[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!

[Deaf Smith]

*All Aliases...AKA Tater Salad.

[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’.

[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. :-)