I am so happy to see you 2 getting along today!

I luv you guyz!!!!

Right, but your OP was that elected officials should prove it... which I just don't see much of a point in if you're only talking about whether or not they were born here or were naturalized. Other eligibility requirements, though, I totally agree with.

So is this bill going through congress or is this at a state level? I was under the impression this was proposed to be a Federal bill. I'll have to read it and get back with y'all on a later date :cool:

I was only referring to elected ones. States don't have any say over the other positions.

However can you provide a citation for that? My understanding is that if someone in the line of succession is ineligible they're just skipped.

Everything and the kitchen sink should be verified. EVERYTHING.

I was talking about the AZ one, here's a list though of ones that have popped up in the past 2 years
Wiki

I'll have to review my U.S. Constitution Iphone app because you can be speaker of the house and not be a U.S, born citizen, right?

AFAIK. You only have to be a member of the House which requires 7 years of citizenship. Oh and if you're a confederate rebel you can't serve :p

Speakers are just elected by the majority.

Not that the line of succession has ever been tested further down than the VP anyway, so it's all theoretical.

How do you prove rebelship?

Why it's in that pesky 14th amendment. It kept people who had declared themselves members of the confederacy from later regaining office.

So even though there was a blanket pardon, they couldn't serve in office unless officially forgiven by congress. (And eventually there was a blanket forgiveness.)

and this entire argument was called speculative at best by a federal judge. you can infer all you want, but the court is where debates end. and how much of your inference is based on your own personal prejudice?

Still trying to decide if you're stating what you personally think or if you're stirring the pot. I'm going with the latter, given your history on GC. :p

who me? psssshh, i'm an saint.

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

I believe one of the other reasons why Arizona won't spell out who they are targeting with their legislation is that they don't want a repeat of Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century.

Not to mention, for them to spell it out would be a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act


Heh.