On April 19, Arizona SB 1024 was amended in the House. SB 1024 is the bill to delete the names of candidates for presidential elector from the November ballot, and to add the names of vice-presidential candidates. Currently, Arizona is one of six states that still lists candidates for presidential elector on the ballot. The bill has already passed the Senate.
The amendment was added by Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley). It says that when political parties certify the names of their presidential nominees for the November ballot, the parties must include (within an additional ten days) an affidavit from the presidential candidate, stating that he or she is qualified to hold the office. The candidate must also attach documents showing evidence. The amendment says the Secretary of State will review the documents and exclude the candidate from the November ballot if the Secretary of State does not believe the evidence is sufficient. The vote on this amendment was 31-22, with Democrats generally voting against the amendment and Republicans voting in favor. Assuming the bill next passes the House, it must then return to the Senate to see if the Senate concurs.
The amendment is discriminatory because an independent presidential candidate need not provide such documents, nor must the presidential candidate of a new party, nor a write-in presidential candidate. Also it is not easy to imagine which documents would be required, because proving that one has been a resident of the United States for the past 14 years (the least-known constitutional requirement for presidents) is not necessarily easy. General Dwight Eisenhower was not exactly a resident of the United States during the years 1942-1945, even though under this bill, he would need to have “proven” that he was a “resident” for all years 1938-1952.
An independent presidential candidate files the same way as an independent candidate for any other office (disregarding designation of electors, Vice President, and timing).
Applicants for a place on a primary ballot are required to file an affidavit showing that they would be qualified to serve:
ARS 16.311(D)
“… The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks…”
Independent nominations are required to “conform as nearly as possible to the provisions relating to nomination petitions of candidates to be voted for at primary elections”
If you look at the 2008 Certificate of Ascertainment you will notice that in the past Arizona has not named president candidates, but either lists “Democratic, etc. Party Presidential Electors”,
“ARS 16-341 Candidate Presidential Electors” or “Write-In Candidate Presidential Electors” followed by the names of the presidential electors and the votes they received.
Nader was the only ARS 16-341 candidate (which refers to the section of statutes for independent nominations by petition), and there were 3 Write-In candidates, and you can not determine from the certificate which were associated with Chuck Baldwin.
Among the other changes in SB 1024, is to restructure the filing for independent (and write-in) presidential candidates to be made by the candidates, along with a designation of their presidential electors.
This may be tied in to the inclusion of the presidential and vice presidential candidate names on the ballot. BTW, the House Judiciary Committee amended the bill to also include the surnames of the elector designees on the the ballot.
Someone who is on temporary assignment overseas on behalf of the US government retains residency in the US. This would cover someone like Eisenhower, as well George HW Bush who was envoy to China in the mid-1970s.
Quoting the constitution:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Just wondering – once Reagan left office, were there actually any other people left alive who were Citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Also – what constitutes a “Natural born” citizen? Are Americans born by Caesarian procedures not allowed to be president? How about those conceived in a Petri dish and implanted into the womb? Neither sounds particularly natural to me. And do we need evidence produced by ALL candidates that they aren’t actually clones? I think so!
Please…all “Birthers…” weigh in! We need answers to these pressing constitutional questions.
Natural born = at birth allegiance to a regime — based on allegiance status of only the FATHER ???
Sorry — NO natural born status for FOREIGN stateless pirates / terrorists, enemy invaders (think Axis invaders in World War II), ship wrecked folks, tourists, etc.
— regardless of the party hack MORON Supremes and ANY of their MORON cases on the subject.
See also the debates on the citizenship sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 — added in the Senate — i.e. the *** and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *** language.
Such FOREIGN folks are NOT *subject to the [NATION-STATE] jurisdiction* of the U.S.A. government — even if a FOREIGN female has a kid born physically in the U.S.A. area — or even on a U.S.A. flag ship or airplane.
Main Areas – U.S.A., Foreign, High Seas.
—
If you plan on running for Prez keep your residence records — affidavits of friends and neighbors, etc.
A person’s domicile is the place which he or she considers true home, and the place where the person plans to return some day. The United States was certainly Dwight Eisenhower’s domicile, his entire life. A person can have only one domicile.
