10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,877
    Location:
    New Mexico
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BORN IN THE USA?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands[/FONT]

    [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, others[/FONT]

    Posted: January 26, 2011
    7:50 pm Eastern

    [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Bob Unruh[/FONT]
    © 2011 WorldNetDaily



    Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.
    And they aren't all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a "natural born citizen" – have been met.
    In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.
    Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.
    Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.
    His plan, he said, is needed because he saw "requirements in the Constitution that you don't have a code provision to ensure that it happens."
    "If we as an entity of civil government don't follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?" he said. "We need to lead by example."
    WND reported just one day ago that Arizona, which had a plan to require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates passed by the state House a year ago, had proposed a new plan.
    According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.
    There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.
    Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.
    The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.
    Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.
    Arizona
    This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.
    The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
    In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
    The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:
    Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.​
    "I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND.
    The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "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."
    It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
    "If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.
    The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
    Connecticut
    In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
    It would require "that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot."
    That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot."
    Georgia
    In Georgia, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have "standing" to challenge the documentation.
    "Each political party shall provide for each candidate ... original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2 Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to such office," it states.
    "Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates," it says.
    Indiana
    In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.
    It calls for the candidates "to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."
    In also provides "that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and documentation."
    On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:
    "However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements."
    He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, where "the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.
    [​IMG]
    "Obama furnished to Factcheck.org what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."
    But he said the issue was that neither candidate was "required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate ... ."
    He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.
    "Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions," he said.
    On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?"
    Maine
    Maine's LD34 calls for a requirement for candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship.
    It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."
    Missouri
    The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship."
    Nebraska
    In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting documentation."
    That paperwork would need to document they meet the "eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
    It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth."
    Montana
    Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.
    "There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."
    Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."
    But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.
    "Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution," says his proposed legislation.
    Oklahoma
    In Oklahoma, SB91 would require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access.
    It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad ...
    "Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
    Pennsylvania
    In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's office.
    Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.
    He described it as a "problem" that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born citizen."
    "We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session," he said.
    Texas
    A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require candidates' documentation.
    Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:
    It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."
    It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.
    [​IMG]
    State Rep. Leo Berman
    Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
    "If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.
    He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.
    At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
    Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
    There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
    The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "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."
    The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
    There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
    The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
    Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
    A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.
    Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.
    "We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.
    There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.
    Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:
    "To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
    The bill also provided:
    "Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
    It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.
    There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
    "What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
    An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.
    For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:
    Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
    "Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."
    If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
  2. Haligan

    Haligan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,013
    Location:
    FEMA Region II
  3. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    The Arizona bill is rather foolish in my opinion. It says in part;
    This law could ban anyone from being placed on the ballot in that state. The only people that have the original BC are the hospitals or other legal entities in the State. Everyone else gets certified copies. The forms that new parents sometimes get with the babies foot prints on the bottom are normally souvenirs, not legal documents. The sponsors need to change this to certified copy or something like that.


    The Connecticut bill is just as poorly written as the Arizona bill.


    The Georgia bill says;
    I wonder if the Secretary of State would accept a certified copy of a BC or other legal form of BC issued by a state? The bill does not define the words "original documentation" as it is used in the text.


    The Indiana bill is much better;
    The computer printouts that most state issue would probably meet these requirements.


    The Nebraska bill has issues also
    But it also says something which goes beyond what the Constitution of the USA requires.
    A natural born citizen does not need to have both US citizen parents.


    The Maine bill says
    Hawaii law says that the certification of live birth that was provided by Obama is sufficient as a birth certificate. There are currently no laws that I know of that dispute this.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011
  4. pandamonium

    pandamonium New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    South Jersey
    Any way you read it, it is still a good thing to require proof of eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. And why shouldn't proof be required, and it should also be able to be challenged!
  5. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    It is a very good thing. But a few of these bills are just wrong. I was born in the USA, but there is no way I could possibly meet the criteria of Arizona's bill. How many people here could? Unless I was to break into the records room and steal my original BC, I would not be able to supply it, just a certified copy.
  6. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    There might be ways around this. If the original BC cannot come to Arizona, perhaps Arizona could come to the original BC - Arizona could send a team of officials to "the candidate's" home state, view the original document, and certify its authenticity......?
  7. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    That could be a possibility, but right now the onus is on the candidate. We are forced to trust the states to do so much in our lives while keeping a reasonable society from falling apart. If we can count on the state to honestly review and assess a candidate's birth certificate, then we should be able to count on another state to supply an accurate certified copy of that record.

