[Uncle Sham]

Where do we get this started? Any state able to do this would gain lots of new citizens AND capital investment.

[ronnie raygun]

Try to find a state that hasn’t sold thier soul to these marxists in Washington by accepting stimulous monies.

[Jack Hammer]

A hundred years from now, this era will be written up in American history books as a period of unparallelled self-indulgence, intellectual weakness, and personal and political dishonesty.

Unfortunately, at the rate - and in the direction - the nation is going, those books will be written in Chinese.

[Laserman]

Actually, it would only take a few states to do this in order to make sure a candidate was qualified. Any candidate that failed to register in even one state would be drummed out of the election process.

[Timocrat]

I agree this is exactly the way to go. However it should be broader than just proof that the candidate is a "Natural Born Citizen". The Statute should require each candidate to provide a waiver for any academic or medical records so that we the people have the maximum amount of information about anyone who might be elected to the most poweful office in the world.

It only needs three or four states to pass this type of legislation to make it effective nationally. No National candidate is going to forsake running in a state that he ( or She) might win.

[MS from the OC]

You don’t have to go that far... All we have to do is have a couple of States pass a law that forces anyone applying to be on the ballot for elective office to prove that they are qualified to hold the office. If they do not prove that, then the state does not put them on the ballot. If California, or New York, or Texas or a couple of other states did that, game over. No one could be elected without these few states having them on the ballot.

[cripplecreek]

Just guessing but I doubt we could get Jenny Granholm to support it.

[Kolokotronis]

This idea is complete nonsense. No conservative or libertarian candidate will get on a ballot in any presently blue state in time for an election because their “evidence” of eligibility will be challenged by the left wing equivalents of the present “birther” crowd in the state courts and tied up there for months. The same will be true for liberal candidates in red states.

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.

[The Cajun]

Best idea I’ve heard in a long time. The Feds, in any branch of government, won’t do anything, maybe the states can.

[quintr]

I was under the impression that this was part of the process of the Secretaries of State when they certified the elected officials. ???

Not true?

Aren’t candidates for the office of president supposed to supply their credentials when they submit their vitaes? Or, if they just sign a sworn statement to the effect that they are eligible and it turns out that they aren’t, then isn’t that voter fraud?

[frankenMonkey]

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

[DilJective]

Brilliant idea!

[DNME]

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!

[wintertime]

The republicans in our red state will do everything possible to thwart any legislation to require a candidate to prove his qualifications.

They are ( all of them) weenies with the collective gonads the size of one dust mite.

( My apologies to dust mites.)

[exnavy]

Is a usurper detector similer to a Beeber?

[DaveTesla]

Is it just me or are we being tested?

Do our elected ones just want to see how much of the Constitution they can violate and get away with?

Not only does this law need to be passed since congress
has demonstrated that it will not uphold the constitution
but congress must be purged in the upcoming elections.

It was a simple task, Mr. Obama should have been asked
to produce his records.

Congress failed.

Now I would to like to know, did congress do this on
purpose?

Judging by what I know about the Progressive (communist)
Caucus I would say yes.

Today the Natural born clause, tomorrow the 1st amendment,
(in the works)the next day the 2nd amendment etc.

There is only one way to stop this.

Vote them all out.

Of course we can't do that if the likes of Acorn keep
stuffing the ballot boxes with dead and nonexistent voters and
using Illegals to redraw the voting districts continues.
Democrats have a long history of rigging elections.

Just my opinion.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

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.

Ex Post Facto law. It would be declared Unconstitutional if attempted to be enforced against the present Kenyan Usurper.

Would be less trouble for a state governor to issue an executive order confiscating all federal revenue collected in the state until such a time as the eligibility of the present occupant of the oval office is established through proper documentation.

[Publius6961]

None of this "new" stuff is necessary.

The safeguard is alreay firmly in the Constitution.

It's called the Tenth Amendment!

All that is necessary is its resuscitation.

