Vanity: Usurper Detection Legislation Should Be Passed Within Each State

Since it appears that the judicial branch is intent on abandoning it's duty to uphold the Constitution, perhaps it's time for the states themselves to individually pass legislation that will protect their citizens from the actions of anyone who illegally occupies the Oval office.

There is nothing to prevent a state from passing a law requiring that the President must file his PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements with the state and that such a filing is open to public challenge in court.

Such a law could stipulate that any legislation signed by a President who refuses or is unable to meet this requirement to file shall be declared null and void within the borders of the state. No orders affecting any of the states citizens from such a usurper would have legal standing within the borders of the state. In addition, the act could command all legislators at the national level to institute whatever legal mechanism is required to challenge the standing of such a usurper.

It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as "Constitutional". Perhaps this can be done through a ballot initiative if the legislators refuse to look into it. We do not have to WAIT until the next Presidential election to handcuff a possible usurper. This can be done NOW and immediately protect a state's citizens from having to live with ILLEGALLY made legislation or orders.

“What’s different is that under a carefully crafted statute the onus would be on the candidate to produce to the Secretary of State proof positive, using original documentation, that he/she is a natural born citizen and in addition there would be a general waiver of privacy to enable those who would enquire and verify to do so.”

Any secretary of state can require that now and in Obama’s case such a secretary of state would have received a perfectly legal Hawaii bc...the same one used to get a passport. So what’s different?

“Should they discover evidence that the candidate is not who he/she says they are and produce it to the secretay of State it would enable the Secretary to refrain from placing that persons name on the ballot.”

Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?

“I might not have standing but a statutorialy empowered Secretary of State within a state certainly would. The Supreme court has consistently held that each state is responsible for the conduct of its elections.”

You are right, you don’t have standing. A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely).

“Suppose, arguendo, that someone produced dispositive evidence that the present incumbent of the White House was born in a country other than the United States in circumstances that would render him ineligible to be President would you agree that he should not be President ?”

I’ve practiced law for 33 years. I’ve heard more times than I could count claims that one party or another has “dispositive evidence” which will end a case. More often than not the party doesn’t have that evidence and a trial demonstrates that. Trials are very good at finding the truth. In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive. If it is, and the sitting president is not qualified, then he should be removed. That’s how the Constitution provides, T.

The Constitution has provided for the "vetting" process of a President with section three of the Twentieth amendment.

”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.”

Basically, Congress is instructed to act in two instances, the death of a President elect OR "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify". Since they are instructed to act, they MUST be made aware that each circumstance either exist or doesn't exist. This means that Congress had to know whether or not the President elect met all "qualifying" requirements for the office of President, including eligibility standards. They didn't perform their job or if they did, none of them admit to having done so. They are all guilty of breaking their oaths of office to "support this Constitution" in Article six. By the way, since the text reads "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify", it is HIS duty to submit proof of qualifications and not the burden of Congress to beg him to do so. If he doesn't submit, then he has "failed to qualify" and CANNOT legally be President.

My proposal would have the states require a copy of his "Proof" to Congress be inspected by the states before any acts of his can affect their citizens. Basically, ensuring that the states will do what Congress fails, forgets, or refuses to do according to the instructions of section three.

You don’t have much confidence in the system the Founders gave us, do you Uncle S? For all the talk the birthers spout about the Constitution, they really don;t support it at all, at least not when they are dissatisfied with an election.

If you had even a marginal understanding of the court system and the Constitution, you’d understand that your proposal is a prescription for chaos. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just spouting off. If you do understand the courts and the Constitution, then you are proposing to give every advantage, aid and comfort, to the enemies of this country by creating anarchy. You know what we call people who give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, don’t you Uncle S? Take a look at 18 USC 2381. Don’t think the idea that treason or sedition or conspiracies to commit treason or sedition is being committed in the country has only occurred to the anti-Obama forces in the country, Uncle S.

I posted this a while back...

It's obvious by his legal actions and those of Speaker of the House Pelosi that 1) there is indeed something to hide, and 2) it's not going to be made public under any circumstances. Time to try a different tack.

Perhaps the focus should shift to the underlying constitutional requirement, simply stated in Article II, Section 1: A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States; must be at least 35 years of age; and must be a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

I'd suggest that there is a "choke point" for defining and verifying that any candidate, and specifically Barack Obama, must pass to ensure compliance with the "natural born" constitutional requirement. And that choke point is in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Secretary of State's office.

