Skip to comments.Eligibility Bills Draft
Posted on 01/07/2011 8:52:56 AM PST by butterdezillion
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 candidates 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 persons 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.
c) A birth certificate showing a birth place outside the United States.
d) Insufficient proof of at least 14 years of US residency.
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 candidates 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.
h) Checklist disputed within 30 days of public posting
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:
1. initiate the suit,
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,
4. present to the Supreme Court the documentation collected by the SOS, and
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 candidates 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.
This is a draft of 2 companion bills, based on feedback I've received regarding Constitutional issues. The intent is that the documentation bill would remain in effect even if the "procedures for verification" bill was challenged on Constitutional grounds.
The goal is to have the procedures bill challenged on Constitutional grounds because of the exclusion of candidates from the ballot if they don't have 2 citizen parents. This would force the courts to address the definition of "natural born citizen".
If the courts would rule that 2 citizen parents are not required, the law would have to be amended to comply with the court definition of NBC.
Please ping to any lawyers you know here on FR so I can get as much feedback as possible on these bills. In order for this issue to be addressed in time for the 2012 presidential election we need to start working with state legislatures now. Thanks!
Orly Taitz am one lawyure.
Have a severability clause where if a part is ruled against, the rest of it still remains valid.
Its too long.
It will never happen.
Condense it into two sentences.
People are stupid and lazy.
Sigh. The link to a more readable version: http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/eligibility-bill-draft-4-pair-of-bills.pdf
Any input/feedback by lawyers would be greatly appreciated. This is bigger than any personalities or agendas; we need to get this right, and I can’t do it alone. I need the expertise of others who care about the Constitution.
If I’ve pinged you it’s because I think you care. My apologies if this isn’t your cup of tea.
If I haven’t pinged you it’s because my mind is full of lots of details and I can’t even remember what I did yesterday. lol. My apologies for anybody I forgot; I know I’m forgetting tons of you, including tons who I greatly value and just can’t think of. Anybody you can ping who might have valuable input would be greatly appreciated.
We’re finally at an actionable point; this can make a huge difference. Let’s do what we can and make this happen.
That’s the term I couldn’t remember. Can you give me an example of a severability clause?
It can’t be condensed into 2 sentences. If we’re too lazy to do what has to be done then we deserve the results we get for being lazy.
The only way I could see it being condensed is if it said that the SOS was required to follow Rules X and Y, and then X and Y of the rules include all these specifics. No matter how you slice it, if we’re going to have a system that closes the loopholes we have to have the words that specifically close those loopholes.
That’s the way I see it, but if somebody can give me an example that would work using only 2 sentences, I would gladly scrap this whole thing and use something else. So if somebody can think of something, let me know.
I should say also that this actually covers a lot more of the troubles we have with lawlessness right now than just the loopholes in the eligibility verification. There’s a lot in this, that the words don’t necessarily say.
I’m no lawyer; but, I don’t think we have time before 2012 to discern what ‘natural born citizen’ means, as far as where the parents come from etc.
I think any bill should be simple. For Senate and Presidential candidates, proof of age must be provided to SOS. For presidential candidates, proof of location of birth must be provided.
BTW, if anybody knows any 25 y/o illegal immigrants who want to run for president, I’m all for it. After all, it seems like NOBODY has the authority to check on these things.
If one or two states pass these requirements,
Barky will suddenly decide one term is enough.
Not trying to pick a fight at all. All we need is one state to pass this rule.
The problem is in the details. People will not take the time to understand this.
For example, the entire basis of common law was condensed into 3 of the ten commandments: Dont Kill, Dont Steal, Don’t lie.
I know we do not have God’s speechwriter, but simple is always better.
I believe that the State of Hawaii is preparing a forged long-form for Obama even as we speak. I think that’s why Abercrombie brought this all up again. The only way we would know if they did such a thing is if we have a way to verify the provenance of the documents submitted, which this proposed bill addresses.
We also know that Obama’s passport records have been tampered with. Somebody in John Brennan’s company specifically disabled the security protocols 3 different times just in time to allow 3 breaches of Obama’s passport records. For that, Brennan was rewarded by being appointed National Security Chief in Obama’s administration.
We also know that the Selective Service Administration forged a draft registration for Obama - and accidentally forgot that the automatic date stamp would stamp it with ‘08 rather than with ‘80.
So we are not only fighting the lack of a procedure for verification, we are also fighting government bureaucrats that have documentably forged documents.
