There is no extra-Constitutional requirement if the 2-citizen interpretations holds, and with a severability clause that not holding would not jeopardize anything else.
The AG is not given the job of defending or prosecuting. The AG is given the job of just collecting arguments from amicus briefs and presenting them together with the evidence. The point is to keep the lawyering out of it, to basically leave the court to look at the evidence and decide it, with an automatic appeal to SCOTUS. The “bent” of the AG is left out of the picture just like the “bent” of the SOS is left out of the picture.
Is there a legal problem with the AG having those duties? If so, what is the legal problem with that?
The candidate could file his/her own suit if he/she wants to do the legal wrangling that costs so many millions to do, but that would not stop a simple, straight-forward case that a court decides simply on the basis of the evidence and arguments.
If the DOJ wants to file for injunctive relief they could put every law in every state in the Union to be on hold. What are we gonna do - file frivolous lawsuit charges against the DOJ? Trying to appease the DOJ is about like trying to appease the Islamists. They’re gonna fight you tooth and claw no matter what you do so you may as well forget about going halfway.
If some law had required a selective service registration you know what they would have gotten? A forgery by the fine folks at the Selective Service Administration - having ‘08 for the date stamp while they try to pass it off as ‘80.
That’s just a fact. When we’re dealing with this level of corruption, we have to confront it. If law enforcement won’t confront it then the only way “we the people” have is through laws requiring the documentation/crimes to be exposed where the public can push for real legal accountability.
The other thing is the shenanigans we’ve seen from the SOS’s already. I gave the example of Ohio, where the SOS was required to compare voter lists to the DMV and Social Security database to find ineligible voters. Because the law didn’t specifically say that she had to show the list of ineligible voters to anybody she didn’t, and that was considered good enough.
So a candidate has to show the SOS a birth certificate. So what? That doesn’t mean that the SOS has to even look at it or make any decision based upon it, or that anybody would be able to sue him/her for not looking at it, or...... any number of other wormy evasions the SOS might take. There is a reason that George Soros wants communists in the SOS positions.
It would be nice to think that something like what I’ve got is excessive, but from the experiences we’ve had, it’s not. That’s the sad part. The sad part is that everything that’s in that bill comes from some wormy bureaucratic or judicial behavior that the nation has already been burned by. Stuff I would NEVER have thought a thinking person would have to be told I now realize has to be spelled out in exact detail, or else the bureaucrats will worm their way out of it.
If Congress can pass thousand-page bills that nobody has even read or - like the Cap and Trade Bill, wasn’t even WRITTEN yet, but just had spacer to be filled in later (talk about a signed blank check!!) - then a state legislature can read 2 pages in order to give the people real accountability, hold the scummy bureaucrats accountable to the law, and prevent the very fiasco we’ve had that has put us in a Constitutional crisis.
Just for the sake of the prison time and $800,000 of personal money Lakin has had to spend, it SHOULD be worth our noble public servants taking the time to read 2 pages’ worth of small words in normal English. Wouldn’t you say? What arrogant a$$es state legislators must be, if the time to read 2 pages is considered too high a price to pay to keep somebody like Terry Lakin from having to spend $800,000, 6 months of prison, and his livelihood just because our lawmakers couldn’t be bothered with holding their own bureaucrats accountable. What state legislator is so arrogant to think that 10 minutes of their time is worth more than $800,000 and a man’s livelihood measuring into the millions?
I’m tired and I’m getting angry again just thinking about this so I better step away and come back to it later. But my question is what legal arguments would be used to say that the things you have qualms about are unconstitutional?
In addition, my guess is that all of those parties will rather litigate the issue in Federal Court, rather than in a state court in the state which passed the law. I believe a Federal Judge will oblige that request. But that is a forum shopping argument, rather than a constitutional argument.
There is no question in my mind that the 2 citizen-parent theory will be grounds for injunctive relief as outlined in my previous post. This will delay enforcement of the law 2-3 years minimum, if by some miracle it survives Constitutional muster, which is probably 1000 to 1.
I understand your frustrations in dealing with different governmental agencies, but the law cannot rectify and address every perceived wrong. More laws are the liberal solution to their perceived wrongs and don't believe we want to go down the same path. It is obvious from your comments that you have not had the pleasure dealing many legislators. With your proposal, 45% of the legislators will not take the time to read it in it's entirety, and another 45% wouldn't understand it. You may have a chance with the other 10%.
OK. Here’s a shorter form. What is gained by this version? What is lost? Feedback is requested:
Short-Form Eligibility Bill
Before being placed on a ballot, a candidate for President or Vice-President must state his/her name and place of birth and parents’ names, provide proof of being a US resident for 14 years, and sign a consent form for the Secretary of State to receive certified copies of all his/her birth records and all his/her and his/her parents’ citizenship records – including all transaction logs for all records.
The Secretary of State must secure all said statements, proofs, and records, redact information to comply with state and FOIA privacy provisions, and post scans of all the documentation to the Secretary of State’s website. Redacted originals must be made available for public viewing.
The Secretary of State must also complete and post to the SOS website a list saying whether the records confirm that the candidate was born in the United States to 2 US citizen parents, will be at least 45 by the start of the Presidential term, has been a US resident for 14 years, and shows no discrepancies in transaction logs that call into question the veracity or legal validity of the records.
If any of these conditions is not met or if any person contests the eligibility of the candidate within 30 days after both the documents and the list are posted to the website, the Secretary of State shall deny placement on the ballot unless and until the judiciary, with all appeals exhausted, rules the candidate eligible.
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.