Replies

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.

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?

I have the same critique that I had when I first saw your proposed bill a week or so ago and gave you my thoughts then, so I will not repeat which was previously discussed in detail. I honestly think you trying to bite off more than can be chewed and that if you have a chance of any of this proposal to become law, you need to steam line it, make less convoluted and more understandable to the average legislator.

One change I notice right off the bat that you divided the proposal into 2 bills which is probably not necessary if you include a severability clause. I know you are wed to the 2 citizen-parent theory, but the language you use to address that issue in all likelihood causes Constitutional infirmities to both bills because both have extra-constitutional eligibility requirements to be POTUS that are not contained in the US Constitution. Hopefully, a severability clause can save at least a portion of either bill, if anything is left to be salvaged.

I have still have a problem with the statutory scheme you set up whereby it appears the AG is an advocate for both the state and the aggrieved candidate. I anticipate in real life, that is not what will occur. I expect that, most likely, both political parties will sue and probably the DOJ will join in the suit. With the 2 citizen-parent language, I further expect immediate injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of the statute until the case and all appeals are adjudicated. Kind of like the Arizona anti-illegal immigration case. Whether that can be accomplished prior to the 2012 election cycle is highly doubtful.

I feel that if you really want to have something in effect for the 2012 election, you need to keep the kiss principle in mind. I would propose that bill require to gain access to the ballot, the candidates submit a certified copy of their BC to the chief election officer of the state. The birth certificate must conform to the standard required to obtain a passport. This utilizes a standard that is already in place and removes the argument of long form v.short form, etc. It is easy to understand not only to general public, but also the legislators whom you need to convince. In addition, it is so reasonable that the dumbo-rats will have a difficult time objecting to it which increases the odds of it's passage and meaningfully addressing the issue.

I applaud your efforts in attempting fashion a remedy to the problems that you perceive. I just think the odds of the proposed bill to emerge from committee hearings,and the legislature without radical changes are infinitesimal, and the odds of it surviving a constitutional challenge are nil. Now if your primary purpose is get a court decision on the 2 citizen-parent theory, then you will probably be successful to get a Court of Appeals decision and maybe a SCOTUS decision. As I previously noted, knowing your viewpoint, I seriously doubt you will be pleased with the decision.