That lawlessness also needs to be addressed, and bills like these would be the first shot across the bow to let bureaucrats know that the states will protect themselves from corrupt enclaves in the states or in the federal government. They will protect themselves from that gangrene with the antiseptic of exposure.
I believe they are working on a forgery.
But they also know that if they present it,
they’re “all in”.
If it’s not absolutely PERFECT,
they’ve exposed themselves as frauds.
No offense taken. I know that simpler is better. I just don’t know any simpler way to accomplish what needs to be done, given the lawlessness that Obama’s case has revealed.
Here are some of the challenges I tried to address in these bills:
1. Corrupt bureaucrats who have forged documents, broken state laws, and violated the Federal General False Statement Act but cannot be held accountable because state and federal law enforcement looks the other way.
2. State officials who refuse to obey general statements. That’s how Roger Calero got on the NJ ballot even though the NJ SOS was required to verify eligibility. Simple language is ignored. Soros knows that can always be done, which is why he is pushing for communist SOS’s.
3. Courts which deny the people justice (usually by denying “standing”) when government officials violate the rules and laws.
4. Lawyers who use procedural tap-dancing to evade critical judgments, and a judicial system that is so complicated that the only people who can maneuver within it are the people who make their living from playing games with justice.
There’s more, too, but that’s a start.
We have to realize that we’re dealing with the fallout right now from having a US Senate and House which ignore whatever laws and rules they don’t want to follow. They can do that because the laws don’t specifically state how the law will be enforced, or who has standing to sue for violations. A law that isn’t enforced doesn’t exist, for all practical purposes. So we have to establish a method of accountability also, which takes words to do.
Saving the nation is a complicated job. If nobody is up to the task of taking the time to do it then the nation will die from its own apathy. I want this to be as easy as possible, but it’s just not an easy or quick job to clean up a system that is this messed up.
...but there is the issue of sequential serial numbers and date/times so it fits in with existing long forms ...like the Nordyke twins...
They’ve already been exposed as frauds. But there is no legal avenue for that to make any difference, as long as we’ve got politicians that can’t be sued by the people - since the “enforcers” of the law are appointed and/or supported by their political cronies.
Until the people are able to be inserted into the process of enforcing the laws, there will be no justice or integrity from any of the system. We could all know the emperor is naked and as long as the “experts” or enforcers won’t touch it, nothing will be done about it.
And that impacts far more than just the eligibility issue as well. The American public has spoken through elections but between elections we have no way to hold the DC Cesspool accountable to obey the laws that have been passed. That is the flaw we HAVE to overcome, if this Republic is to have any hope of surviving the attacks of both Islamists and communists from within this country.
Thanks, you keep reminding me of that...
Doesn't matter. A born British subject can not be our President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
The HDOH is already claiming they don’t have birth records for a person whose BC# could well be the one used on the Factcheck COLB forgery.
That person’s name is in their birth and death index for 1960-64, was buried in a National Cemetery which would have required a birth certificate, and had death announcements in both Hawaii papers.... and yet the HDOH claims they have no birth record for her.
What did they do with that record? If they don’t have to have a birth record for her, that leaves a spot wide open for Obama to be inserted. They could make a whole new long-form for Obama and insert it in place of what they had for that little girl, with numbers and dates all in order. And the only way we would know any better is if those electronic records were audited so it was known exactly what happened. That’s why something like these bills would be essential.
I do have to say that the Factcheck forgery will bite them in the butt, regardless, because it has the “date filed” out of order with the BC# - but only if we have a legal avenue for that to make any difference. We already know that the BC# and/or date filed on any forged long-form they come up with will either disagree with Factcheck, or else will be out of sequence. We just don’t have any way for that to make a legal difference yet.
And just requiring a long-form to be disclosed won’t cause something like that to make a difference, unless the SOS is required to care whether the document presented is a forgery or not.
Again, that’s why something like this set of companion bills would be critical.
Right, but only if the court is forced to rule on that, and candidates are required to be held to that standard. So we have to create a situation where standing can’t be denied.
If we passed a law that denied placement on the ballot for a candidate who didn’t have 2 citizen parents at the time of the candidate’s birth, the courts would have to rule on whether that law was Constitutional. There would automatically be standing for the case to be heard and decided on the merits.
Until we have a functional definition of NBC there’s really not even much way that a state SOS even CAN know how to uphold Article II. So we HAVE to do something to get the court to define it. The states could easily do that, if they have the courage to do what must be done.
I believe that what is really needed is a Constitutional Amendment that clearly defines ‘Natural Born’ and states that the Supreme Court confirms eligibility.
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.