Bills in 4 States Require Birth Certificates For 2012 Election

Rate this post

Obama, you can run but you can’t hide.
Due to the unconscionable failure of Congress, state governments, and the Demonrat Party, you got away with not providing documentary proof of your constitutional eligibility to be President of the United State of America in 2008. But you will not in 2012!
Republican legislatures in four states — Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona — have or plan to introduce bills that would require all candidates for president or vice president of the United States to show his or her birth certificate to be on the state ballot.

State GOP leaders grab issue of Obama eligibility
By Bob Unruh – WorldNetDaily – Nov 18, 2010
The GOP members of Congress who booted Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi from the speaker’s seat when they took the majority in the U.S. House this month may be the least of President Barack Obama’s concerns as the 2012 presidential campaign assembles.
That’s because in Pennsylvania, and in at least a couple of other states, there are Republican-controlled Houses, Senates and governors’ offices where being developed right now are plans to use state law to demand proof of constitutional eligibility from presidential candidates before they would be allowed on the state ballot.
From Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas there already is confirmation of such plans. Arizona is likely to have the same plan, and other states are expected to be in the works as legislatures approach the dates when they will convene.
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 preparing to circulate a memo among his fellow GOP lawmakers for cosponsors for his proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility. “We aren’t sworn in until Jan. 4,” he said. “Once we’re sworn in we’ll be introducing the legislation that would require presidential candidates to prove their natural born citizenship before they are allowed to file petitions to have their name on the state ballot.” 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. He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would be effective in solving his concerns. “I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign,” he told WND.
Another state that will be in play on the issue is Georgia, where Rep. Mark Hatfield confirmed to WND that he will have a similar proposal pending. He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year’s session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.
“I do plan to reintroduce the bill,” he told WND today. “We’ll move forward with trying to get it before a committee.” In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both house of the legislature as well as “every constitutional statewide office,” he noted. “I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation],” he said.
Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements, it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot “would give voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact qualified,” he said. “My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president meets the constitutional requirements,” he said. “This is a first step in that direction.”
It was last session when the Arizona House of Representatives adopted a provision that would have required documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates, but the measure died through the inaction of the state Senate in the closing days of the session. Sponsor Rep. Judy Burges told WND at the time that her plan would be renewed this session.
WND reported just days ago on a bill prefiled for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such documentation. His effort was the first wave of a surging tide of developing questions that could be a hurdle to a second term for Obama, who escaped such demands last year when the Arizona Senate failed to act on a similar plan after the House approved it.
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.
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,” a requirement not imposed on most other federal officers. “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.
Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn’t want such basic data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be alerted to a possible problem.
“If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he’ll have to show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he’s a natural-born citizen,” he said. “This is going to be significant.” Berman said he’s convinced there are problems with Obama’s eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the information concealed.
…much more continued at WND here

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Bills in 4 States Require Birth Certificates For 2012 Election

  1. Rule of law and a Constitution are a wonderful thing… a federal lawsuit may be filed against this, however.

  2. I hope this story is accurate as reflected on its face.
    This piece of legislation would solve a multitude of issues.
    Any Opposition will have one hell of time justifying in public why such a fundmental request cannot be addressed.
    If there are no problems, there are no reason why such a requirement cannot be enacted.
    I love this story.
    Please be true.

  3. I am here in Az and it is my belief that McCain is a RINO. He only changed his stance on “some” things due to the approaching 2010 elections. I do not trust him. In fact, there are not too many politicians I do trust…unless they confess their belief in Jesus Christ Almighty and take stances against abortion and the homosexual agenda…along with a few other things.
    No, there is no religious test…but there should be. If you do what is right in the sight of God, then you will do what is right for the country as a whole.

  4. Why do we have to wait until 2012 if Obama maybe illegal now. What of all the bills and executive orders he is signing? And if Obama name was legally changed to Barry Soetoro by his stepfather and he’s signs Barack Obama are they legal? The media and government refused to force Obama to prove he is a natual born citizen before the election and what then if his oath of Office may also be invalid? Someone should be held responsible if Obama not being born in the USA is true and everyone who covered this up should go to prison including Obama.


  6. Additional fact – Barry was delivered by a c-section. So even if his birth cert is real he still not “natural born”. It’s 100% cover-up

  7. Tim the enchanter

    Question, what would happen if a state said, “Sorry Obama, but you don’t qualify for our state” ? What ramifications would come out of this (political and P/R)???

  8. Obviously, none of you really know what it takes to be a “natural born citizen” that is required to president. Even if Obama was not born in this country, he would still be a natural born citizen because his mother is a natural born citizen of this country. It is the same reason that John McCain is considered a natural born citizen even though he was born in Panama. It is the same reason that all children who are born outside of this country to American citizens are given citizenship in this country. Do you really think that with all the background checks (i.e. military, FBI, NSA, State Department, CIA, etc..) that Obama had to go through to become president, that no one found anything that would have made him ineligible. No body is that good at hiding information. Just because you don’t like the president and what he stands for does not make him ineligible. I think all of you need to look at the real reasons that you are questioning him which is probably race related. Good over the fact that we have a black president now and instead look to what we can accomplish with him. These states are waasting their time with stupid legislation when they should be trying to fiscal and economic problems that they face.

    • Blah, blah, blah….
      Just answer this one simple question, you dope:
      No amount of your sophistry can explain that away. There’s a reason why people hide and conceal and deceive.

    • Actually it appears that Karl is mislead and will have to reread natural born requirements and the neccesary age his mom would have to be to transfer citizenship to her child whose father was a subject of Great Britian if I recall, and that doesn’t even get into the subject of Indonesia and College records ect. ect. Maybe he is embarrassed because he earned a “D” in speech (pre-teleprompter) but more likely it was funding related. Also please don’t give me that racist crap since I have been married to a South Korean and a Mexican and named my daughter after a black women. I would also vote in a minute for Herman Cain because in one minute he makes more sense than in all 983 speeches put together by our unquailified (double meaning) president.


Leave a Reply

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