Need Input - Draft of Eligibility Bill

Do you think the parts you struck out are extraneous and/or distracting or could otherwise cause resistance against a bill like this?

One of the things I struggled with was the feeling that folks would think these requirements are overkill, so I wanted to try to address that in the whereas part. Do you think people would understand the importance of the measures? The basic idea of these requirements is that a state could confirm eligibility in very straightforward cases, but if there were any wrinkles involving the definition of “natural born citizen” the Constitution gives the responsibility of interpreting to the courts so there has to be a legal bridge for the state to defer to the judiciary.

And based on the fiasco we’ve all observed there has to be a way for the people to force the AG to represent them; it can’t just be left to political discretion because that is precisely the unaccountable crap that has gotten us where we are today.

I don’t know. Maybe there doesn’t need to be anything to explain the vulnerabilities that need to be closed.

The CRS didn’t really talk about security clearances, but did say that the states are responsible for handling eligibility issues.

It is a common misperception that elected officials go through a security check before they are given critical responsibilities but my understanding is that they don’t. That’s based on what people who have had high-level security clearances have told me. Probably would be good to have more solid documentation on that. I wonder if somebody could help me on that. Where would I get definite confirmation of that?

Should add to have the applicant include on the application their full legal name and any previous names used - and then require all birth and citizenship documentation filed under any of those names.

There may not be any Indonesian citizenship records for Barack Hussein Obama II but there may well be for Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah (or however that was spelled). Of course, the applicant could just lie, like Obama did when he told the Bar that he had used no other name.

Knowing previous names would also be important for somebody like Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro/Sutoro, who used a different combination of initials and names every day of the week practically - because citizenship records could have been stored under any of those names.

And the maiden/married names for women candidates or for the mom of the candidate (to determine whether the mother was a US citizen when the candidate was born) would also be needed to get to the right documentation.

So I think you’re right; knowing all the names involved would be important.

I wonder what timelines are involved for legislatures introducing bills and for petitioners filing to have a referendum on a ballot.

What I really need is some legal eagles who know how this stuff works, as well as an “in” with strategic people at the state level in states with good potential for passing a bill like this.

Yeah, we have to have a definition for “natural born citizen” before anybody can actually determine whether any specific individual qualifies as one. And this is going to come up; already there is talk about Jindahl and Rubio, and their eligibility would have to be resolved as well.

Somebody had suggested that a bill actually define the term, which would probably be challenged in the courts forcing the courts to rule on the definition. But it would also probably get the law thrown out, which would put us back to square one on requiring that eligibility be verified at the state level.

You brought up something else that I wanted some direction on also: how to go about “selling” this kind of bill to legislators. Everything that’s in this draft is a result of the crap that’s gone on. I tried my best to come up with easy, concrete ways to eliminate the possibility of corrupt bureaucrats messing with the documents, for instance, because the HDOH has been incredibly corrupt in all this. I tried to come up with language that would force both the SOS and the AG to take the concerns of “we the people” seriously and translate it into “standing” in the courts. Etc. I just wonder how much of all that history would be helpful for legislators to know as they consider whether a bill like this is necessary.

You’re probably right that the rationale or “selling points” might not need to be in the bill itself.

You don’t ask much, do you? lol.

I do have my eye on a couple states that look hopeful. I’m not sure how to go about approaching the leaders though, and especially since I’m not in their state and I’m a lowly housewife. I wish I had some big guns to stand with me.

Do you know any big guns?

"Somebody had suggested that a bill actually define the term, which would probably be challenged in the courts forcing the courts to rule on the definition. But it would also probably get the law thrown out, which would put us back to square one on requiring that eligibility be verified at the state level."

You could put a severability clause in the bill that states that the eligibility process would remain in tact, in the event that the courts determine the original intent of "natural born" is different than the definition of the bill. The process would then confirm that the court's definition is met.

"I wanted some direction on also: how to go about “selling” this kind of bill to legislators. "

I think the Congressional Research Office document stating that nobody checks credentials is key. Sticking with the basic problem, that nobody checks credentials and that document gives that credibility.
I think keeping it from appearing to be a personal attack on an individual ("Obama") is also key. Bring up the Green card guy that has been getting votes for I believe 2 elections now. I would think most legislators would agree that a green card holder shouldn't ever be getting on a presidential ballot.
I wouldn't bring up Obama in isolation. I'd mention McCain, the Greencard guy. The Guy that California blocked, any history of elibility issues, especially those that weren't resolved prior to the balloting process.