Lincoln started to kill it
Roosevelt added dirt to its grave.
Johnson, Carter and the First Rapist dug it up and buried it deeper, and sealed it with concrete.

Both parties since obliterated the gravesite.

Just saying.

[Lady Jag]

The following info is hard to find.

Right after Obama's inauguration, states started declairing sovereignty to protect themselves from him. It is believed approximately 37 states have passed it or are in legistlature for approval:

Location:
FEDERAL - STATE RELATIONS; GOVERNMENT, STATE;

website opens in new window

May 27, 2009		2009-R-0215
PROPOSED BILLS ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES
By: Jillian L. Redding, Legislative Fellow

You asked for a list and the status of legislative proposals introduced in 2009 concerning state sovereignty. You also wanted to know if any of these proposals have been enacted.

SUMMARY

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials declaring state sovereignty and defining certain activities to be subject only to state law, and not federal regulation. Of these, resolutions have passed both houses of the legislature in four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The resolutions are currently with the secretary of state in Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The governor of Oklahoma vetoed that state's sovereignty bill but the legislature overrode the veto with a concurrent resolution, which is currently before President Obama and Congress. Connecticut is among the 15 remaining states without such a proposed bill this session.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY PROPOSED BILLS

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials concerning state sovereignty and federal regulation, as shown in Table 1. Each cites the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution: “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”

Language of the Passed Bills

The state sovereignty resolutions passed both houses in only four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Each resolution:

1. cites the Tenth Amendment and declares that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states;

2. asserts that the scope of power defined in the Tenth Amendment meant for the federal government to be an agent of the states, however, “in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government”;

3. cites New York v. United States, in which the Supreme Court declared that Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states (505 U. S. 144 (1992));

4. states that it is to “serve as a notice and demand to the federal government . . . to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers”;

5. declares that several federal laws violate the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; and

6. asserts that “proposals from the previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate” the U. S. Constitution (H. J. M. 4, 60th Leg. , 1^st Reg. Sess. (Idaho 2009); H. C. R. 3063, 61st Leg. , Reg. Sess. (N. D. 2009); H. C. R. 1028, 52nd Leg. , Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2009); H. C. R. 1013, 84th Sess. (S. D. 2009)).

The resolutions in Idaho, Oklahoma, and South Dakota also state that any legislation that “directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed. ”

Idaho's House joint memorial also states that “Congress has inappropriately delegated its monetary authority to the private federal reserve bank, thus failing to protect and provide a sound monetary system as defined and mandated by the Constitution of the United States, forcing an unstable currency on us resulting in past, and the current, economic perils. ”

South Dakota's House concurrent resolution states that all Congressional acts, judicial orders, and executive orders that assume a power not delegated by the U. S. Constitution “and which serves to diminish the liberty” of a state or its citizens “constitutes a nullification of the Constitution . . . . ”

TABLE 1: STATES' PROPOSED BILLS FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY INTRODUCED IN 2009

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
Alabama	House Joint Resolution (HJR) 403	“Pending committee action in chamber of origin” 03/24/09
Alaska	House Bill (HB) 186	House passed 04/16/09 Senate referred to Judiciary Committee 04/17/09
Arizona	House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2024	Government Committee voted to pass 02/17/09 Rules Committee voted to pass as amended 02/23/09 Failed on the floor to pass with amendment
Arkansas	HCR 1011	“Read third time and failed” 04/03/09
Colorado	Senate Joint Memorial (SJM) 011	“Postponed Indefinitely” by State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee 04/27/09
Georgia	● Senate Resolution (SR) 632 ● HR 773 ● HR 470 ● HR 492 ● HR 280	● Senate passed 04/01/09 ● Still in the House ● Still in the House ● Still in the House ● Still in the House
Idaho	House Joint Memorial (HJM) 004	House & Senate passed; referred to the secretary of the state as of 04/13/09
Illinois	SR 0181	Referred to Assignments Committee 3/31/09
Indiana	● Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 0037 ● SR 0042 ● HCR 0050	● Introduced 02/23/09; no further action ● Introduced 03/19/09; no further action ● Referred to Rules & Legislative Procedures Committee 03/13/09
Iowa	● SCR 1 ● HCR 6	● Referred to Rules & Administration Committee 01/27/09. No further action. ● Laid over under Rule 25 (actions on resolutions must wait one day after being introduced) on 03/02/09. No further action.

