Posted on 03/11/2011 5:39:24 PM PST by Red Steel
(AP) Lawmakers have decided against asking presidential candidates who want to be on New Hampshire's primary ballot next year to produce a birth certificate.
The House Election Law Committee voted 10-8 yesterday to reject the proposal.
-snip-
He predicted the proposal may be back next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
I thought so ~ no one asked.
At least one and possibly two of the folks voting against the bill are probably Canadians.
Could someone please explain this to me....why would ANY state vote against requiring the Commander-in-Chief to prove they are constitutionally eligible to hold the highest office in the land. This makes no sense to me. What is the rationale behind not requiring proof in the future?????
There are no laws that can't be gotten around, so long as the Judges we have are in the pocket of the Party that assigned them to their Lifelong Public Job.
How long before the Judges join the SEIU?
This is insane. What a joke. Nebraska may also punt.
How come we have to share this nation with so many idiots and drecks? Its like torture sometimes!
I can only surmise that the media, in concert with the administration has done such a good job of painting anyone who doubts BHO’s eligibility as a wack job, outlier or racist that no solid group of legislators, even in the reddest or most libertarian of states is willing to fade the heat.
Groupthink encourages us to swallow the Big Lie.
I should have added that after Obama is out of office, 37 states will pass the legislation they don’t have the nerve to now.
One reason is because you have guys like this academic village idiot of Purdue U. screaming at the top of his lungs.
"Bert Rockman, a professor of political science, is frustrated with the so-called ‘birther' movement, a phenomenon he said has never before arisen.
"I don't want to pull any punches, but they're lunatics," he said. "It's because we have a president of color who lived part of his life outside the country. The birth certificate is quite clear - he was born in Honolulu.
"The only person who might be believe this type of stuff is beyond the fringe," he said. "There's a sixth, maybe a fifth of the country - even in a highly developed, industrialized society - that are susceptible to fascist and racist ideas. It's a regeneration of the John Birch Society."
So we're lunatics, fascist, racists, and farther than any other fringe group... according to this clown.
“....why would ANY state vote against requiring the Commander-in-Chief to prove they are constitutionally eligible to hold the highest office in the land.?”
Because they’ve been threatened. That’s what makes sense to me.
It seems like in a few of the other states, they were ready to go forward the “Birther Bills” and then all of a sudden they back off.
time to build a wall along the Potomac and send any loons down here up there while good social and fiscal conservatives can move down here .
I have no clue but when he seals his records , even his school ones not allowing anyone to see his grades and then now showing the B/C but only a short version then it does raise questions.
Every state should have in their constitution that if one is to run for president than they have to prove they are eligible otherwise they do not get the electoral count.
All of the birther bills are going to fail. Obama and his minions are too powerful
One question: Once elected to office, is there a spine-zapper that turns everyone's into linguini? If not, these s.o.b.'s have sold their souls and our country down the drain ---- and that's the honest to God's truth. Wake up America!
Professor Rockman, even if Comrade Barry had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
This is just the committee vote. It will go to the whole house for a vote at some point.
We only need 1 State.
Thirteen states have tried. Most bills are stuck in committee.
HI - HB1116 Rida Cabanilla (D!) intro'd bill 1/11 to supply BC for "persons of civic prominence" upon request and $100 fee. OK - Failed in '08. Trying again as of 2/11. MO - Failed in '09. Trying again, HB 283 hearing held as of 3/1/11. TX - HB 295 intro'd 11/10, in committee as of 2/15 TN - SB 1043 intro'd 1/11, in committee as of 2/23. NE - LB 654(PDF doc), intro'd 1/11. Dying in committee? CT - SB 391 intro'd 1/11. In committee. IA - SF 369, intro'd 3/11. In committee. GA - Failed in '10. (HB 1516). Supposedly trying again in '11. Found no details. MT - HB 205 intro'd 1/11. "Missed Deadline for General Bill Transmittal" AZ - Failed in '10 - passed house, senate refused to vote. Tried in 2/11, died in senate committee. IN - Intro'd 1/11. Died in committee. NH - Intro'd 3/11. Died in committee.
Cowards.....
State Rep. Shawn Jasper, a Hudson Republican, said he voted against the proposal because it was unnecessary and a distraction to the state's presidential primary - the earliest in the nation.
*****
Just wondering: What legal document does a presidential candidate in New Hampshire have to attach to his application to show proof that he is eligible to run for president under the laws of the Constitution?
That is, can a presidential candidate get away without attaching NO legal document at all like, say, an OFFICIAL document from a candidate's birth state with the state's SEAL on it?
For instance, if a publicly unknown person like me wants to run for president on the Noname Party primary ballot, do I simply fill out and sign the application form without having to attach any legal document that I was born in the United States and that I meet the age requirement?
Do the election officials in New Hampshire simply take my word for it that I am who I say I am on my presidential application form I fill out in order to enter the primary?
If true, it scares me that anybody can run for president in New Hampshire without providing any OFFICIAL state documents that he was born in the United States, that he is the right age, and that he was not adopted by a citizen in a foreign country at some point in his life.
And how does New Hampshire election officials prove that I am NOT lying on my application form if they have doubts and suspicion that I was NOT born in the United States and that I do not meet the age requirement?
How about this idea: Republican presidential candidates VOLUNTARILY attach their long form birth certificates to their application forms in order to reassure the public that they have nothing to hide about their births and that they are who they say they are?
I bet state election officials would be thrilled to see a long form birth certificate attached to a presidential candidate's application form even though the candidates are not required to do so under state law.
As I see, a state law can tell a presidential candidate that he is not required to attach a long form birth certificate to his application form, but there is no state law that keeps a candidate from VOLUNTARILY attaching a long form birth certificate to his application if he wants to.
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.