Posted on 01/24/2011 5:19:00 PM PST by Qbert
Montana State Representative Bob Wagner (R-Madison County) has introduced HB 205. It requires candidates for President and Congress to submit a birth certificate or other proof of birth, when they file paperwork to appear on either a primary ballot, or a general election ballot, or even to file as a declared write-in candidate. The only loophole in the bill, for presidential candidates, is that someone who didn’t run in a presidential primary in Montana, but who is nominated by a ballot-qualified party, need not file the documents to appear on the ballot in November.
Members of Congress need not have been born in the United States, so the ostensible purpose of applying this bill to congressional candidates is to satisfy the U.S. Constitution’s requirements as to age. Members of the U.S. House must be 25; U.S. Senators must be 30. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
Every time the paperwork connected with filing for office is made more complicated, chances increase that something will go wrong, and otherwise qualified candidates will be disqualified for inadvertent errors.
The language has to be explicit if it is going to make any difference whatsoever. It has to be a certified document received directly from the issuing agency, together with the transaction logs which would reveal when the document was created and/or amended.
I know it’s a pain to have something longer, but a bill that I believe would effectively close the loopholes is posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/final-short-form-eligibility-bill1.pdf .
The language has to be explicit if it is going to make any difference whatsoever. It has to be a certified document received directly from the issuing agency, together with the transaction logs which would reveal when the document was created and/or amended.
I know it’s a pain to have something longer, but a bill that I believe would effectively close the loopholes is posted at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/final-short-form-eligibility-bill1.pdf .
Could you email this link to the Wyoming gentleman that filed the bill there?
“The only loophole in the bill, for presidential candidates, is that someone who didn’t run in a presidential primary in Montana, but who is nominated by a ballot-qualified party, need not file the documents to appear on the ballot in November.”
That’s a pretty big hole. If Obama doesn’t bother with the Montana Primary, or if he has no primary challenger, he’s on the ballot without proof again.
By the way, where is the constitutional authority to create the FBI?
By the way, where is the constitutional authority to create the FBI?
The FBI’s mandate is established in Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S. Code), Section 533, which authorizes the Attorney General to “appoint officials to detect... crimes against the United States.” Other federal statutes give the FBI the authority and responsibility to investigate specific crimes.
Whatever Hawaii says is valid proof of birth in that state will be accepted by every other state. Now that Obama’s best buddy, Neil Abercrombie is Governor of Hawaii, a short form COLB for Obama will be recognized as valid proof of birth and every other state will accept it or be sued for violating Article IV, Section 1.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that “a state’s preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping.
What case(s) are you citing from as it pertains to this particular matter?
The problem is, as I understand it, that Hawaii apparently issued COLBs to individuals who weren’t actually born in the state. If this is true, Hawaii arguably can’t then declare this to be sufficient for national matters if there is nothing else backing it. This goes beyond a mere state public records issue.
And just because one state accepted a declaration about a COLB, there’s nothing technically stopping it from also asking for a BC, especially if it pertains to a national matter. In other words, “we accept the COLB as proof as you have deemed it- we just want to see supplemental records for our purposes”.
blah blah blah. Show me where the Constitution delegates the power to either the Congress or the Executive to create a police force.
There are a few other states, a dozen or so, that are anywhere from the talking stage to submitted bills. Some more samples:
ARIZONA last year died in the senate.I wish there was a clearinghouse site for these eligibility initiatives. If there is one, I can't find it.
TEXAS, submitted this year; short and sweet. Gotta luvit.
IDAHO stalled last year for some reason.
blah blah blah. Show me where the Constitution delegates the power to either the Congress or the Executive to create a police force.
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Police power? Nope. It doesn’t mean that.
Thanks butterdezillion.
This is not Constutitional text.
Great finds. I’m guessing they stalled because of fears over “birther” backlash- why take a political risk when it seemed to be based on little more than mere speculation at the time? But when even the Hawaii Gov. is making ambiguous statements on the issue, from a political perspective, I don’t see what the big deal would be in passing the legislation.
Nobody smeared the people who brought a lawsuit over McCain’s place of birth as “birthers”- it was a Constitutional question they had. Passing legislation requiring a BC would simply be a way of ensuring that Constitutional requirements were met without questions.
Between the loophole and failing to define what a birth certificate must show to be valid it’s pointless.
The good news, if there is any, is that we the people have received a shock treatment that may serve to shake us like a dog with a squeaky toy from our stupor. We'll see...
Very good question.. The Federal Police would be a good clearing house of Info, maybe..
BUT TRUMPING LOCAL OR STATE POLICE... is unconstitutional..
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
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.