Eligibility Bills Draft

These are 2 companion bills I would propose for states to pass before the 2012 election. I'm looking for feedback, please.

A BILL TO REQUIRE LEGAL DOCUMENTATION OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

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 resulting in a Constitutionally eligible President;

Whereas 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; and

Whereas the Congressional Research Service has concluded that “there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election. The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law.” Therefore be it resolved that the name of a candidate for US President or Vice President may not be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State unless and until the following steps have been completed:

1. The prospective candidate must complete a sworn application stating their birth date, birth place, years of US residency, and the US citizenship status of each parent at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.

2. The prospective candidate must submit evidence of the years they have been a US resident.

3. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to have access to certified copies of ALL his/her birth documents from the Vital Records Office in his/her birth state, including any supplementary documentation and all written and embedded transaction records for the birth record.

4. The prospective candidate must sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to receive certified copies of all citizenship records for the prospective candidate and his/her parents from the Department of State and INS, including all written and embedded transaction records for those citizenship records.

5. The Secretary of State must procure certified copies of all the records listed in 3 and 4 and post on the State SOS website scans of the application and documentation provided, redacted in accordance with state and FOIA disclosure laws and stamped in red across the irrelevant text of each page “FOR NEBRASKA STATE USE ONLY”. Originals with confidential information redacted must be displayed for public viewing on request.

A BILL TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR VERIFYING PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY Whereas the Constitution gives states the responsibility of conducting presidential elections,

Whereas the Congressional Research Service has counseled Congress that “there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election. The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law”,

Whereas Article II of the US Constitution says “ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Consitutiton, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”, and

Whereas Amendment XII of the US Constitution says, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”,

Therefore be it resolved that the following procedure for verifying eligibility must be completed before a candidate for President or Vice President will be placed on a primary or general election ballot in this State:

1. After completing the requirements in Bill 1, the Secretary of State shall review the documentation required by Bill 1 and complete an Eligibility Chart for each prospective Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, checking off “Yes” or “No” for whether each of the following occurs in that person’s documentation:

a) An amended/altered or late birth certificate that does not qualify as prima facie evidence according to the laws and/or rules of the originating state.

b) A birth certificate showing a birth date resulting in an age younger than 35 years as of the beginning of the Presidential term for which he/she desires to run.

e) Citizenship records showing the candidate having citizenship in another country at any time.

f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.

g) Transaction records showing amendments or filing dates that do not match what is stated on the birth certificate or citizenship records, or that lack documentary authority for the changes.

2. After completing Step 1 the Secretary of State shall post on the State SOS website the check-off list for each candidate.

3. If, within 30 days of the online posting, any person files a written complaint with the Attorney General documenting reasons to dispute the veracity of the evidence presented or the way the list is checked off, the Attorney General must check Yes on item h: Check list disputed.

4. If after 30 days of the online posting every item on the check-off list is checked “No”, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other State ballot requirements are met.

5. If after 30 days of the online posting any item on the check-off list is checked “Yes”, then

a) the SOS must inform the candidate by certified mail within 5 business days that his/her name is not allowed to appear on the ballot.

b) The Attorney General shall publicly announce and file an expedited lawsuit with the State Supreme Court on behalf of the candidate. The AG, in the role of defending both the candidate and the public interest as stated by the Constitution, shall:

2. collect and present to the State Supreme Court any amicus briefs, if any, from any attorney representing the candidate and from the public either in support of or opposing the eligibility of the candidate,

3. present his/her own arguments, if any, either for or against the eligibility of the candidate,

5. conduct and present the findings of an investigation if the embedded and/or written transaction logs indicate possible corruption of any records as indicated by a “Yes” on item g of the Checklist.

6. Appeal the State Supreme Court decision to the United States Supreme Court, unless the candidate has been ruled ineligible and requests that an appeal not be made.

c) If all appeals at the State level and/or United States Supreme Court level are exhausted and the court has ruled that the person is eligible, eligibility is confirmed and the name will be placed on the ballot if all other requirements are met. If the court rules the person ineligible the name shall not be placed on the ballot.

If the above steps through 5c are not completed by the deadline set for printing of the ballots – which shall be clearly posted on the SOS website at all times - the candidate’s name shall not be printed on the ballot.

Be it further resolved that if, in Step 5, the court after all appeals confirms that the prospective candidate is INELIGIBLE, the Attorney General must notify by certified mail the Chairman of each national political party. If a political party nominates the ineligible candidate anyway, the Attorney General must file contempt of court charges against the Chairman of that political party.

And be it further resolved that any resident of this State shall have judicial standing on behalf of the people, with the public allowed to file amicus briefs, to sue the Attorney General or Secretary of State for any infractions of this statute, and to receive correction of any errors before the ballots are printed for the election in question.

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.

If you want an honest opinion, I think it's a little overly complicated.

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.

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?

In law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. Sometimes, severability clauses will state that some provisions to the contract are so essential to the contract's purpose that if they are illegal or unenforceable, the contract as a whole will be voided. However, in many legal jurisdictions, a severability clause will not be applied if it changes the fundamental nature of the contract, and that instead the contract will be void; thus, often this is not explicitly stated in the severability clause.

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.

Having a less-than-complimentary opinion about Taitz makes me an ass?

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?

1. f) Citizenship records showing one or more parent not having US citizenship at the time of the prospective candidate’s birth.

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.

The only quibble I have is with the "citizenship of the parents" part.

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.