    There is frequently more than two candidates for president on the ballot. Arizona for example listed five.
    I think it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to send teams to each state to verify the original, especially if those states forbid by law any access to their records except to those that are allowed to see them. Election committees are not normally on those lists of people. Arizona law as it is currently written protects access to vital records. While they allow certified copies to various people including representatives of the person in question, it is not the same as access to the original. I was not able to find any law that allowed even the person listed as the subject of the birth on the BC to view the original.

    I think the legislators in Arizona are letting down their constituents by sponsoring such a bad bill. Did they even stop to think if they themselves could meet those requirements if they ever intended to run for president?
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2011
  8. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    I guess we'll see (1) whether the AZ bill becomes law, and (2) how it plays out in 2012.

    Personally, I don't see it as an insurmountable problem. As you note, the onus is on the candidates - if a candidate is "for real", he/she could foot the bill for a couple of Arizona officials to fly across the country and fly back again.
    What would that cost, about three seconds' worth of campaign ads on TV?

    As to whether or not existing laws would permit inspection of the original.... I don't know. I suspect that arrangements could be made.

    In any event, I hope that AZ and other states can succeed in bringing this issue to a conclusion. There's a lot of mistrust of the federal government, and rightfully so. Having local officials certify a national candidate's eligibility to be on the ballot in each state may be the answer. I know that I would place more trust in my state officials, than in some federal official.

    Thanks for the thought-provoking posts!
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2011
  9. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    I wrote to Representative Burges asking how a person in Arizona would go about obtaining an original birth certificate to fullfill the requirements of her bill. She wrote back saying in part;
    It seems that even in Arizona a person could not meet the intent of the bill as it is now written. I wonder why they even bothered to write it the way they did?
  10. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    WABob, that's an interesting development. I was under the impression that legislators usually had their bills reviewed by law professors and other consultants before actually introducing them. Perhaps Burges skipped this step, and now she's learning the hard way?
    Another similar bill was introduced in AZ last year - if I remember correctly, it passed in the House but never came up for a vote in the Senate. I wonder if it had similar problems, or perhaps the senators were afraid of being called "crazy Birthers"? It will be interesting to see how Burges's bill progresses.

    I'm also wondering what Obama and Holder will do if AZ or any other state passes such a law. They might launch legal challenges which could keep the law(s) locked up until the 2012 elections were done.....?
  11. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    Individuals in this country do NOT vote for the President of the United States. We all like to think we do, but the real system is that individuals in each state vote for representatives to the Electoral College, which in turn votes for the President. It's confusing because our ballots don't list whom we want to serve as our representatives in the Electoral College but rather whom we our Electoral College representatives to vote for.

    What we call our "Presidential election" is really a state-wide election that corresponds with the statewide election in every other state. So there really shouldn't be any kind of legal standing upon which the federal Justice Department would be able to challenge the state law regarding a state election.
    That doesn't mean a challenge wouldn't be attempted (or even that it wouldn't be successful), I'm just saying that this is how it should play out. We'll see how that goes. :rolleyes:
  12. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    I do not know what research Burges performed before signing her name on the bill, but it takes very little research to know that it is unlikely that anyone in Arizona actually has their original birth certificate. I have no reason to believe that Burges does. There is a method to their madness and it is nothing new. Compare this to those in Congress that want to ban guns.

    Take a look at what Representative McCarthy and her cronies have written. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-308 It says in part;
    Look at the underlined part of the bill I posted. It says it exempts our tube fed 22lr rifle magazines, but in reality it does not. Every 22lr tube magazine will also accept the 17 mach 2 rim fire cartridge and since it is a rimmed cartridge developed from the stinger, it will also function in those 22lr rifles even though it will have very little accuracy and power.