Table 1 Continued

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
Kansas	SCR 1609	Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee 02/12/09; Hearing 03/20/09
Kentucky	HCR 172	Referred to Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee 02/25/09
Louisiana	SCR 2	Referred to House & Governmental Affairs Committee 5/13/09
Michigan	SCR 0004	Referred to Judiciary Committee 3/03/09
Minnesota	● HF 997 ● SF 1289	● Referred to State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee 02/19/09 ● Referred to Judiciary Committee 03/09/09
Mississippi	HCR 69	Amended & Adopted by House 05/07/09 Motion to Reconsider 05/08/09
Missouri	HCR 13	Adopted by House 03/23/09 Senate held Public Hearing 04/07/09
Montana	HR 3	Died in the House, 04/28/09
Nevada	Assembly Joint Resolution 15	Assigned to Elections, Procedures, Ethics, and Constitutional Amendments Committee Bill died 04/11/09 – failed to meet deadline pursuant to Joint Standing Rule 14. 3. 1
New Hampshire	HCR 6	Died in the House, 03/04/09
New Mexico	HJR 27	Bill died “Action Postponed Indefinitely” [no date given]
North Carolina	HR 849	Referred to House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations on 03/30/09.
North Dakota	House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 3063	Passed both houses; filed with the secretary of the state.
Ohio	● HCR 11 ● SCR 13	● Introduced 03/19/09; assigned to State Government Committee ● Introduced 05/07/09
Oklahoma	● HJR 1003 ● HCR 1028	● Both Houses passed; governor vetoed 04/24/09 ● Legislature bypassed governor veto and passed HCR 1028 05/13/09. Currently with President Obama and Congress for consideration.
Oregon	● HJM 17 ● SJM 9	● Referred to Rules Committee 03/12/09 ● Referred to Finance and Revenue Committee 02/23/09
Pennsylvania	HR 95	Referred to State Government Committee 03/23/09
South Carolina	HB 3509	Passed House 02/26/09 Senate referred to Judiciary Committee 03/03/09 Senate recalled from committee and ordered for consideration on calendar 05/14/09

Table 1 Continued

State	Bill Number	Status of Bill
South Dakota	HCR 1013	Both Houses passed as of 03/05/09
Tennessee	● HJR 104 ● HJR 108 ● SJR 311	● Referred to Calendar & Rules Committee 05/19/09 ● Placed on regular calendar for 05/21/09 ● Referred to Judiciary Committee 05/07/09
Texas	● SCR 39 ● HB 1863	● Senate State Affairs Committee as of 03/13/09 ● Public Safety Committee Favorably reported 05/01/09
Virginia	HR 61	Referred to Rules Committee 02/26/09; no action taken in committee by voice vote 02/28/09
Washington	HJM 4009	Referred to State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee 01/30/09
West Virginia	HCR 49	Referred to House Rules Committee 03/27/09
Wisconsin	SR 6	Referred to Ethics Reform and Government Operations Committee 04/09/09

JLR: ak

[Freedom2specul8]

bookmarked to read later

[justiceseeker93]

Since states conduct their own elections for president and VP every four years (technically, elections for pledged electors), one way to go would be state legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to provide documentation of their constitutional qualifications as a prerequisite to get on the ballot within that state. (Incidentally, I believe that Missouri may have already passed such legislation, although I'm not sure of that.) Of course, O could not possibly be impacted by such laws until 2012.

As far as initiative is concerned, please remember that many states don't have any provision for it at all.