But residence is where the person is actually living. People can have more than one residence. While Eisenhower was on active service in the army, he didn’t own any real estate and he wasn’t paying rent anywhere in the U.S. The Constitution talks about residence, not domicile. What possible documents could Eisenhower have submitted to “prove” that he was a “resident” of the United States during World War II?
A person’s legal residence is not necessarily the same as their voting residence or their census residence.
Residence for an officeholder is certainly not necessarily the same as domicile or where the person is “actually living”.
When the Census Bureau counts “overseas residents” for purposes of determining the “number of persons in each state” the census forms are completed by the government agency rather than the individual. In the case of military personnel, their state is determined by (1) Home of Record, which is where they lived at time of entry into the military; (2) Legal Residence, as determined from their pay record; and (3) Last US Duty Station where they served at least 6 months.
Over 90% are assigned based on the Home of Record, with the remainder being assigned on the the basis of their Legal Residence or their Last US Duty Station of 6 months.
Presumably Dwight Eisenhower could have produced similar records for the period 1939-1953.
You are not suggesting that Dwight Eisenhower was not legally qualified to be President are you?
Are we certain that the 14 years of residence in the U.S. must be immediately prior to the presidential term?
The Constitution only says “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Unless the Court has ruled differently, the plain wording of that clause seems to mean that those 14 years could be at any time in the president’s life, including childhood.
This discussion is making my originalist brain hurt. I’m sure other originalists’ equally tiny brains are hurting as well.
So please stop, will ya?
6 –
Ditto that.
The provisions discussed in the Arizona legislation are directed at one person, president Barack H. Obama. This is based on the belief by some that he wasn’t actually born in Hawaii.
There are all sorts of conspiracy theories claiming that Obama was born somewhere other than in the United States (like Kenya or Indonesia). Of course, those are just unproven conspiracy theories.
I think those who are participating in those conspiracy theories, who oppose Obama because of his policies, should drop the issue. President Obama is definitely a natural born US citizen, and I am not a Democrat. What they should do is, if they want to have a new president on Jan. 20, 2013, nominate a good candidate who can appeal to independents and dissatisfied Democrats as well as unify the GOP, and have that candidate elected.
Are military folks overseas defending the U.S.A. from barbarians ALL deemed to have a home base in the U.S.A. ???
See the home port idea for U.S.A. Navy ships — New York, San Diego, Pearl Harbor, etc.
The old *Fort* idea for Army folks — Fort Knox, Fort West Point, etc.
i.e. Top senior folks like Eisenhower in the Pentagon — U.S.A. military HQ ???
Any census on 1 Apr 2010 on the front lines in Afghanistan ???
#9 If Obama was born in Hawaii, then he or the party who nominates him would have no problem with complying with the paperwork. Democrats should welcome this opportunity to demonstrate conclusively that he is legally qualified to hold office.
Every other candidate in Arizona must provide an affidavit showing that they meet the qualifications of the particular office. For congressional candidates this would include proof of citizenship for the required period of time.
#10 The Census Bureau only includes federal government employees and their household dependents in the apportionment count. The Census Bureau does not gather demographic information, but simply a head count and attribution to the various states.
The Department of Defense assigns states to overseas military personnel on the basis of:
(1) Home of Record – which is where a person lived when they entered the military;
(2) Legal Residence – where they reside for purposes of state taxes.
(3) Last US duty station where they were based for 6 months or more.
Most are assigned as state based on the Home of Record.
11 –
Republican tool.
# 9 The question is NOT where Obama was physically born, it is his NATION-STATE allegiance at birth — i.e. the NATION-STATE status of his father — apparently a BRITISH EMPIRE citizen-subject (of Kenya, then a British Empire colony) when Obama was born.
Folks in 1776-1868 had enough brains to understand NATION-STATE allegiance stuff — based on THOUSANDS of years of allegiance stuff to a early tribal / later nation-state regime.
Some New Age folks are brain dead on the subject — along with the always stupid party hack Supremes.
Thus — does Obama have any King George III genes ???
UN-likely — but only DNA tests know for sure.