Under the Florida Department of State, the Division of Elections must qualify all federal candidates before they can appear on a ballot. The process is currently not much more than a rubber-stamp approval^[1], but can be readily changed to become a bit more challenging to folks who might, ahem, have something to hide.

In Florida, a presidential candidate must affirm a Federal Office Loyalty Oath that states, "I am qualified under the Constitution and the Laws of Florida to hold the office to which I desire to be nominated or elected."^[2]

Please note the key phrase "and the Laws of Florida". To appear on the ballot in Florida, the candidate must be qualified under any and all applicable state laws. So to clear up all this confusion about what a "natural born citizen" is, the Florida Legislature could: 1) Require that the candidate be a "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution; 2) Define what constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Florida law; and lastly, 3) Define what constitutes proof of such natural born citizenship. (Remember, these would be state laws, applicable only to an individual state's election processes. A presidential election is still comprised of 50 unique state elections. The Feds would (in theory) not be involved.)

And why Florida? Well, Florida currently has a special status. It went Democrat in 2008, sending Barack Obama to the White House. Winning a presidential election without Florida is virtually impossible. And Florida currently has a Republican Legislature and Governorship, the only probable conditions under which state election laws could be changed to enforce the "natural born citizen" requirements. (A few other states, including Texas, Georgia, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah have Republican control, but went Republican in 2008 election, so do not have that "must win" choke point status that Florida enjoys.)

In short, to win a second term Obama has to appear on the ballot in Florida in 2012, and Florida could determine, under their own state laws, what is required to appear on their ballot. So, how about it Florida? Here's your chance to gain the spotlight one more time, and to restore the inviolability of the Constitution of the United States of America.

My thoughts anyway. Worth every penny you paid for them!!

References:
[1] Page 2, Federal Qualifying Handbook, which has as its introduction, ironically, Article II Section 1 ("...natural born citizen...") as its introductory text.

[2] Federal Office Loyalty Oath, Form DS-DE 18A, President and Vice President Candidate Petition

There's a difference between an ability and an obligation to perform a task. If a Secretary of State has an obligation to ensure a candidate meets certain criteria that's quite different from a legal ability to do so. And I see your eagle eye apparently missed my reference to original documentation. A " Certificate of Live Birth" from the State of Hawaii can be whatever the Hawaii Legislature says it is but the Secretary of State of another state is not necessarily obliged to accept it as " dispositive proof" that the child was "Natural Born". If one of the candidate's Grandmother's had insisted - up until he decided to run for the office of President - that he had been born say in Kenya and newspapers reports prior thereto had referred to him as " Kenyan Born" it might alert the Secretary of State that his duty of care to enforce the statute was somewhat heightened.

Such as what? An internet forgery of a Kenyan bc?

Yes that was an interesting document. If I recall correctly that had a footprint on it and of course footprints do not change over a lifetime.

A secretary of state likely wouldn’t have any standing to pursue an Art. II sec 1 claim after he/she had already allowed the candidate on the ballot and before that there’s no controversy for the court to rule on (assuming a court has jurisdiction which it appears is unlikely

You misunderstand me. I envisage a procedure whereby the candidates would prove to the Secretary, to his complete satisfaction, that they were eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. I agree that things would get very messy if a candidate were allowed on the ballot and an election took place. Thus it would be an administrative procedure that ensures the candidates bona fides before any court was involved.

In the case of a sitting president whose constitutional qualifications for the office are seriously enough challenged that he is impeached by the House, a trial in the Senate will determine if the allegedly “dispositive evidence” really is dispositive

Yes that would be true if we genuinely had elected Solons. Unfortunately where the President's party has a majority in both houses the chances of the present incumbents overcoming self interest to do what is right for the country is practically non-existent.

I hope you can see that even reasonable people are concerned when a candidate is born and raised in unusual circumstances and refuses access to any of his personal records relating to his birth, his academic records or his health. The Present incumbent could easily rid himself of all these "wild" rumours by granting access to his birth and other personal records. He has declined to do so.

“Thus it would be an administrative procedure that ensures the candidates bona fides before any court was involved.”

Administrative proceedures never “ensure” much of anything save an opportunity to be heard at an entry level. There’s always the option of court and that’s where the problem comes in. Any disappointed party can appeal and thereby thwart an election.

