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?
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.