Replies

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:

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.

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?