There was quite a bit of evidence that AZ is not within their rights to demand the long form. I remember making an argument that AZ is required to give full faith and credit to a HI Short Form birth certificate and a SCOTUS case saying that states may not impose requirements upon federal office holders. I believe you ignored those arguments and carried on babbling.

I think all of this could be solved if we just gave the green mods two free passes to ban whoever they want from their forums for any reason.

I didn't ignore them. I went and looked up full faith and credit on the internet to learn more about it. That indeed was the strongest argument but I am not convinced it would mean the law would be declared unconstitional.

I think I did address the SCOTUS case by saying how a state verifies eligibility is not imposing a new requirement upon a federal office holder. Your SCOTUS case was about term limits if I remember.

Also you have to remember that when you argue a minority position its 20 guys against 1, so you pick your battles or something gets buried before you're prepared to respond to it and gets forgotten.

Stu: Your capacity for evasion is mind-boggling. If you are a deliberate troll, my hat is off to you. You see, someone not a troll would say, "Oh, man, I'm not intending that, what was it about what I said that made you think that? Clearly the communication has broken down, and I'd like to work with you to find common ground." Granted, maybe not quite like that, but this spirit of cooperation is how most people resolve differences with each other, at least in real life.

Try it some time. It might take some practice, so do it over and over. Just for a week or so. See how you like it.

RE: Rules

It's the same reason they don't let dealers make judgment calls.

Sure, you know when a bet was intended, everybody at the table knows, dealers know... but we have these hard-line string bet rules to ensure that nobody is treated unfairly.

And yet, it's these very rules that practically ensure nobody is satisfied, those that need reprimand slip by, and those that need protecting suffer.

Also, Dids for admin.

After looking, here was this exchange, with bolding added:

________________

iron81:

Yep.

I recall a SCOTUS case forbidding states from imposing term limits on Congressmen. The reasoning was that states could not impose additional requirements for federal office holders beyond what the feds imposed. That plus the full faith & credit argument should be enough to toss the AZ law.

Stu:

Arizona would not be imposing additional requirements for federal office holders. It would only be using reasonable care to verify the candidate met already established federal requirements. You might have an argument if the federal law stated that a short form birth certificate suffices as proof of being a natural born citizen.

what is the full faith and credit argument?

iron81:

That if Hawaii says that Obama was born there and is a citizen, that no other state may question that judgment. The same reason that states must honor other states marriage licenses and other states must honor your birth certificate.

AZ absolutely is imposing a new requirement: showing their SoS the damn long form. No other president has had to produce that document, simply showing in court by a preponderance that a candidate is a citizen has always been enough.

Stu:

The proposed Arizona law reads that one of the requirements would be:

"an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

Again if such a document exists and the state of Arizona has the right to verify eligibility, I would think they would have the right to see the long form birth certificate. Could not an Arizona court subpoena the form from the state Hawaii and would not the state of Hawaii be obligated to provide it if they have an interstate deposition and discovery agreement with Arizona?

Wookie:

So, I guess this rules out many people from New Orleans from ever becoming president?

Stu, specifically requiring one particular document is absolutely instituting a new standard of proof of citizenship that isn't in the Constitution. Right now, Constitutional standards are that such a document is sufficient but not necessary. That law is trying to make it necessary and sufficient, a clear change that won't fly with SCOTUS.

_________

In this exchange, you had zero reply to my full faith and credit argument and zero reply to Wookie's last post about imposing a new requirement. I'm actually kind of on your side in that I don't think you should be exiled, but you are clearly ignoring evidence and sticking to your opinion regardless in this exchange.

Later in the thread I pointed out that different states already require different documents to prove eligibility. Some just require an affidavit. There is no uniform vetting process amoung the states so by your reasoning each state has its own requirement. If each state has its own requirement...why can't they change those requirements?

I'm not going to bother to find it in the caches of google but I did address that argument.

Oh I read that as "the two green mods should be given free passes"

I am less enthused.

it is fascinating to me (in my present mood) that every thread relating to moderation of the politics forum in ATF eventually becomes an actual political discussion. in this case between an ex-mod (honorable resignation) and a current exile (trying to return)

Here was the reply to your argument:

________

Chips Ahoy:

For all X: A state can't deny somebody a ballot spot for failing to produce X. They can only deny them if the person is not a natural born citizen of sufficient age. They don't get to decide only X is sufficient proof.

