1. If a candidate's parent(s) are still alive, they can deny access to their own birth certificate, thus denying the candidate those records. In which way would this be legal, since the Constitution doesn't allow for it?
2. Assuming that the transaction log section of your law passed muster (which is doubtful), what if the transaction logs didn't exist at the time the records were generated, or were lost or destroyed? Are you going to make the candidate responsible for something entirely outside his/her control?
3. Where in the Constitution does it say that one's parents must provide or prove their places of birth? Or that the candidate is responsible for the state's record-keeping system, something over which he/she has no legal control or right to see?
4. Since certified birth records from one state are recognized by all other states, where do you get the right to demand more (the transaction records) from? What if the other state's laws don't allow for sharing of those records?
B. If any of these conditions is not met, if any above procedure is not completed, 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. The State AG shall submit to the court any amicus briefs from the public in any lawsuits concerning the implementation or constitutionality of this law.
1.That means that if would take 50-some people (assuming one per state & Washington, DC, plus 1 for every territory with voting rights*) to force a candidate to litigate in every single state, plus all of the far-flung territories. You've just assured that only the most wealthy candidates can possibly attempt a run for national office.
2. It also means that any opponent on either side (since all of this is taking place before the primaries) can prevent anyone they like from qualifying for the ballot unless they spend an arm and a leg for no real reason whatsoever other than the fact that people complained.
C.If a lawsuit is filed with the state judiciary, the case shall be heard and decided on an expedited basis.
1.Who gets to decide what "expedited" means?
2.Who pays for the defendant's (i.e., the candidate's) legal costs if he/she can't afford them?
3.What if a SoS is a member of the opposite party or a friend of one of the other candidates in the primary, and decides to slow down the process and causes the candidate in question to miss the deadline?
4.If 100 people file objections based on 100 different reasons, are there 100 cases to litigate, or 1 or what?
Essentially, you seem to be demanding rights (the right to other state's record keeping, for example) that appear no where in the constitution and which have never been recognized anywhere else.
Also, you're ignoring the fact that birth records are considered prima facie evidence and need nothing to back them up . See: Mills v. Duryee http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s10.html
* If I recall correctly, the territories are allowed to vote in the primaries and send delegates to the conventions, but do not vote in the general election).
The beauty of this bill, mountainbunny, is that the Supreme Court gets to decide the answer to all your questions. Is there somebody else you think should do that?
I believe I’ve addressed concerns about challenges taking time and money - giving the candidate the option of filing suit with the state judiciary (State Supreme Court), which appeals directly to SCOTUS so that time and money are kept in check as much as possible. You’re never going to get a process which delivers justice without there being any cost or time involved.
I’ve put in as many measures as Constitutionally possible to create accountability that would keep the politics of the AG, SOS, and bureaucratic workers from being able to derail justice. When the government HAS to be transparent and when the people have a procedure whereby they can hold government accountable BETWEEN ELECTIONS, the cockroaches are a lot less willing to be their corrupt selves.
What this bill has is a darn site better than anything we currently have. It’s not perfect, since nothing can be - but it would definitely make it a lot LESS likely that an activist political hack in the position of AG, SOS, or DOH director would be able to run roughshod over the people and the rule of law.
But it does remind me that maybe one more thing is in order: a statement giving any person standing to sue any government entity for failing to obey this law.
If it’s illegal for transaction logs to be examined in order to determine the integrity of the records, then audits of state records are illegal. I have to question the sanity of any state that makes audits of state records illegal. The ONLY thing the transaction logs would reflect is the integrity of the office keeping the records - which is the rightful reason that states have open records laws. And this bill would require information to be redacted in compliance with disclosure laws so there would be no conflict there.
One state’s law only applies in that state. Anybody can challenge eligibility, and the SOS has to leave the name off the ballot unless and until the courts (ultimately the US Supreme Court) finds that the candidate is eligible. One lawsuit. That’s a darn sight better than what we’ve had. The only people who shouldn’t like that are the lawyers who would rather make money off of this issue than get the real answers the country needs.
GENUINE birth records which are legally valid are prima facie evidence. Falsified records are not. If there was no measure to show whether or not the records had been falsified you would have people challenge eligibility on the basis of potentially falsified records anyway, which would send the case to court, and any court would have authority to check whether a record had been falsified. Having the proof of the record not being falsified would just eliminate the challenges where the record is obviously clean. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And why would ANY TRUSTWORTHY GOVERNMENT AGENCY balk at the chance to display their integrity for everyone to see? Who could possibly speak against doing that?
This article http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107200 notes that the federal government caught a NJ DOH director falsifying records so that illegal aliens could have supposed proof of American citizenship, and the federal government 5 years later still doesn’t accept birth certificates from there as proof to issue passports.
The issue of presidential eligibility is a federal issue because it is governed by the US Constitution. If the Passport Office can require more documentation for passports where fabrication of vital records is an issue, then why should a state implementing the federal requirement of the US Constitution be any different?
I just wanted to address the fact that falsified documents are not required to be considered ample proof of everything on that document.
And there is no limit as to what documents one state can request or require from another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution says:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
I don’t have the link for it right now but have read the companion law that was passed saying that the manner that acts, records, and proceedings are proven genuine is by a seal and signature of a certifying official.
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids one state from getting the transaction logs from another state. If that transaction log is “proved” according to the standards set by Congress, then the requesting state needs to give full faith and credit to it. This bill requires that the candidate give permission for the SOS to receive certified copies of everything including the transaction logs, and for the SOS to get precisely that.
So the transaction logs would have to be certified, and all the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Art III, Sec 1) of the Constitution requires is that the requesting state give full faith and credit to it then, accepting it as genuine.
Different states have different requirements as to what documentation is required to prove a claim. For instance, in one state a COLB may be good enough to prove a particular claim on the COLB, but that might not be enough to prove it in another state - even though that state gives full faith and credit to Hawaii’s COLB, as far as it goes. It just might not go far enough.
For instance, there are states that might consider a COLB from Hawaii to be enough documentation for a person’s race. But Hawaii’s OWN Dept of Hawaiian Homelands requires MORE documentation than just a COLB, even though it accepts the genuineness of its own COLB’s. It currently requires a COLB AND additional documentation. Previously they required a long-form COLB; now they say a COLB is OK (since they’re pretending that’s all they will print), but they’ll have to do more digging to get the additional documentation needed if only a COLB is submitted.
So basically, the states are able to say what documentation they need as proof of a specific claim, and the Constitution does not forbid that.