Montana Bill to Require Candidates for Federal Office to Submit Birth Certificate

Ballot Access News ^ | 1/12/2011 | Richard Winger, Editor

[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.

[jamese777]

This is not Constutitional text.

---

That’s true, but Article 1, Section 8 is constitutional text and it gives Congress the right to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the American people.
Since 1908 when the first federal investigative bureau was formed which later became named the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there has been no legal challenge to the authorizing statutes for the FBI.

[jamese777]

Police power? Nope. It doesn’t mean that.

---

It doesn’t mean that... to you.
Feel free to go ahead and file suit to shut down the FBI.

[Huck]

That’s true, but Article 1, Section 8 is constitutional text and it gives Congress the right to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the American people.

I see your point. So anything that Congress thinks helps the "general welfare" or the "common defense" is constitutional. Makes the whole idea of a "limited" government pretty laughable. But I think you are correct.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Article 1, Section 8 delegates to Congress the authority to:

“make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers . . .”

Congress has the explicit authority to pass laws that regulate Commerce, establish post roads, define and punish felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations, and provide for the punishment of counterfeiting. Is it not “necessary and proper” for Congress to establish a means by which these laws can be enforced?

[jamese777]

I see your point. So anything that Congress thinks helps the “general welfare” or the “common defense” is constitutional. Makes the whole idea of a “limited” government pretty laughable. But I think you are correct.

---

Something tells me that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of retaining the FBI but oppose subsidies to sugar farmers and foreign aid.

[Huck]

Something tells me that the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of retaining the FBI but oppose subsidies to sugar farmers and foreign aid.

I get your point. We're mostly a republic in name only. Majority rule is the name of the game.

[Huck]

That’s a different argument than the other poster. It’s possible. Question: does the FBI ONLY have authority to do those few things?