    So, does anyone here actually believe that all of the sponsors that appear after McCarthy are stupid enough to believe that it really exempts 22lr tube magazines? What they what they probably believe; the people this bill will punish (us) are the stupid ones. Remember, this "high cap" magazine ban does not allow the sale of anything made before the ban goes into effect, unlike the 1994 AWB.

    Back to Burges and her bunch. If this bill passes into law, then no one will be able to appear on the bill unless they meet the additional requirements set forth in it. Since is it unlikely that anyone will be able to actually obtain an original birth certificate (there is only one original for anyone and it is held by the state), then they can only get on the ballot if the Arizona Secretary of State determines that the certificate presented is truly “original”. This opens things up to all kinds of corruption. I wonder how much it will cost the candidate to get the state to certify a piece of paper as original. Obviously they want us to believe that people routinely have original birth certificates available to meet the requirements of this bill. We do not of course.

    The e-mail I got from her read like a form letter. I'm certain that I was not the only one who noticed the big freakin hole in her bill.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  13. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    WABob, I think I follow your point, regarding the McCarthy bill - technically, it doesn't really exempt anything. They may have included such language in an attempt to reduce opposition to their bill.
    I'm not sure I follow how that relates to Burges's bill. Are you suggesting that Burges wrote her bill with the intention of opening things up to all kinds of corruption?

    Arizona passed a couple of "landmark" pro-gun laws last year.... I'm not complaining about the laws, but I recognize that the AZ legislators' motives may not have been anything more than political posturing in advance of the mid-term elections.
    Do you think Burges has some "hidden agenda" with her new bill?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Josh, I think you're correct that the federal gov't has no standing to challenge these laws, but I'm afraid that they may try anyway. As WABob pointed out, the Nebraska law may be especially vulnerable, since it includes provisions which are even more stringent than the U.S. Constitution.
    The point I wanted to make, was that Obama and Holder don't need to win the legal battles - they only need to keep the laws locked up in court until the 2012 elections are over.
  14. WABob

    WABob Former Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    WA USA
    I think she may have some kind of agenda. Why sponsor a bill that eliminates the possibility of anyone being put on the ballot for president in her state? Imagine if this bill had passed into law 20 years ago. Would any candidate have been able to meet the requirements?

    I do not know what the law says in Panama about birth certificates, maybe McCain has his original. I doubt any other candidate for president has theirs.
  15. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    Since Burges has introduced the bill, I am sure she has SOME type of agenda. If we accept her at face value, her agenda might be to certify the eligibility of presidential candidates.
    If she is pursuing some hidden agenda, I can only guess what it might be - perhaps she hopes to score points with voters by introducing this bill, even though she doesn't believe it will be approved by the legislature?

    It will be interesting to see how her bill progresses in the legislature. Who knows, there's even a chance that it could become law in its present form.
  16. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,443
    Location:
    Indiana
    When it is determined that there is no standing for a case, it's usually a pretty quick dismissal. I mean, a lot of cases challenging Obama's eligibility in the first place got filed and dismissed in less than a month back in '08.
  17. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,877
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Now that you mention that, I remember reading something interesting that has to do with "Standing".

    [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Courts can remove ineligible chief executive

    [/FONT]
  18. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    A quick dismissal would be good. I hope that the judges would be just as eager to rule against the Obama administration, as they were to rule in Obama's favor in 2008.

    I noticed that Marlin T's article reiterated the value of the original "long form" birth certificate. Yes, I imagine that it might inconvenience the candidates, it might deplete a microscopic fraction of their campaign budgets, but I still don't see how it would be an insurmountable problem.
    People being considered for high-level security clearances face hours of paperwork, polygraph exams, fingerprints & records checks, investigators will be sent to interview their former neighbors, etc..... a person being considered for the highest office in the land should be subject to no less scrutiny.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2011
  19. goofy

    goofy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,011
    hospaccx WHY ARE YOU HERE???...GOOFY:mad:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum New York's Handgun Law Under Fire in United States District Court Jul 1, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum What states now have bans on hi cap. mags? Jun 12, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Gun legislation may be heading to voters in many states Apr 28, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Magpul Breaks Bad, Continues Sales to LEOs in Ban States Mar 1, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Traveling through ban states Feb 16, 2013

Share This Page