This thread has shown the legal case is really air tight (which was news to me). By any legal standard.

____

You didn't reply to this because the thread was locked immediately afterward, but it is 100% accurate. In general, states do not require candidates to prove their residency. The burden of proof is on their opponent who can challenge their placement on the ballot. See the recent Rahm Emanuel debacle.

have they ever done 1 on 1 debates in politics so people like NVE(and I for that matter) don't get gang raped by the crowd?

I drift in and out of politcs so there are long periods where I just didn't pay attention to what was going on in there.

That's the problem with exile. Politards gonna politard.

Mat,

Sorry, but since you do seem interested in whether Stu is a troll and his exile was justified, we're going to have to rehash this unless you want to take Wookie's/The Mod Forum's/Elliot's word for it.

Hey guys, how bout dem oil prices?

Since you kicked it back to the politics mods to decide my fate...we're just passing the time until they come up with a decision.

I think the thread should be left open until then...at least as an incentive for them to wrap it up.

that's a playground. not just for politics, but one on one debates about anything., i'm signing out for the evening, but i'd like to see that if there are enough interested in actually climbing in the ring. if others agree, especially potential participants, please chime in.

No, i mean the stuff like what Iron quoted from the thread, where Stu said X, people showed X to be wrong or at least unlikely, then instead of moving on to Y Stu then just repeated X. Rinse repeat several times in that thread.

I dont know to what degree you can argue the birther side, its a pretty stupid thing to argue in favour of cos of all that evidence stuff, but at the very least id expect someone to vary the ramming speed and throw in some new moves now and again as they proceed to hate **** the forum with the pro birther arguments if they are really giving it the full go. Simply repeating "i think Arizona should be able to examine ALL the evidence" over and over and over and over and seriously over and over really isnt adding value nor progressing the thread.

As i said earlier, jury is still out on whether he was trolling in that thread like Nick was. What works in Stu's favour is his history of bad posting repeating the same tired ******** arguments over and over again - see the unions baby death thread he started where iirc he did exactly the same thing, though i forget the specifics in how he thought they could be prosecuted.

nobody should close this thread. while i've taken the side of the mods against stu, i still find it more interesting than any other thread i've seen about the politics forum.

i will warn people, however, that if you take the conversation out of this thread i won't be protecting you from the green and orange menaces some people call mods.

i really am leaving for a bit, but as far as i'm concerned post 466 is the real topic of this thread.

In that case, we did a series of these in Politics once. The quality depended mostly on how smart the debaters were and how much time they were willing to spend researching and composing posts.

So we've gone from:

OMG politics mods are biased! --to-- Stu is a troll -- to-- zOMG some mods are trolls too! --to-- Stu's still trollin' --to--....

1v1 Deathmatches in Politics?

The mods made a decision. If at some point in the future we make another decision we will let you know.

My thoughts exactly.

I must admit I enjoy the occasional spillage. Being a regular participant in such a forum will drive strong men insane, but I do enjoy seeing the crazy put on display in a glass jar from time to time.

We have this little circus going on, with a bit of commentary and color along the sides. And yet people still want to jump into the circus.

I just watched the recent Jersey Shore (shut up, that show is awesome). The focus of tonight's episode was an insanely dysfunctional couple simultaneously pushing each other way and grabbing each other back. Meanwhile, all the onlookers were insisting to them that this really wasn't good for anybody, the participants least of all. The crazy ones would nod and agree, then turn around right back into the maelstrom.

So, y'know, just a thought.

The problem is that people on all sides of political debates inevitably believe that those with different views are irrational on the matter. I mean, if you're an ACist, for instance, the view that the state could produce higher economic growth could seem highly irrational to you. If you're a statist, the view that ACism could produce higher economic growth might seem equally irrational. I would not want either of these guys having the power to moderate based on views that seem "irrational" to them. It might be okay in a forum like OOT, but not in something like Politics with the chasms in beliefs. Even if the rules are than they can only ban people who post "really, really irrational" things, I'm highly sceptical that a partisan moderator can be close to fair unless they've spent an enormous amount of time studying and trying to compensate for their subconcious biases. With personal attacks, it's still hard to be fair but at least statements like "you are stupid" can be quantified somewhat objectively.


On an unrelated note: the people who say stuff like "lol politards gonna politard" tard up the thread way more than the alleged politards imo