"Do you think the parts you struck out are extraneous and/or distracting or could otherwise cause resistance against a bill like this?"

Yes which is why I struck them out. If it's perceived as an attack on the Judiciary for failing to do their job, then legislators with friends in the Judiciary might balk.

I think you need to have as an external argument, why the courts aren't the solution. And there you can recap the difficulty people have had with getting thrown out before the election and then being told it's too late after the election.

I think another external argument is that Congress is not going to ever want to initiate a review of the credentials of a viable Presidential Candidate, because he already has significant popular support and such a move will anger that portion of a legislator's base. But a predefined process that occurs before a candidate is placed on a ballot is neutral, and doesn't require action by congress that would anger constituents.

Do you know any big guns?

I do have my eye on a couple states that look hopeful.

Personally no. Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt ("Birther") would be a good bet to send your proposed state bill, although, his term ends in January. He lost to Moran in the Kansas Senate (R) primary. Nonetheless, he could point you in the right direction on who would be receptive in Kansas. Repub Sam Browback will become the new Kansas governor so any presidential eligibility bill should get signed if it hits his desk. Remind the state reps and senators that are contacted of the presidential ballot legislation in Arizona and Texas, et al. It's a team effort. ;-)

Nebraska appears to be a state that also would be receptive to a new presidential eligibility statute; new Repub governor. There should be a "Birther" in the new 2011 state rep crowd. :-)

Did you just call me a female dog? lol

Serves me right. I’m definitely stubborn, whether that’s good or bad. The HDOH sure didn’t seem to like it much. lol

Thanks for dropping the name. Between that and the Tea Party maybe I can find an “in”.

The crux of the proposal is to require consent from the applicant, allowing the SOS to collect the documentation and flag potential problems, which are then required to become part of a lawsuit so the courts have to decide the issue. The legal snag that I need to check out is whether an AG can file a pre-emptive lawsuit, such as one “contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate”.

If not, then I’m wondering how it would work to require the SOS to deny placement on the ballot and then require the AG to file a lawsuit on behalf of the prospective candidate - so there is automatically a lawsuit to find out whether the person is eligible but there would be no doubt that the AG’s lawsuit is within the provisions of the law.

Of course, that would only work if a state AG can file suit against that state’s SOS. lol. Do you (or anybody else) have any idea if there would be any legal problem with that?

Reading about Anderson Cooper’s resistance to something as no-brainer as Texas’ proposed law, I do realize that if a state tried to pass a law like this they would get hit by the media. BUT that could provide a great opportunity for interviews, and if lawmakers were aware of why these measures are so necessary, it could be a very educational experience for the entire country.

Reading about Anderson Cooper’s resistance to something as no-brainer as Texas’ proposed law, I do realize that if a state tried to pass a law like this they would get hit by the media.

Yes, and if a dozen states or more have "Birther" legislation, Cooper is going to be look'n stupid opposing the no-brainers even to some of his brain-dead audience.

The legal snag that I need to check out is whether an AG can file a pre-emptive lawsuit, such as one “contesting the eligibility of the prospective candidate”.

Yeah, state laws pertaining to state ballot eligibility should be reviewed.

One thing about Kansas, too. The Hutch News is a paper that got nationwide notice when they retracted their endorsement of a candidate because they said he was a “birther”. But I have the documentation showing that the editor of The Hutch News knew he was printing factually incorrect information and refused to correct it or allow me to correct it in an editorial.

If I was The Hutch News I would tread very carefully, because printing what you know to be false on a matter of federal jurisdiction is a federal crime.

One of the beauties of the “birther” issue is that just about every piece of infrastructure that the communists have been using to destroy this country and get us into the big mess we’re in - not just about eligibility, but about everything - has been utilized in perpetrating this fraud. That means that if we take on this issue we get to hit ALL the corruption right in the gut. It took ALL the infrastructure corruption to pull off this coup, and one by one we can expose them for what they are, and work towards restoring integrity to the systems the communists have seized over the last 50 years.

So if we address the eligibility issue we will also be taking on the media helmet to helmet. I say bring it. I just hope some of the elected folks are willing to say the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.