Posted on 03/03/2011 7:19:13 PM PST by jamese777
Some Georgia lawmakers couldnt backpedal fast enough Thursday on a birther bill supported earlier this week by a majority of House members.
First to block out his name with a heavy black marker on House Bill 401 was John Meadows, chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.
A steady stream of legislators followed all day. By 5 p.m., at least 23 of the original 93 backers were gone from a proposal requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates prove they were born in the United States. Among them was the bill's lone Democratic supporter, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro.
Seventy sponsors is still a sizable chunk of the 180-member chamber, but is an abrupt about-face from just 48 hours before. Why?
Weve got state problems weve got to take care of, said Meadows, R-Calhoun, who said he heard complaints from constituents.
Many of those removing their names said they hadnt read the bill and disagreed with how far it goes in making a candidate prove eligibility. Others simply said theyd been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
That is a scary statement. I am hopefully the remaining lawmakers have more character and will stand up to the bad guys.
It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.
IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.
Here is a report with the same dateline:
< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011
Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit original documentation for candidates who appear on that partys presidential primary, and also for the party to submit original documentation for its nominee in November.
The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires A certified exact copy of the candidates first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidates date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidates birth; the names of the candidates birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidates birth. However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.
HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news. > >
This report comes from Ballot Access News. The other (i.e.: the one posted by the SP) comes from one of the most leftist fish-wraps in the country, with a well deserved reputation for inaccuracy and over-the-top bias.
Hmm...which one am I going to believe.
Decisions, decisions.
(Hint: it helps to see which report the OP, a leftist liberal, pounced on. He is a liar himself, so...take it from there.)
Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.
I haven’t spoken to my friend yet. It’s near the top of my To Do list. You might have a look at the news item I posted in 24. It’s too soon to say with one-hundred-percent certainty, but it’s beginning to look like the Urinal’s reputation for shoddy, inaccurate reporting will emerge from this intact.
Go defend your Messiah someplace else, were all booked up here.
Call me suspicious, but it would appear that this is a parliamentary device to avoid choosing either bill by tossing the matter into committee. Of course it also possible that the Democrat seeking eligibility legislation designed his bill as a smoke bomb. Clever.
Going back to the SCOTUS vigil now.
Excellent post.
It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.
IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.
If it turns out that only four out of ninety-odd sponsors backed off, that’s really not a big or newsworthy story. Unless you’re a leftist shill.
Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.
I hate to say but I believe these bills are mostly symbolic with content such as that above. If they do get through and passed, which would be a major step forward, they will then get challenged in Federal court. My guess is they would be thrown out due to states having ‘different standards’. We have already seen this approach with the immigration laws.
I think states should beef their penalties for perjury and fraud related to the current requirements. Some states already require the local or national party to ‘certify’ their candidates as Constitutionally eligible before they can be placed on the ballot. I am not sure if Georgia is one of these, but Hawaii was. And the local party refused to provide certification. But Nancy P and the DNC did and they saved the day.
So states that already require a formal ‘sign-off’ of eligibility should simply put a specific and harsh penalty on those that provide the formal ‘sign-off’. You would see a lot more hesitation of putting a name on the ballot if someone specific may go to jail. It has worked for businesses! SBX makes CEO and CFO crazy for paperwork in todays world. Why? Because they may personally go to jail for bad paperwork. So what is good for business leaders should be good for politicians.
In my view if someone want to do legal action at a grass roots level the key starting place is in the those states that already do require sign-off. You will find Democratic party leader, almost all, if not all at a state level, that have ‘signed-off’ legally, in their state, on the edibility of the 2008 Democratic ticket. These are really the only people who could be held directly accountable. Of course, most were only going through the motions. They would not really be part of a cover-up. But, it is they that signed on the dotted line. They are ultimately responsible. That is were the legal action should be. To much of the activity has started out at the wrong level.
Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.
You made a slew of excellent points. It sounds like a winning strategy to me.
I quite agree.
However, this sort of activity would have been very far outside of the Steele Thought-Box. It also was (and is) the very last thing the RNC had on its collective so-called mind.
IMHO, we are fighting the ineligibility war with rebel militia. The official army has yet to join the fight. Like George Washington, we need a victory to attract more powerful support. This could be the week.
Except courts have already ruled in Obamas favor on that issue: We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS. Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, wrong again....
The formal ruling was this:
AFFIRMED
There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.
The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.
Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....
“blah, blah, blah, blah....
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”
He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.
But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.
A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....
“Hoooooosier daddy?!”
It applies here...
“Birther Bill and an image of second thoughts”
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/03/the-birther-bill-and-an-image-of-second-thoughts/
Sorry, wrong again....
The formal ruling was this:
AFFIRMED
There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.
The original case was not about the definition of natural born Citizen (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.
Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....
blah, blah, blah, blah....
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.
But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.
A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....
Hoooooosier daddy?!
It applies here...
Bluecat6 is also correct to point out that the vast majority of judges and justices do provide a legal rationale for their decisions rather than simply issuing a one word verdict such as “affirmed” or “dismissed.”
Ah. Disinformation. I hope that the legislators are aware of the inaccuracies of that rag and don’t allow themselves to be swayed by some feeling that the people don’t support bills that require documentation of eligibility.
Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.
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.