Mmmm, ping butter...
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
One of the reasons to leave the 2-citizen part in there is because that interpretation of NBC would then be subject to court review. The court would have to decide the issue, which is what Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s lawsuits were intended to address. This law would just create a situation where there is standing for the issue to be addressed on its merits.
Either side of the 2-citizen argument could be afraid of what the outcome might be, or argue about what it should be. But ultimately the country needs a decision on it. If the decision is not what a particular person wanted then that person can try to amend the Constitution to correct the definition. But we have to have a functional definition before the SOS’s can realistically enforce the requirement. That is the first step to resolving this issue for now or in future elections.
And the issue is all the more relevant because we have a spate of potential Presidential candidates who will bring up these questions. We should have that resolved when it is a hypothetical question rather than when it is a ruling on a particular individual.
That resolution certainly seems to accept the idea that 2 citizen parents are required. I guess Leahy must be racist, huh? lol
Do the lawyers among us see any problem with the AG being given the “role of defending both the candidate and the public interest as stated by the Constitution”?
Would there be any reason a state AG would balk at having his/her job pretty much defined as initiating the suit, collecting and presenting to the court the amicus briefs (including one of his/her own if so desired) and the evidence, and conducting and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any of the records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs?
Is there anything that would prohibit a law from designating the duties of the AG in these matters?
Would there be any problem with the AG not being given the job of conducting all kinds of procedural motions, but just with simply presenting the evidence and arguments and letting the court decide the case? I suppose the candidate could file his/her own suit and do the legal tap-dancing but that wouldn’t stop this suit which is based only on evidence and arguments.
If the AG’s role is as described, would the costs to the state for implementing this be less?
There’s that tension between the states each seemingly able to come up with their own definition in the practical implementation of a presidential election, and the Constitution requiring that it be interpreted by the federal judiciary.
I think the way it has to play out is by a state or states coming up with procedures that implement a certain understanding, and then the federal judiciary ruling on the Constitutionality of it. I think that’s about the only way that both provisions of the Constitution can be met.
Should have been “conducting AN INVESTIGATION and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs.”
The funny thing is Obama was a “sponsor” of the resolution, and signed it.
So Barack Obama is also be of the opinion that two citizen parents are required.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone!!!!!!
lol. I feel like I’ve been in the Twilight Zone long enough to meet its residency requirement to be President there.
But I’m not a natural born citizen of the place so I won’t even try to run. lol
On a separate track, do you think that an elector, once chosen, would have standing to compel document production?
I would think that if an elector is required to vote for an eligible candidate they would have standing to compel documentation at any time.
If we can get laws passed that keep that from being necessary it would definitely be good.
Mmmm, ping butter...
>You realize you pinged two SP’s aka FINOs???
>
>That creates a chain reaction!!!
Questions:
1) What do you mean by “SP’S”?
—I am assuming that you do not mean Shore Patrol, which as I understand is the Navy-equivalent of MP.
2) What is a FINO?
3) Considering that you said there were two of these, and there were only four in the ‘To’ field, the chance you are referring to me is .50; were you referring to me?
As I set out in a mail to you, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to prescribe the manner in which electors are chosen so that a state legislature can prescribe that electors must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution including assuring that candidates meet constitutional requirements and the manner in which they can obtain the assurances that the candidate does in fact meet the qualifications.
Do you think that the requirements at the state level have to involve the electors personally in order to be Constitutional, or do you think the state can also determine which names can be on the ballot for prospective electors to vote for in the electoral vote?
Are you suggesting that dealing with the electors themselves is the best way to deal with this Constitutionally, or the only way, or something else?
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
I’m looking at the Constitution and seeing that the only thing in there about the states’ role in the Presidential/VP election is this, in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust of Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Would it be necessary, then, to Constitutionally justify any legislation regarding Presidential/VP elections by clearly saying how the law implements the “appointment” of electors?
And if so, the law would need to specifically say that the law requires electors to swear to uphold the Constitution by only voting for eligible candidates, as determined through a specific process.... (and then the law describes the process for determining eligibility)?
Am I understanding where you’re coming from on this? Are the electors the necessary connection between the state legislature and the Constitution?
“Site Pests” and “Freeper In Name Only,” like RINOs!!!
OK???
Got you, then you need as many of them you can catch, LOL!!!
Thank you.
>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.
Possible 2 Sentence suggestion:
No person who does not meet the United States Constitution Article 2, Section 1 qualification for President shall be listed under this state’s ballot as candidate for either President or Vice President. The Secretary of State shall confirm such qualification prior to listing and shall provide [redacted] copies of the verifying documents to any Citizen who shall requests them.
Speaking of running, I think you should run for an office. You’re the kind of citizen that should be “serving” the people because you actually would. Don’t worry about not being a lawyer, they’re too many of those in office already! Run on this issue for starters.
(I am definitely not kidding.)
That’s another one where it seems like it would be a no-brainer, but in Nebraska, for instance, the only document required to get a candidate on the ballot is the Certification of Nomination from the national party (RNC or DNC). So if that law was passed in Nebraska, John Gale would disclose to anybody who asked a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s Certification of Nomination, on which she perjured herself by saying that Obama was the “duly chosen” candidate of the DNC, which is supposed to mean that he’s Constitutionally eligible. It doesn’t mean that, but unless there were other specific verifying documents, that is the document they would say would fulfill that law’s requirement.
It gets back to the NJ SOS issue, where she was required by law to verify Constitutional eligibility and just didn’t think any documents were necessary. That was perfectly fine with the courts. The law didn’t say which documents she had to look at so none was fine; she could have done it by psychic analysis and it would have met the letter of that law.
And in Ohio, the SOS was required to locate ineligible voters. BUT because the law didn’t specifically say she had to show the list to anybody, she didn’t. Again, the courts were fine with that - although I think they hid behind the “standing” issue again.
Those are the kinds of shenanigans that an SOS can get away with, which is why George Soros is concentrating on getting SOS positions filled with communists who will not hesitate to break the laws with a smile.
When I spoke with Nebraska SOS John Gale in the middle of all this he said that if the candidate signs a statement saying they are Constitutionally eligible that’s all anybody needs to see. The media would never let a politician get away with lying.
That conversation that I had with him plays heavily into why I tend to be more exact and specific in the requirements. From what I’ve seen we simply cannot trust bureaucrats even with no-brainer mandates. If it’s not spelled out exactly, with penalties if they don’t obey, it may as well not be law at all. That’s based on what I’ve seen and experienced from the bureaucrats.
What I’m proposing has as much to do with holding bureaucrats accountable as it has to do with presidential eligibility. I’m not sure that the two can be separated, after what I’ve seen.
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.