Posted on 01/07/2011 8:52:56 AM PST by butterdezillion
In the polarized climate we have now I don’t think we’ll ever get another Constitutional Amendment ratified.
And unless the SCOTUS would take it on themselves to see whether the records presented to them had been forged by the state or federal bureaucrats, we’d still have a situation where lawlessness would win the day.
As we speak, the Hawaii DOH already knows that the records they have for Obama are legally invalid. Fukino made a statement that she has personally seen the “vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii” - never letting anybody know that the records she saw were legally invalid.
When government bureaucrats are willing to do that - or even to forge a draft registration for Obama - or to allow security protocols to be specifically disabled in order to allow Obama’s passport records to be altered - the SCOTUS can’t even count on the documents it receives from state and federal agencies unless the provenance of the documents is under scrutiny as well.
So we’ve got a big mess, and SOMEHOW we have to make the state and federal agencies subject to scrutiny.
In addition, the courts have totally abdicated their role in all of this, so the only kind of scrutiny we can depend on is PUBLIC scrutiny.
Your first bill seems basically okay up through item #3. I think Item #4 is unnecessary. It's paranoid based on some of the more extreme fantasies about Obama and is almost certain to run into any number of odd legal problems in execution. You can try Item #5 if you want, but that could run into problems as well. At some point, you should be willing to trust your public officials to do the job assigned to them. I would guess that Items #4 and #5 would also make passage in your legislature more difficult.
You don't need two bills. The pertinent parts of your second should just follow your list of numbered items.
Your checklist becomes needlessly convoluted. It should simplify to something like this:
“The Secretary of State shall review the documentation provided to verify:
(a) Birth records document (i)age of 35 or greater; (ii) birth in the United States or conformance to legal requirements for citizenship with birth outside the United States; and (iii) birth to two citizen parents;
(b) Supplemental information provided documents residency in the United States for at least 14 years; and
(c) No information provided indicates loss of United States citizenship at any time.”
Now, I will caution you that going the two citizen parent route may well preclude seeing the information you want in Item 5 even if this passes the legislature. The bill will be sued for adding an additional eligibility requirement to the Constitution. The two citizen requirement, and perhaps the entire bill, will be overturned in Federal Court and that determination will be upheld all the way through the Supreme Court. I know you don't believe that, but it's about as certain as anything in human affairs can be. Of course, if you do want a court determination of that, then keep the two citizen parent stuff.
You continue to demonstrate you’re an unmitigated ass.
Having a less-than-complimentary opinion about Taitz makes me an ass?
Thanks for responding. I definitely want an honest opinion, and am thankful for any honest opinion I get.
The first bill only makes consent for access to the records a requirement before the candidate can be placed on the ballot. It doesn’t say anything about eligibility requirements.
On what grounds would the first bill be Constitutionally challenged?
Somebody mentioned a severability clause. Do you know how that would work?
Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.
Example:
If a provision of this bill is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, that shall not affect:
1. the validity or enforceability in that jurisdiction of any other provision of this bill; or
2. the validity or enforceability in other jurisdictions of that or any other provision of this bill.
Cool. And thanks.
So if those provisions were added, would that mean that even if the 2-citizen-parent part or any of the documentation which is required based on the relevance of having 2 citizen parents was declared unconstitutional, the rest of the bill would remain in effect?
If so, that’s exactly what is needed.
No, being a Liar makes you an a$$
Many folks, looking for ammo go there and see the “banned”
page, and commence to dance upon my grave. Then when
they discover they have been tricked and look like a
fool, they get wonderfully angry. Serves them right.
So you lie, just to infuriate people?
Ping
Cute, is that a self-portrait?
You realize you pinged two SP’s aka FINOs???
That creates a chain reaction!!!
First impression is that this, or something like it, is a particularly good provision. TOC’s recommendations in #22 makes some sense, but you would do well to enlist the assistance of a Nebraska legislator (and their aides) in preparing the final draft.
The states truly should be the party that defines the Constitutional concept of NBC, not a gang of liberal, politically-appointed judges. The states can do that initially as a defendant, or later via amendment. This provision, if in place, places the burden of proving that NBC allows for a foreign born parent on the proponents; that should be difficult.
The question, of course, is what result if the states have inconsistent views of the issue? In such event, it would seem at least that the question would be presented to the USSC in an optimal form.
Try this.
Whereas Article II of the US Constitution states/requires “ No person except a natural born Citizen,————”
Whereas Amendment XII of the US Constitution states/requires “But no person-———————”
Therefore be it resolved that any person as a candidate seeking to occupy these offices shall/must have presented for public review by means of common information together with filing for the above given offices the following facts which shall be subject to official and public verification and challenge.
1) Fact that the candidate was born on USA soil.
2) Fact that both birth parents of the candidate were citizens of the USA at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Be it further Resolved that no candidate for the offices noted above shall be acclaimed to hold such office without satisfying Facts 1 and 2.
Try this.
Whereas Article II of the US Constitution states/requires “ No person except a natural born Citizen,————”
Whereas Amendment XII of the US Constitution states/requires “But no person-———————”
Therefore be it resolved that any person as a candidate seeking to occupy these offices shall/must have presented for public review by means of common information together with filing for the above given offices the following facts which shall be subject to official and public verification and challenge.
1) Fact that the candidate was born on USA soil.
2) Fact that both birth parents of the candidate were citizens of the USA at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Be it further Resolved that no candidate for the offices noted above shall be acclaimed to hold such office without satisfying Facts 1 and 2.
I am thoroughly convinced (personally) that being born with dual citizenship rules out NBC status.
But most people are not convinced, and there is no statute or case law to resolve the issue. Therefore, your statute can be construed (rightly) as an attack on BHO's individual circumstances, rather than a tool of general application.
I think the solution is either to define NBC in the U.S. Code by statute, or remove the parental clause from your proposed statute.
They may have arguments similar to Eric Holder’s DOJ. Not in a million years could I think like Eric Holder, but in order to not overlook any argument Holder might make, I need the input of somebody who CAN think like him. I’d rather have those arguments pointed out now rather than after the time and money has been spent on trying to get something effective. If we can head off trouble, that’s what we need to do.
In that same vein, it would be helpful if people who are good at sarcasm brainstorm the silliest, most sarcastic arguments they can come up with, so the legal experts can see if there’s any argument we might be overlooking. This DOJ is capable of ANYTHING.
I’m thinking about what happened in NJ, where Roger Calero was placed on the ballot even though the SOS was required by law to verify Constitutional eligibility. The SOS claimed to have done that, even though she never checked any documentation, because the law didn’t specifically require her to look at any specific form of documentation. And the courts let her get away with it.
That’s the challenge. I’m looking at all the court cases, requests for investigation, etc that should have been no-brainers and yet failed to get the action necessary. If the requirement isn’t spelled out in minute detail the SOS’s (that Soros is working hard to get in place) can just ignore it and nobody can do anything about it.
That’s where the verbosity is coming from - from the laws already existing that haven’t been effective.
I hope others will chime in on this as well, because I do realize that we have to have something that state legislators will be comfortable accepting. They prefer simple, I know. But it can’t be so simple that it just parrots what we already have. I don’t know if what you’ve presented is too simple or not, so I hope others will chime in as well.
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.