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.
A little bump in your theory. obama is not listed on the hospital records of any hospital in Hawaii (court doc’s) and is not listed as to having been issued a CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE on Hawaiian records(court doc’s). Of course none of this really matters as a Natural Born citizen is someone born to American citizens( both parents). This is the reason they a certified birth certificate , to prove obama’s father was a kenyan national, making obama ineligible to be president.
There is no such thing as a "President elect" until such a time that the Congress ratifies the results of the electoral college votes. The Twentieth Amendment then instructs Congress to verify that the President elect "qualifies" for the office of President. This can only mean one thing as there is only one place left in the Constitution referring to Presidential "qualifications" that are not health related. Article two, section one:
"” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, 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.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. It is the burden of the President elect as it is he who either fails to qualify or not. You can only fail at something you are attempting, not the actions of another. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and is not president of the United States of America, but a usurper.
bump
Seems very simple, because of of Barry’s CLN, he could not and cannot produce a SS-5 or I-94 form???
notice they have to say ‘birther’ they can’t say constitutionalist
It doesn’t matter if the car wouldn’t start or not. Papa wasn’t an American Citizen so Junior is NOT eligible. Period. The end. Finite.
An additional problem highlighted by all this is the amendment requiring direct election of the president by the people of the USA. My understanding of early America was that the people of a given congressional district elected the most president-like person in their electoral district to be their elector/presidential-stature candidate. These people then gathered in Washington and from the number of “electors” they themselves voted one of them (or another stellar American) to be president. If there was a tie, then the Congress broke the tie.
To prevent confusion, the 12th amendment required one vote for president and another vote for VP from each of the electors.
This system was destroyed by the advent of political parties and their concerns for their party rather than for the good of the nation.
Citizens vote for Electors, not for candidates. "Barack Obama" may have a legal existence in the several states, depending on their election laws.
But "running for President" has NO Constitutional existence, nor do "tickets" or "parties".
It is the Electors who evaluate the "candidates", not the voters.
Wrong. The bill would require any candidate who wants to be on the ballot to provided documentation.
Birther or not, how can this be a bad thing? I’m actually surprised that this wasn’t already a requirement in all 57 states.
If rancor is Obama’s goal, then he has MISUSED and WASTED Department of Justice resources and U.S. attorneys valuable time. He has done this when plots were being laid to blow planes out of the sky, and KILL soldiers on their bases and recruitment centers.
If rancor and political dirty trick has been Obama’s goal, I don't think the American people will be amused! The DOJ and their attorneys should be out protecting the American people and going after the bad guys. They should not be trivial pawns in the game of political “gottcha”.
You may be correct, but it was not always so. I remember voting for Gerald Ford's electors, using an old fashioned, put an "X" in the box, paper ballot, in a volunteer fire department's station. That ballot had the names of those electors. But of course it is a small state and only had 4 or 5 electoral votes (has 5 now).
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.