Barack Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has let pass an opportunity to explain what the president believes about state legislatures whose members are working on requirements for presidential candidates to be required to document their eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.
The question was going to be raised at yesterday’s press briefing by Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House. However, Gibbs declined to recognize Kinsolving, and dozens of other reporters on hand, for any questions.
He did have conversations with NBC and CBS, whose reporters asked 13 and 7 questions, respectively.
Kinsolving wanted to ask about the report from the National Conference of State Legislatures that 10 states now have bills pending to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility status under the Constitution’s requirements that they be a natural born citizen.
He also wanted to ask whether placing at the head of the Democratic National Committee Paul Gaspard, “a Saul Alinsky-inspired ACORN operative,” was representative of the president’s national tone.
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.
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.