Eight Arizona Legislators Introduce Bill for Presidential Candidates to Prove Eligibility

Ballot Access News ^ | January 23rd, 2009 | Richard Winger

[CalifScreaming]

Eight Arizona legislators have introduced SB 1158, to require presidential candidates at the general election to submit “documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen.” Since “natural born citizen” is not defined in the bill, nor in the U.S. Constitution, one wonders which documents John McCain would have been required to produce in 2008, if this bill had been law. He was born either in Panama or in the Canal Zone.

The bill also requires presidential candidates to submit documents that prove they meet the residency requirement. The Constitution requires presidents to have lived in the United States for the preceding 14 years. Finally, the bill requires presidential candidates to prove their age. The bill applies to independent presidential candidates, and to the presidential nominees of qualified parties. For party nominees, the bill requires the “national political party committee” to be responsible for obtaining the documents from its presidential candidate. The bill also applies to candidates for vice-president.

The bill’s lead sponsors are Senator Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) and Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley). The other sponsors are Senators Pamela Gorman (R-Anthem), Ron Gould (R-Lake Havasu City), Chuck Gray (R-Mesa), Jack Harper (R-Surprise), Thayer Verschoor (R-Gilbert), and Representative Carl Seel (R-Phoenix).

[Star Traveler]

Eggsactly... LOL...

[Star Traveler]

You said — “It is a good move but the bill will have to define natural born citizen in a manner that will be able to stand up to a court challenge.”

And, in that regard, of a “natural born citizen” what should it be and how should it be construed, and what can be “supported” in a court challenge?

These aren’t trick questions, just wanting to know..., from a person who put this forth (namely you..., in this thread... :-)... ).

—

And lastly you said — “And the documents required will have to be very specific and there are no documents that state that a person is a Natural Born Citizen.”

How to solve that problem? And is it something that needs solving? Just asking some questions and wondering what the answers may be...

[conservativegramma]

That’s a much more difficult process to go through. It would require 2/3 of the Congress to approve it, first, before it could even be sent out to the states to ratify. And then it would take 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

Yep, but well worth the effort. If everyone had your negativity we wouldn't have ANY amendments now would we????

[Frantzie]

Republicans need to go to war or they will be extinct. They need to show a chart of the markets. OK has some brave guys like that Dr. pushing the bill to make sure all candidates are eligible.

Republics sould do the following below. It will show Americans where their retirement money went showing a chart of the S&P 500.

I suggest Rush, the GOP and other sput up a big chart of the S&P 500.

Obama nominated June sometime 1360
Obama ahead in the polls Oct 1160
Oct 10 McCain behind in polls 899
Obama wins - day after 949
Current 845

Bottomline - anyone with a brain has zero confidence in O, Pelosi and Reid. GOP needs to hammer it home with charts. Newt turned it around by fighting tooth and nail.

[Frantzie]

Juan McCain was not born on a military base. He was born at the civilian hospital in Colon. McCain knew he was not eligible and if he had not run we might not have Obammy.

[Star Traveler]

You pointed out the following —

Obama nominated June sometime 1360
Obama ahead in the polls Oct 1160
Oct 10 McCain behind in polls 899
Obama wins - day after 949
Current 845

And that makes for a quite impressive display... all right... :-) — (unfortunately for us who it “hammers” financially... ugggh...).

And I truly believe that Obama will produce his own “sorry track record” to be hammered on. It’s that I just don’t think “perceptions” of Obama and what he could do and will do — actually produced those results. Obama *will* be producing his own negative results *now* though...

That display that you show is something that has been coming for a while and represents the financial system that was collapsing. I actually think that if McCain got in there, he would be looking at the same numbers, too and the same world-wide financial collapse. I just think we’re headed for a Great Depression no matter who is in there.

But, Obama will also fail miserably, in that he won’t improve the situation and it *will get worse* on his watch. So, you’ll get your “data” to hammer Obama with it... :-)

[trumandogz]

First the OK GOP Ledge. will have to arrive at a definition of NBC that will satisfy Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. Otherwise, Henry will veto the measure.

I imagine that the definition that the OKC Ledge and Gov. Henry arrive upon will be:

A Natural Born Citizen is a Person Born in the United States or a Territory of the United States or a Person that is Born of American Parentage on Foreign Soil.

