http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/21/ar ... tizenship/
PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona House has approved a bill that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot for a re-election bid.
The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote, sending it to the Senate.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Supporters say the bill would help settle a controversy over whether Obama was born in the United States.
Opponents say it's a waste of time that makes Arizona mocked by the rest of the country. Obama has released his Hawaii birth certificate proving he's a "natural-born citizen" qualified to be president.
Meanwhile:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... -requests/
Hawaii lawmakers are moving closer to passing a measure allowing the state to ignore repeated requests for President Obama's birth certificate.
A conference committee unanimously voted Tuesday to advance the bill to final votes in the House and Senate.
The proposal allows state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The bill is aimed at so-called "birthers," who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They say he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
So if enough states require the proof before allowing Obama's name on the ballot will that put his re-election chances in doubt?
I'm not sure Hawaii's act would be legal depending on the wording of the bill. We will see. But a state certainly has the right to verify the qualifications of a candidate. Someone call Sen Murvan to start the ball rolling on a similar bill!
