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 party’s 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 candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s 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 candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.