“Yes that would be true if we genuinely had elected Solons. Unfortunately where the President’s party has a majority in both houses the chances of the present incumbents overcoming self interest to do what is right for the country is practically non-existent.”

But T, that’s the system the Founders gave us. And of course, whether or not the congressmen are acting in their own interest, the interest of their party, their constituents or of the nation is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, that’s why the Founders’ system is such a good one because there is the regular opportunity to change the composition of Congress if the majority of the people no longer like its looks.

“I hope you can see that even reasonable people are concerned when a candidate is born and raised in unusual circumstances and refuses access to any of his personal records relating to his birth, his academic records or his health.”

I don’t doubt that there are such people. What I cannot credit is the sincerity of the belief that the perfectly legal Hawaii birth certificate is not conclusive enough proof of where Obama was born. If Obama claimed to be a foreigner for scholarship purposes, but has a legal Hawaiian bc, then he lied on a scholarship application. Maybe you can make some political points with that, but you won’t get him removed from office. His health records won’t tell us where he was born. Truth be told, I don’t believe for one minute that if Obama appeared on TV with the doctor who delivered him and all the OB nurses in attendance who all swore they were there when he was born in Hawaii that the group who have supported Taitz, et al, would be satisfied. I say that because the group, by its own actions and words has completely destroyed its own credibility, if indeed it ever had any. This is also why I, and others, honestly question the motivation of the birthers. What they hope to accomplish, at least what they have asked for in their lawsuits, is very, very dangerous for our system of government, especially in time of war. Believe me when I say that these people have succeeded in garnering more than mere passing notice or a chuckle from some very non-partisan, and extremely conservative, elements of the government.

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that this whole birther thing is just anarchism/nihilism masquerading as patriotism in order to destroy this country from within.

And they don't realize the precident that will be set if they're successful. Do you think this birther stuff will end with Obama? Of course not. Sarah Palin could be the next president and there will be an Orly Taitz and a Lucas Smith running from courthouse to courthouse with Crayola-scribbled "Canadian" birth certificates demanding to be taken seriously.

Fortunately, the birther movement seems to be a long way from reaching success.

The law may not work, although I love the idea.

The Constitution does not define “natural born” and an Amendment would be required to nail down the definition. What qualifications would the states certify if “natural born” is not defined in black and white? And if the state offered a “natural born” definition of its own creation, would that be grounds for the Nine Blind Mice to overturn the new law?

Also, a time limit would be required, to keep the legal nitwits from tying up a candidate for months in court.

Other than that ... all ahead full!

"What I cannot credit is the sincerity of the belief that the perfectly legal Hawaii birth certificate is not conclusive enough proof of where Obama was born."

What I cannot credit is someone who spouts this crap and yet is scared to death of a state law that requires it to be produced for filing by that state BEFORE any of his actions are legally recognized within that state's borders. Hey if he's legal there should be NO problem with compliance. What are YOU scared of?

The members of the state legislators are all included within the "standing" category to demand that section three of the Twentieth amendment has been ENFORCED by Congress because of their oath of office from Article six requiring them to "support this Constitution".

All my proposal would do is make sure that Congress did it's duty, or the individual states will. It doesn't really change a thing but closes a loophole that currently exist which rest on individual action.

It removes the possibility of "individuals" being corrupted, bribed, or threatened for not enforcing section three and reduces significantly the harm a usurper would cause to the citizens of a state with such a law.

Everyone agrees that states should toughen their election laws to demand a long form birth certificate, etc from those seeking office. My proposed law says they don't have to wait for an election cycle to protect themselves. They can enact this protection NOW.

Uncle S, the birther movement has lost all its credibility because like most microscopic, fringe ideological movements, it over played its hand. In other words, it didn’t know when to quit. That’s why aside from a very tiny percentage of Americans, people simply don’t believe that you folks will go away if Obama just does what you insist; that’s why there is little reason to credit your alleged motivations or believe even for an instant that you and your fellows will accept a determination from a secretary of state that you don’t like.

I had earlier suggested that you go find some authority figure to buy into your scheme, one who will join your cabal and stick with you when he or she is accused, rightfully so, of attempting to foment sedition and of being a fellow traveler of America’s enemies in time of war. That, of course, will destroy his or her political influence which will in turn render that person useless to your cabal and, for that matter, to the enemies of this country. But you go right ahead. If what you get yourself involved with isn’t sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition, you and your own fellow travelers have nothing to fear from from the government people who notice and watch that sort of thing. :)

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.