10 States Propose Eligibility Bills

Rate this post


Thank God for the Philadelphia Constitution Convention of 1787. For it was there that the Founding Fathers ditched both the confederation and unitary configurations but instead adopted a Federation for the newly established United States of America — wherein while there is a central authority/government, the constituent states exercise certain powers and authority granted to them by The People, which Washington, DC, cannot take away.
Obama gypped America in 2008 but he will not in 2012, if our constituent state governments have anything to do with it. The number of states reading eligibility-proof bills is now increased to 10. [Update 2/19/11: Add Tennessee to make a total of 11 states!]
World Net Daily has been on the forefront on this issue since the beginning. Its reporter Bob Unruh reports on January 26, 2011 that 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.
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. Nor are the above legislation like the one that was adopted in New Hampshire a year ago, HB1245, which merely requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications of age, residency and being a “natural born citizen” have been met —  similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates, and a lot of good that does!
Arizona:  Arizona is furthest along with a plan to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office. 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. The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by 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…. If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the prescribed documents, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state

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.”
  • 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.”

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” to ensure that the candidate “is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.”
Georgia: HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin demands not just the candidate’s statement but original birth-certificate documentation. To get around the matter of “standing” that has been used by countless judges to deny hearing to countless lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, HB37 provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge a candidate’s birth certificate documentation. It states:

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. 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.

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.”
Indiana.  Sen. Mike Delph 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, the law “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.”
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” by stating in an affidavit that “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.  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. His proposed legislation says:

“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.” .

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, the GOP has captured a majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office. Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe 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” and said “We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session.” 
Texas: A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, would require candidates’ documentation. HB295 will 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.”

The effective date will be Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning. 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 and noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.
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 6 in 10 American voters now have serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution’s demands.
In addition to these state-level bills, there was also Rep. Bill Posey’s bill at the federal level during the last Congress. 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 but 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.
[Source for the above information: WND]
H/t beloved fellows Tina, Joseph, Steve.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “10 States Propose Eligibility Bills

  1. I am hopeful that at least one or two states are able to pass this legislation. I would imagine Mr. Soetero would then decide prior to the convention that he wanted to retire and not seek a second term.
    I would actually prefer that all those with complicity were charged with fraud and treason.

     
  2. So if Obama does not get on the ballot in these 10 states, does it really matter? It all comes down to the Electoral College votes, right?
    In 2008, Obama won 365 EC votes and McCain won 173. Of these 10 states bringing the eligibility issue up, Obama won 42 of their EC votes to McCain’s 92.
    Assuming Obama wins the same states as 2008 and losses the 42 votes by not being on those state’s ballots… Obama still wins the next election with 323 EC votes.
    Is it really possible for Obama to loose a total of 95 EC votes to get ousted in 2012? Unless the eligibility issues breaks wide open and becomes national issue, we may unfortunately have to deal with the village idiot for another 4 years. 🙁

     
  3. Concur Thomas…O’s ego O’s ego is too big to stop him. Heck, he already got by in 2009, what’s to stop him…

     
  4. Congress needs to be held accountable for this. The fake BC released on the white house web site is proof enough he’s a fraud. It was presented as a true copy of his original BC, and turns out to be a forgery, that’s either a high crime or a misdemeanor, so impeachment is mandatory.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *