Thread: BEWARE: AZ SB 1308 MAY NOT BE WHAT IT APPEARS

"The 14th Amendment says NO citizenship to the children of illegal foreign diplomats and the children of legal foreign diplomats!"

Crap More legal manipulation... If we don't get a president elected in 2012 who is true to the Constitution, it's curtains.. We can't take another term of obama..

And Steve, I hope, I hope, I hope! you are right!

Originally Posted by roundabout

Just a simple question. If the bill covers both the true intent of the 14th and the natural born citizen, then considering that the bill if passed would be challenged and make its way to the higher courts, would not the courts have to approach both issues of the bill. Not just the intent of the 14th, but the natural born citizen clause as well.

Is this a clever way of demanding a thorough interpretation from the courts?

Just asking.

Now, that's a good question. Could the Court define Natural Born or will it take a Constitutional Amendment?

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natura ... fined.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22262

A couple of articles worth looking at.

Originally Posted by SentinelFangirl

stevetheroofer wrote:

"One POTUS for 2 more years or millions of Anchor Babies!"

"Wow! this is a hard one, he's been screwing us for 2yrs. and Anchor Babies been screwin' us for the past 30 years, wait I think I got it, ah! ah! "POTUS!"

"Did I get it right?"

How about neither? Or do you think Obama should be considered a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be our president?
When I read this article last Friday, I immediately emailed my state senator, Ron Gould, and expressed my concerns over the wording of this bill. "A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen." I urged him to reword this statement and correct this definition.

NoBueno wrote:[quote:3s2gelo5]But someone will have to explain to me how passing legislation in one state will help obama in 2012 when he runs again. This is only one state, what about the other 49 states? So he meets the definition of eligibility in Arizona under 1308, but what about the other 49 states?

The bill says "ARTICLE 6. INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT

START_STATUTE36-361. Adoption of compact; text of compact

The governor is authorized and directed to enter into a compact on behalf of this state with any of the United States lawfully joined in the compact in a form substantially as follows:"

This is intended to be a compact between states (no, I don't know who else will be joining it) and not just an Arizona law.[/quote:3s2gelo5]

Yeah...I read that as well. Problem is that Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
Good luck getting Congress to approve this compact.

On the outside chance Congress approves this compact, they will be throwing anchor babies under the bus, in order to certify that obama has eligibility to run for another term. This is of course until the SCOTUS gets involved and declares the whole thing unconstitutional.

I guess what it will come down to is who does the SCOTUS deem more worthy of protecting, anchor babies or obama. Or maybe that's the intent behind 1308, to sacrifice another four years of obama( and whoever comes after him) in order to rid this nation of anchor babies.

Who knows....

Originally Posted by forest

And Steve, I hope, I hope, I hope! you are right!

"I am and if by slim chance I'm not don't worry I'll tell when to

"RUN! FOREST! RUN!"

Good Point NoBueno!

Originally Posted by AZres

Good Point NoBueno!

"I know he's pretty slick with the word!"

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Yeah...I read that as well. Problem is that Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
Good luck getting Congress to approve this compact.

Just now reading article 1 section 10 and see nothing about barring states from entering into compacts. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation".

Now reading article 5 however says this:
"or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States"

This is what I think they are trying to do to pass amendment correction through the several states. The compact is a stepping stone towards that to gain more states to sign on. They need 34 states to start and 38 to pass.

Ohh and the good thing.... this bypasses congress and the President fully. They can't do a damn thing to stop it if through an amendment convention its passed. However Daryl Metacafe I don't think wants to speak on his intent for an Amendment Convention which would be needed because of spit by the left saying that he's out to destroy the US Constitution. Forget that one needs 38 states to agree which is a long shot just for fixing the 14th amendment.

Far as this article goes I don't see much of a problem.

First off one still needs to be born on US Soil from what I can tell. One needs one parent who is a US Citizen. However the law that one must be 19 I believe it is to convey citizenship would still apply.

Then lest not forget the whole fight about Obama wasn't born in 2011.... this wouldn't apply to him and if it was allowed to apply to him guess what. That now gives us ammo to repeal false citizenships of millions of anchors. After all can't say it backdates for one individual but not 20 million others. If thats the case I'd allow Obama his last 2 years because right after when he's voted out we no longer have the 18 million illegals to deport but another 20 million children of illegals dating back to whenever we really care to stop.

Now with the one parent thing.... one has to consider how many kids today of all colors are born to only one parent. We're a society of deadbeat dads and a society of sex being a national pasttime. So do we say 50% of American Citizens with American Parents can't be President because they didn't have a man sign the BC? Do we give another excuse why men shouldn't sign incase they aren't a citizen at birth even though may not be illegal?

Then even if it did apply to US Citizen children who were born overseas... is that so bad in reality? My son was born overseas, yet he'll be raised to be more American then 60% of the US Population. Hell, my Filipina wife is more American even w/o being an American yet then many now calling themselves American! Plus one just needs to think that common sense one being born overseas is not born to the US Jurisdiction as one isn't even known at birth to be an American. That still has to be filed and claimed after birth which takes 3+ months from birth generally.

Not that I'm necassarily saying one born on foreign soil should be a natural born US Citizen, I'd prefer NO even meaning my son wouldn't be eligible for POTUS. But just showing how children born to Americans overseas are often more American then a lot of the liberals and nutjobs born in the US!

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Yeah...I read that as well. Problem is that Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
Good luck getting Congress to approve this compact.

Just now reading article 1 section 10 and see nothing about barring states from entering into compacts. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation".

Now reading article 5 however says this:
"or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States"

This is what I think they are trying to do to pass amendment correction through the several states. The compact is a stepping stone towards that to gain more states to sign on. They need 34 states to start and 38 to pass.

Ohh and the good thing.... this bypasses congress and the President fully. They can't do a damn thing to stop it if through an amendment convention its passed. However Daryl Metacafe I don't think wants to speak on his intent for an Amendment Convention which would be needed because of spit by the left saying that he's out to destroy the US Constitution. Forget that one needs 38 states to agree which is a long shot just for fixing the 14th amendment.

Have no idea what your talking about. You might want to look up Compact Clause
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution