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?
How come we have to share this nation with so many idiots and drecks? Its like torture sometimes!
All of the birther bills are going to fail. Obama and his minions are too powerful
This is just the committee vote. It will go to the whole house for a vote at some point.
We only need 1 State.
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.