Need Input - Draft of Eligibility Bill

butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

With SCOTUS AWOL, we need to find our own way to mitigate the vulnerabilities in our system. This isn't my forte so bear with me. I offer it as a starting point for discussion:

A PROPOSAL FOR A STATE BILL REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION

Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors resulting in a Constitutionally eligible President;

Whereas the President is the Commander-in-Chief of US military personnel, some of which swear to obey his orders and some of which swear to protect and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, which could include an ineligible or unconstitutional President who could inflict irreparable harm to both the Constitution and the nation’s security;

Whereas the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance;

Whereas the United States government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and yet judicial “standing” is denied when the interest of the entire nation is at stake rather than a particular individual or group suffering particularized harm; and

Whereas the Attorney General is the legal representation for the interests of “the people” and has judicial standing on behalf of this State and its residents,

Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:

1. The prospective candidate must complete a sworn application stating their birth date, birth place, years of US residency, and the US citizenship status of each parent at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.

2. The prospective candidate must submit evidence of the years of US residency.

3. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to ALL his/her birth documents from the Vital Records Office in his/her birth state, including any supplementary documentation and written and/or embedded transaction records for the birth record.

4. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to all citizenship records for the prospective candidate and his/her parents from the Department of State and INS.

5. The Secretary of State must procure all the records listed in 3 and 4, and directly on the application mark on a check-off list Yes or No for whether each of the following occurs: a) An amended/altered or late birth certificate. b) A birth certificate showing a birth date resulting in an age younger than 35 years as of the beginning of the Presidential term for which he/she desires to run. c) A birth certificate showing a birth place outside the United States. d) Insufficient proof of at least 14 years of US residency. e) Citizenship records showing the candidate having citizenship in another country at any time. f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth. g) Transaction records showing amendments or filing dates that do not match what is stated on the birth certificate.

6. After completing Step 5 the Secretary of State shall post on the State SOS website the application, the check-off list, and redacted copies of the documentation provided – the originals of which shall be made available for public inspection at the SOS office on request.

7. If, within 30 days of the online posting, any person files a written complaint with the Attorney General documenting reasons to dispute the veracity of the evidence presented or the way the list is checked off, the Attorney General must check Yes on item h: Check list disputed.

8. If after 30 days of the online posting every item on the check-off list is checked “No”, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.

9. If after 30 days of the online posting any item on the check-off list is checked “Yes”, then the Attorney General must file a suit with the federal judiciary contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate, with all documentation collected throughout the process submitted to the court. If all appeals are exhausted and the court has ruled that the person is eligible, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met.

Be it further resolved that if, after Step 9, the court confirms that the prospective candidate is INELIGIBLE, the Attorney General must notify by certified mail the Chairman of each national political party. If a political party nominates the ineligible candidate anyway, the Attorney General must file contempt of court charges against the Chairman of that political party.

[butterdezillion]

Does this close the vulnerabilities? Would there be Constitutional challenges to something like this? What might lawmakers object to?

[Mr. K]

Don’t forget passports, social security number (appears to come from Connecticut)

[butterdezillion]

I don’t know who all else I’m forgetting. Since SCOTUS can’t be relied on at this point it’s all the more critical that we deal with this at the state level - especially since Congress was given the memos from the CRS saying that it’s up to the states to deal with eligibility. I want to start working with states that may be possibilities for getting something passed.

I’ve tried to deal with the critical vulnerabilities we face right now, such as standing, SCOTUS refusal to define “natural born”, corrupt state bureaucracies such as in Hawaii, etc.

Let’s tweak it however we have to in order to get the best thing we can and then let’s go for it. The more honest the feedback the better. Invite anybody who cares about this - especially if they have legal expertise.

Thanks!

[butterdezillion]

Do you think passports and SS#’s should specifically be mentioned in the context of citizenship records? Is that where those would fit in?

[butterdezillion]

Ping.

[Deaf Smith]

*All Aliases...AKA Tater Salad.

[StonyBurk]

Whatever the wording the opposition will insist it is un- necessary. Or too broad/ or vague. OR some judge will claim it violates the Constitutional rights of politicians to LIE cheat or steal an election and therefore un-Constitutional.
There will be some State may agree in concept only— others
that will insist they will not be required to do what Congress ought do —while Congress-especially those members addicted to Power will refuse to ratify such a reasonable Amendment.

[butterdezillion]

Ah, good point. I forgot about that. How would a SOS be able to find out aliases, or how could that be incorporated into the process of verification? How might an alias affect eligibility? (Just trying to clear things in my mind)

[Deaf Smith]

All name changes by the Courts...adoptions, marriages, limited partnerships, incorporation, professional licenses ect.

[butterdezillion]

Maybe there should be a Whereas like this:

“Whereas the Congressional Research Service informed Congress that the states, and not Congress, have the responsibility to vet Presidential candidates...”

There were actually 2 different CRS memos that I’ve seen where they claimed this. And it’s what just about all the Congress-critters sent out to constituents.

Do you see anything in here that would be unnecessarily antagonistic or seem unreasonable or unwarranted?

Basically this just requires the SOS to collect the information and documentation, screen for potential Constitutional problems, and pass on to the courts anything that could be problematic, for the courts to interpret and apply the provisions of the Constitution to the particular case.

I was thinking about McCain, for instance. He’d get flagged because of his birthplace. The courts would then have to decide where he was born and whether the circumstances of his birth render him ineligible.

