emphasis added.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.​

If you have any doubts, read the majority decision in Bush v Gore, where the state legislatures are shown to have total control over the selection of their electors.

 

[gymfresh]

So proof of circumcision is acceptable proof of citizenship if one cannot provide their birth certificate. I can't believe this...so dumb.]

Well, technically it's just one piece of evidence that can be legally admitted, along with other pieces, for a court to decide. I doubt it was meant to be definitive. Really not any different in this example than a baptismal certificate in documenting time and place. Hardly anyone would have a certificate of circumcision other than for religious reasons.

[/LIST]There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

I assume this refers to a US-born child, neither of whose parents are American citizens, but whose parents live in the United States as representative(s) of a foreign government.

I was born the child of a diplomat, but the situation was reversed: born outside the US to a US diplomat and a US green card holder (who 4 years later became a US citizen). I guess I fall under situation 4 in your list.