[nominal]

So you’re saying the children of illegal aliens can be natural born citizens and president if they’re born 1 foot across the border in any American territory?

Are you even an American yourself or are you posting from some other country?

A natural born citizen is one born in America of American citizen parents. Both parents, and that means mother and father, since I know you have so much trouble with simple words.

[trumandogz]

I was not born in the U.S. but both my parents were American citizens. Therefore, I am a Natural Born Citizen.

When I read the 14th Amendment, I see that that authors specified no distinction between those born in the U.S. of two American parents and any one else who was born in the United States.

And if one were to read Plyler v, Doe they would find that the children of illegal aliens cannot be denied their rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

[nominal]

No, you’re in the same situation as McCain.

We’re talking about the Presidency and Vice Presidency here, the only place where natural born citizen is mentioned. We are not talking about denying basic rights.

[trumandogz]

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

[nominal]

That was the 1790 act. Read the Naturalization Act of 1795:

“... and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

They changed it, and natural born citizen was specifically removed.

[trumandogz]

Thanks for pointing me to the Naturalization Act of 1795.

However, in post 48 when you quoted a U.S. Law that reads A natural born citizen is one born in America of American citizen parents, you failed to cite the name or year of the legislation that law.

Why is that?

Why is it you can name the law that says, “... and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”, but you cannot provide the name of the law that states, A natural born citizen is one born in America of American citizen parents?

[nominal]

I did not quote a law (as I’m sure you’re well aware of), and I did not have to, because it’s self evident what the definition is, and what I said is obviously in line with the intentions, meaning, and implications of requiring natural born citizens for the 2 jobs of the office of the president. It’s also confirmed in the history of the presidents and vice presidents.

One could argue for situations like yours and McCains’ and have yet another act written (I would fight against it, largely because the types of arguments you present), but the act of 1795 makes it clear that it also means being born here.

I think the only reasonable points of contention are with someone whose parent(s) became naturalized before their birth, such as was the case with Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson. One can argue for and against fairly evenly with that one, but the whole ‘child of the illegal alien’ argument is absurd.

There’s really no reason to compromise when it comes to American sovereignty and the very powerful office of the president. Even less reason for it today, when they are CiC of the military and can start wars and destroy another nation with one nuclear submarine in 30 mintues, for example.

[trumandogz]

Do the law that defines natural born citizen is self evident?

Well, it is not apparently self evident to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito who have not voted to accept any case involving the NBC question.

[nominal]

Yes, it’s obvious what natural born citizen means.

Since SCOTUS hasn’t said why they denied anything, let alone ‘denied because we think Obama is a natural born citizen’, it could mean any number of things. Bad presentation by the lawyer, timing, standing, wrong person sued, incorrect precedence cited, etc.. Maybe they don’t want to risk riots just yet, and will give it a few months or a year. Maybe they’re scared. Maybe they think it’s not their place.

I have no idea, but probably last on that list is them not knowing about the Constitution...

However, if there are 5 of 9 that are ‘living Constitutionalists’, for example, and voted to change it to shoe-horn in Obama, they’d be making a huge mistake. I suspect there is much more going on here with the attack on the Constitution and on U.S. sovereignty, but so far, SCOTUS isn’t talking.

[trumandogz]

While the SCOTUS is not talking, their message is obvious.

And the SCOTUS does not entertain the world of “Maybe.”

[nominal]

For someone like you maybe, as for myself, I’ll wait and see.

[trumandogz]

Okay, would you then as a courtesy ping me when a NBC Question case against Obama is granted certiorari by the SCOTUS?

Roberts

Scalia

Thomas

Alito

[DustyMoment]

You said — “It’s a little late to rush in and close the gate!!”

I agree with much of what you say. What I meant by the statement above is that now that obi wa nobama is sworn in as POTUS, NO ONE is going to touch the BC issue with a 10' pole. The SCOTUS has ducked it as has just about every lower court. We're stuck with him and grousing about his eligibility to serve is just beating a dead horse.

IMO, I think that obi wa nobama will rack up such a bad record and leave such a bad taste in people's mouths, it will be generations before we might see another black POTUS. Too bad, too, because there are some highly qualified, very sharp black Americans who would be much better presidents. Unfortunately, the Obamessiah is going to ruin it for them, too!