I was thinking about Jindahl, Rubio, and Schwartzneggar. Same thing with them - and this WILL inevitably come up sooner or later. The courts HAVE to decide this.

I was also thinking about Ronald Reagan, who (I’ve been told) didn’t have a birth certificate because his folks didn’t bother with it. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but in such a situation there would/could be a late birth certificate, and states have particular ways of deciding what certificates are legally probative. A court would decide that.

So basically this is just to provide a bridge between the states (that are supposed to handle elections) and the courts (that are supposed to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws). And to force the law enforcement folks (AG, SOS, courts, etc) to actually serve the needs of the people and the Constitution, without hiding behind “standing” or corruption.

[noinfringers2]

I believe it will be necessary to get some petition like this moving ASAP. I would suggest that it be finalized with the critical suggestions . The petition need not be in most refined form. Get it to WND , Canada Free Press ,etc for a million or more signatures. Take it to all three fed bodies as a citizens petition. Some day some how the voice of millions will ring out. I can’t expect the derelicts i.e. SCOTUSA to be bothered but a nerve of patriotism will be active. Changes will result.

[Bean Counter]

[noinfringers2]

What seems to be shaping up is that the first matter to deal with is to hold all public officials , including SCOUSA, to their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. I wish that in all the wording of any Constitution there was a provision that allows any person to bring action against any of those not defending the Constitution by virtue of neglect to citizens claims for address instead of dismissing citizens claim based on ‘no standing’.

[noinfringers2]

What seems to be shaping up is that the first matter to deal with is to hold all public officials , including SCOUSA, to their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. I wish that in all the wording of any Constitution there was a provision that allows any person to bring action against any of those not defending the Constitution by virtue of neglect to citizens claims for address instead of dismissing citizens claim based on ‘no standing’.

[matchgirl]

How about including that every Presidential candidate undergo a rigorous Security Background check, since it is my understanding that the President is the only offcial in any administration that hasn’t had one, or am I mistaken?

Any individual who meets the Constitutional requirements is allowed to run for President.

[Mr. K]

I would certainly include them

You have to be a citizen to get them

you can’t get them if you renounce your USA citizenship to go to an Indonesian grade school or something

If you have a fake one it needs to be shown.

[DannyTN]

Whereas the US Constitution states the requirements for Presidential eligibility and gives the federal judiciary the responsibility of interpreting and applying the Constitution but gives the individual states the responsibility of choosing Presidential electors;

Whereas the President is the Commander-in-Chief of US military personnel, some of which swear to obey his orders and some of which swear to protect and defend the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, which could include an ineligible or unconstitutional President who could inflict irreparable harm to both the Constitution and the nation’s security;

Whereas the Congressional Research Office has stated that the only security clearance given to the Commander-in-Chief is the vote of the people, who do not individually have authority to demand documentation necessary for such a security clearance; (Use the CRO wording though)

Whereas the United States government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and yet judicial “standing” is denied when the interest of the entire nation is at stake rather than a particular individual or group suffering particularized harm; and

Whereas the Attorney General is the legal representation for the interests of “the people” and has judicial standing on behalf of this State and its residents,

Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed and Constitutional eligibility is confirmed:

[Red Steel]

Overall it looks good Butter. Find state sponsor(s) to get this into a bill. :-)

[DannyTN]

My thought is that rather than have the whereas recap all the failings of the system, like the judiciary, just go directly to the problem, that nobody checks the creditials of presidential candidates. You could even point out that a green card holder was on presidential ballots in some states distracting votes from legitimate candidates. But I think I would do that as supporting information and argument for the bill, rather than put it in the bill itself. As far as the other stuff that was mentioned by others, the SSN, and passports, etc. The more you add into it, the more ojbection you will have. I'd keep it as close to the minimum to verify Natural born status and eligibility as you could.

I liked that your's requires approval for all birth certificate records, that resolves getting the long form. What it doesn't do, and what none of the other legislation that I have seen does, is actually define what documents are acceptable or what Natural born citizenship means.

The Hawaiian short form shouldn't be considered evidence since it's not even acceptable to other government agencies. Without guidance as to what "Natural Born" means, state election officials may treat it as synonymous with citizenship. But at least your law, collects the necessary information and provides a method for a challenge.

[butterdezillion]

I thought of that but I wasn’t sure how that would work. For instance, Barack Obama couldn’t have passed even the most lax background check in the military just because of his past and continuing friendship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. If a state required a background check and they found terrorist connections like that, would the intelligence agency come out publicly and say he couldn’t run for office because he has suspicious connections?

It seems crazy that somebody can get control of the nuclear football without any kind of security check, but it’s also scary if the spooks could drum up dirt on somebody and blacklist them from becoming POTUS also. Like somebody might do on Sarah Palin, for instance - who quit the governorship because of crazy stuff people were drumming up on her.

So things get a bit tricky when you need somebody to protect the national interest but don’t dare give them a blank check either because it could be devastating in the power of corrupt people. Like Janet Napolitano, who can do anything to us that she wants in the name of protecting us but still acts deaf and dumb to the threat by real terrorists. It’s such a fine balance between protection and tyrannical power.

I think that’s where the free press is supposed to come in. It could be oppressive for government to forbid somebody to run for POTUS because they are good friends with terrorists, but those connections should absolutely be explored by the free press, and people should know that if they don’t vet the candidate, nobody will since nobody is authorized to do so.