Posted on 04/21/2010 11:10:17 AM PDT by pissant
Here is an interesting wrinkle from Arizona which may have a serious Constitutional impediment:
PHOENIX -- The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for reelection.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Who asked them? The US Constitution does not specify an enforcement mechanism for the "natural born" requirement, but it is clear that the good people of the great state of Arizona will not be voting for Barack Obama in the 2012 general election. Instead, they will be voting for electors who will cast their votes as per the procedures of the Electoral College.
In Arizona, Presidential electors must themselves meet eligibility requirements, but they are aligned by party, not specific candidate:
A. The chairman of the state committee of a political party which is qualified for representation on an official party ballot at the primary election and accorded a column on the general election ballot shall appoint candidates for the office of presidential elector equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state and shall file for each candidate with the secretary of state, not less than ninety days or more than one hundred twenty days before the primary election, by 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing:
1. A nomination paper giving the candidate's actual residence address or description of place of residence and post office address, naming the party of which the candidate desires to become a candidate, stating his candidacy for the office of presidential elector, stating the exact manner in which the candidate desires to have his name printed on the official ballot pursuant to section 16-311, subsection G, and stating the date of the general election at which he desires to become a candidate.
2. An affidavit including facts sufficient to show that the candidate resides in this state and will be qualified at the time of the election to hold the office of presidential elector.
B. The nomination paper and affidavit of qualification pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state.
They can't disqualify the whole Democratic Party, can they?
Well, maybe - give lawyers a place to rest their fulcrum and they will move the word. Or sue it.
And they may be able to bar Obama from the state primary election although even that is not immediately obvious - it may be that even in the primary, voters choose slates of Arizonans committed to various Presidential candidates rather than the candidates themselves.
Tricky. My belief is that it is the US Congress, under the 12th Amendment, that enforces the "natural born" requirement by accepting or rejecting the results of the Electoral College. I am sure a state could not impose its own eligibility requirements beyond those of the Constitution, but I am hazy as to whether a state would have some right to independently verify Constitutional eligibility to assure that their electors' votes are not being "wasted".
As to the specific question of Obama's birth - geez, presumably they want the long form birth certificate that includes a hospital and an attending physician, not just the summary short form declaring Obama was born in Honolulu. The obvious problem is that the more extensive documentation backing the short form (held by the Hawaii Dept. of Health, and which would be made available at Obama's request) may not *prove* anything.
Far and away the most likely result is that we learn that official state records indicate Obama was born at "Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children". For a lot of people, that would settle it; for some, it will simply be evidence that a particular form was generated back in 1961, not that an actual birth took place when and where the form states.
And the long shot is that the supporting documentation is simply affidavits from Obama's mother and maternal grandparents asserting that he was born in Hawaii at their home (maybe the car wouldn't start so she couldn't get to the hospital.) Again, that might well be the truth, but it might not be the "proof" some people are looking for.
Next, I suppose people could search State Department records from 1961 to see whether there is a record of Stanley Dunham leaving the country and returning after Obama's reported birth. If those records cannot be found, is that "proof" that Obama was born in the US, a suggestion of incomplete paperwork, or a hint that Rahm Emmanuel is now doing what needs to be done? No, I am not sure where this ends...
However, if Arizona can persuade Team Obama to ask for and release the complete file and shut a few people up, I am all for it. Maybe we can look forward to a respectful Times story detailing their search for "the truth". OK, probably not. Meanwhile, the most transparent Administration in history is either fueling partisan rancor for their own benefit or hiding something.
It is definitely the latter.
ping
Keep pushing AZ. Hopefully it passes and more states do this. These people are criminals. Rush was calling Obama a thug - he is correct.
My goodness - this story has more twists and turns than a John Grisham novel! Maybe somehow we can wake up and find it was all a terrible nightmare . . .
As other states have done previously for unqualified presidential candidates.
And the long shot is that the supporting documentation is simply affidavits from Obama's mother and maternal grandparents asserting that he was born in Hawaii at their home (maybe the car wouldn't start so she couldn't get to the hospital.) Again, that might well be the truth, but it might not be the "proof" some people are looking for.
Ping!!!
Obamafelators.
Pelosinursers.
Reidwipers (Barack!!?? I’mmm donne!!)
AmericaHaters
Instigators
Manipulators (with an emphasis on “man”)
Obamasombies
Hey, lefties: Does the word Constitution have too many syllables or are you still working on “new civics”?
Q: How do you know if a leftist is sincere about healthcare and womens rights?
a: They will stomp a woman into the ground breaking her leg in four places.
