I’m thinking Iowa could be a good place to have a law requiring documentation to prove Constitutional eligibility to be provided to the Secretary of State before a name can be printed on a primary or general ballot. Since they are the starting point for the primaries and get a lot of attention that way it could prevent problems all the way down the line.
Arizona tried but they’ve got all they can handle dealing with the illegal invasion, battling our own Injustice Department to have a chance to enforce the law. If they can fight to protect the inner states from being invaded the least we can do is protect them (and all of us) from having the White House invaded.
Pray for me; I’m seriously wondering whether that should be my next major focus. But I probably couldn’t stay anonymous, and that’s scary to my husband.
And we need to expose the stinking lying media. Those birth announcements were a total fabrication, and the evidence suggests they were perpetrated by the media itself, in league with Obama’s people. Of course, Factcheck is supposedly a media arm, but they actually participated in forging the COLB and passing it off as genuine - a direct violation of the Federal General False Statement Act, which should land them in jail.
I wrote in a friend’s name rather than vote for John Gale for Secretary of State because he told me that we don’t need to worry about candidates lying about their eligibility because the media would never let them get away with it. I nearly vomited when I heard him say that. Anybody that stupid should never have a position with any authority.
If anybody wants to be on the ballot for president the first step in the process, after they sign up to put their name in, is the Secretaries of State should automatically request a certified copy of the long-form - which Hawaii rules would allow any SOS to get.
There should be a way for citizens to see the documentation, and the SOS should be REQUIRED to file a lawsuit on behalf of any citizens who question the legal qualifications, which would put the legal definitions squarely in the jurisdiction of the courts since the Constitution doesn’t allow any other branch to interpret the laws or Constitution.
Maybe with so many of the states going to Republicans this time, there will be one or two states willing to challenge his eligibility in 2012. Call the Hillary camp...maybe she'd do it for you in Iowa!
I read AZ put aside the eligibility legislation only because, at the time, there was so much bad press going on with the immigration law.
But it did seem they would take it up again before the 2012 election.
I think this memo is an excellent find and basis for bringing more light on the fact that there really is NO ONE charged with minding the store when it comes to candidates getting their names on the presidential ballot. That’s incredible!
I think a campaign of infomation, both to the public and to state legislators, that has just a couple of points is necessary and could work. We need to point out that there is a serious lack of formal procedures and process for determining and vouchsafing eligibility.
It doesn’t have to be about any particular candidate; truly, would anyone seriously want to have this controversy occur again in the future? I would hope not.
So all that needs to occur is for at least one state to pass a law setting out procedures for determining eligibility to be on the presidential ballot. And require more than a statement by the candidate or a party hack!
I don’t see anything hard about that, nor does there seem to be any ground upon which to object to such a reasonable and transparent rule, whose only purpose is to vouchsafe the Constitutional requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen.
P.S. I agree completely with your proposal! And, really, who could be against this?
Which state went entirely GOP red in this midterm election? Was it Michigan or Wisconsin? Maybe a state such as that, along with Iowa, would be a good starting point for this eligibility legislation.