There has GOT to be more here than meets the eye...
I suspect the Democrat party bosses ordered their minions to remove their names so they tucked their tails between their legs and did.
Must have slithered out after the vote....spineless, ya know.
They spit on our Constitution and WE pay THEIR salaries.
I, for one, won’t forget this.
The final sentence is most encouraging.
Still, the proposal is far from dead, despite the flight of so many co-sponsors. An elections subcommittee is scheduled to take the issue up at its next meeting, which has not yet been set.
In most states the Secretary of State is the final authority over who can and cannot appear on statewide ballots.
Up to the 2008 Presidential election cycle there was no legal guidance as to what kind of proof the candidates had to submit. In 49 of the 50 states the Secretary of States received a letter form the DNC with the phrase “conditionally qualified” included. Previous copies of similar letters had similar phrases.
The 50th state, Hawaii, did not have the phrase.
So now we have a question - why did Hawaii have lower requirements than the other 49 states?
Now the various state legislatures are trying to come up with the same criteria nation wide.
Wonder why or whom forced the change in mind?
This is fascinating. I am not a “birther.” I have, however, said right along that for Obama to spend so much time and effort to keep his long form birth certificate hidden away in Hawaii, and to allow all this speculation and tumult, means that he is hiding SOMETHING he doesn’t want the world to see.
Oh, I think he was born in the US, and that he is a “citizen,” but something on that certificate isn’t what we he has lead the world to believe.
And now, this bill comes along, and is being introduced to a goodly number of State Legislatures. Why? because it MAKES SENSE. There’s no reason why candidates for national office should HAVE TO PROVE they meet the Constitutional qualifications to fill the office — including that they are a natural born citizen, by submitting a certified, official copy of their long for birth certificate.
That’s common sense! And now, more than TWENTY Legislators have ceased to SUPPORT this common sense, obviously necessary legislation?? And ALL BUT ONE are Republicans?? My response is: (1) What do the Democrats have on you? OR (2) How much did the Democrats pay you? OR (3) Why didn’t you tell us from the start you are a RINO?
This legislation should PASS — and it shouldn’t even be close. It is IRRESPONSIBLE of ANY Republicans to vote against it (and it’s simply silly to expect ANY Democrats to be responsible enough to vote for it). Folks in these members districts ought to be burning up their phone, fax and email lines pitching a fit to find out what in Sam Hill is WRONG with them!
That is a scary statement. I am hopefully the remaining lawmakers have more character and will stand up to the bad guys.
It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.
IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.
Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.
“Birther Bill and an image of second thoughts”
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/03/the-birther-bill-and-an-image-of-second-thoughts/
Others simply said they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably by the Republican leadership.
If I find out my reps for my district pussed out, their ass is grass.
Arizona might be the only state to pass a Presidential eligibility law. If they punk out, if not one state passes this law, I will be very disappointed