Yep. This isn't even a close call. It's well settled law that states control their own ballot access, not the feds. The states couldn't impose additional requirements for presidential eligibility, but they're certainly entitled to verify Constitutionally mandated eligibility criteria.
The electors appear on the ballot in North Dakota, along with the notification that they are committed to voting for Caligula, Nero, etc.
States manage who appears on their ballots, even for federal elections. Arizona is well within its power to require presidential candidates meet certain requirements first, so long as those requirements don't violate the U.S. Constitution.
Tricky. My belief is that it is the US Congress, under the 12th Amendment, that enforces the "natural born" requirement by accepting or rejecting the results of the Electoral College. I am sure a state could not impose its own eligibility requirements beyond those of the Constitution, but I am hazy as to whether a state would have some right to independently verify Constitutional eligibility to assure that their electors' votes are not being "wasted".
The measure controls access to the BALLOT, which is firmly within the purview of the various states. The assertion that the congress validates the eligibility by accepting the elctors' vote is directly contrary to the wording of the 10th amenment (I think that's the right amendment) - where a President-elect may have "failed to qualify".
There is no requirement that the electoral college determine eligibility - and hence, there is no authority (the electoral college is failry well regulated in purpose by the constitution itself).
If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out where it says that the EC is required to determine eligibility of the winning candidate. (Doesn't that seem a lot like locking the barn door after the barn is already burned to the ground).
Yep if they don’t qualify on the ballot they can’t recieve electorals votes either and can not be counted if someone fills in the name. Only qualified candidates can be counted as fill ins.
Every American, National and legal resident authorized to work must file Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number when they start working.
The application will marked by a document examiner with the proof of US Citizenship (Natural born citizens will use a birth certificate, Naturalized and legal aliens use Form I-94) before a SSN is assigned.
SSA also keeps a record of residency if the candidate paid Social Security taxes prior to his candidacy.
Also, any citizen who renounces their US citizenship will have a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) issued with copies containing original signature and State Dept Seal sent to the FBI, IRS, USCIS, State Department, DHS and sometimes to the Secret Service.
A state is entirely within its power to require that a candidate show he is eligible for office before his name goes on the ballot.
Obviously, its the original birth certificate everyone wants to see, and not the computer generated stub which, until after O was elected not even the state of Hawaii accepted for every purpose.
Will I be satisfied at that point? No, not really. In a way its a side issue; the fact that his pop was not a US citizen is freely admitted by everyone, which means its already well known that O doesn’t meet the requirement to be president. And yet everyone looks the other way and pretends not to know what they know.
Beyond the “natural birth” issue, his own citizenship is still in question until after we know what passport he used when he traveled to Pakistan, and what citizenship he claimed in college. The guy is good at putting his enemies’ private information on page one as a way of damaging them, but he refuses to divulge his own.
“It’s not the people who vote that count; it’s the people who count the votes.” Joseph Stalin
An administration that is refusing to release the birth certificate or any records from schools and colleges hiding something? How could that be?
The AZ wording
~~~~~~~~~
Between lines 34 and 35, insert:
“B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice president.
“Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2497556/posts?q=1&;page=1
________________________________________________________
Bysiewicz Takes the Stand; Says Running For AG Is Her Civil Right
###
*snip*
As for her eligibility, Bysiewicz said she believes it’s her civil right to run, but filed the lawsuit because significant questions about her eligibility remained.
Bysiewicz is hoping the court finds she’s eligible to run for attorney general, but in order to meet that requirement she must have practiced law for at least 10 years.
Bysiewicz has been a lawyer for 24 years, but she lacks the 10 years of active practice, if her time in elected office is not counted.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/bysiewicz_takes_the_stand/
~ ~ ~
Final Arguments Heard In Bysiewicz AG Case - Bysiewicz’s Eligibility For AG Seat In Question
###
A lawyer for the Connecticut Republicans has told a judge that Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz has not proved that her legal experience meets the requirement to run for attorney general.
But a lawyer for Bysiewicz said the Democratic candidate has shown that she’s met the law by actively providing legal advice during her 12 years as secretary of the state.
http://www.wfsb.com/politics/23206817/detail.html
Yes, Correct.
The OP seems to want to suggest that this is just an unfounded witch hunt. That could not be farther from the truth. There is a reason this issue won’t go away and it’s real simple. The pile of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya to parents that at least one was clearly not a US citizen is overwhelming!
In the end it is extremely unlikely that Obama is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The only thing undecided is what to do about Obama and how we resolve this issue with future candidates.
I believe you are referring to the 20th Amendment:
“Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
I thought ‘failed to qualify’ referred to not having enough Electoral College votes, but I don’t know that and can’t find any info quickly on it.
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.