- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
10 states now developing eligibility proof-demands
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/26/2011 @ 7:50 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
Obama on the campaign trail
Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.
And they aren’t all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a “natural born citizen” – have been met.
In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.
Order your copy of Jerome Corsi’s upcoming blockbuster, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President,” autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic book when it is released this spring.
Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.
His plan, he said, is needed because he saw “requirements in the Constitution that you don’t have a code provision to ensure that it happens.”
“If we as an entity of civil government don’t follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?” he said. “We need to lead by example.”
According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.
There is Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.
Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.
The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.
Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona’s probably got the closest to law, falling a “pocket veto” short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.
This is the one that could change the game. A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn’t wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. It says:
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
“I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements,” she told WND.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.”
It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”
“If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state,” the plan explains.
The governor’s office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
It would require “that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.”
That is needed to make sure the candidate “is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.”
In Georgia, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.
“Each political party shall provide for each candidate … original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2 Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to such office,” it states.
“Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates,” it says.
In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution’s requirements for the president.
It calls for the candidates “to certify that the candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution” and accompany that certification with “a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications.”
In also provides “that the election division may not certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United States unless the election division has received a nominee’s certification and documentation.”
On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:
“However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph’s legislation, no major party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election’s division with a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and any other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements.”
He cited the “unprecedented” 2008 election, where “the candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being filed across the country. Sen. John McCain’s birth in Panama where his father was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.
“Obama furnished to Factcheck.org what was purported to be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed.”
But he said the issue was that neither candidate was “required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth certificate … .”
He said, “After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.
“Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph and those who support it as ‘birthers.’ To them I say it is no more absurd than the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver’s license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of transactions,” he said.
On Welsh’s blog, a forum participant wrote, “All I can say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to. Why is he so secretive?”
It states, “A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s driver’s license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.”
The Missouri plan, HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for candidates “shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship.”
In Nebraska, with LB654, the certification for candidates would “include affidavits and supporting documentation.”
That paperwork would need to document they meet the “eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
It requires an affidavit that says: “I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth.”
Under Montana’s plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.
“There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president],” Wagner told WND. “The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation.”
Wagner’s legislation cites the Constitution’s requirement that the president hold “natural born citizenship” and the fact that the “military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic.”
But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on Obama’s defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond.
“Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the Constitution,” says his proposed legislation.
In Oklahoma, SB91 would require “proof of citizenship for certain candidates” and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access.
It demands an “original” birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad …
“Copies of these documents shall be made by the election board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.
In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office.
Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.
He described it as a “problem” that there has been no established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”
“We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it into law before the next session,” he said.
Berman’s legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:
It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”
It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.
State Rep. Leo Berman
Berman told WND he’s seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”
“If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we’ll do it in our state,” he said.
He noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a “natural born citizen” was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions have called for a “natural born citizen” to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama’s “natural born citizen” status never has been documented. The “certification of live birth” his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The challenges to Obama’s eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom’s Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama’s eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts’ interpretation of “standing,” meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn’t have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama’s birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama’s eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution’s demands.
Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.
“We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union … as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further,” she said.
There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey’s bill at the federal level.
Posey’s H.R. 1503 stated:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”
The bill also provided:
“Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”
It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this year will move such a plan forward.
There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state
lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United
States qualifies under the Constitution’s eligibility requirements.
“What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don’t think so,” said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:
Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
“Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office,” he wrote in a column. “However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn’t take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective.”
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND poll.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/255965/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.