Obama on the campaign trail

Lawmakers in Arizona have become the first legislature in the nation to adopt a law that would require candidates for president to prove their eligibility under the Constitution’s special requirements for that office: being at least 35 years of age, a resident for 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”

House Bill 2177 now has been moved to the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer who can sign it, veto it, or let it become law without her signature.

Confirmation came in a brief message from Rep. Judy Burges, one of the supporters of the plan, in the middle of the night.

“We are the first state to pass a candidate certification bill,” she told WND.

While opponents cast the idea as a direct attack on Barack Obama, whose long-form birth certificate and other documentation that could shed light on his status has remained concealed, proponents say the 2008 election simply revealed a gap in the election processes in the United States presidential elections and this is meant to address that in future elections.

Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!

The Arizona plan would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility with an original birth certificate or alternative documents such as a baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record or a postpartum medical record. Also allowed would be a notarized affidavit from at least two people present at the birth.

Brewer has not taken a formal position on the issue, but she has, in the past, displayed no hesitation in taking on the federal government, through the still-developing battle over enforcement of federal immigration standards.

A year ago her legislature approved a law allowing state enforcement of federal standards and she signed it, only to see the Obama administration intervene and challenge the state’s right to protect its own citizens.

That dispute appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court at this point.

The vote late last night in the state House was 40-16 in favor of the plan, following the earlier 20-9 vote in the state Senate, showing overwhelming support.

On websites advocating for such laws, such as BirtherReport.com, people were being encouraged to contact the governor’s office requesting her signature.

“It’s time now to start calling Governor Brewer’s office,” it instructed. “Now come on Oklahoma, Missouri and everyone else. If any of you have contacts in these states let them know right away that Arizona did it.”

In Oklahoma, it’s Senate Bill 91 that has been approved by the Senate and is out of committee in the state House.

Not complicated, it requires that all candidates – not just those for president – shall “provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office.”

It provides that the secretary of state write up rules to specify the documentation that will be required and that such documents will be made available for public inspection.

The questions have arisen over Obama because while he has talked about his birth in Hawaii, he’s offered no documentation but a “Certification of Live Birth” online image of a document that during the time of Obama’s birth was available to any child whose parents would state he or she was born in Hawaii, whether true or not.

The New York Times has contended that Hawaii has “confirmed” that the online document is authentic, however no state official has publicly verified it is Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. They have said they have Obama’s records, but they haven’t detailed what information they include.

WND has reported on the state-level efforts to ensure that candidates for the Oval Office meet the requirements established in the U.S. Constitution.

Such plans appeared this year in New Hampshire, Montana, Iowa, Maine, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas. Some efforts are conclusively out of the running, and in some states plans already are being made for next year, which still would give states time to impose a requirement for the 2012 election.


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 similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts suggest, 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 regard a natural-born citizen to be a person 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 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 territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from eligibility. There also are claims when he was adopted by an Indonesia stepfather, if ever he had status as a “natural born Citizen,” it was compromised at that point.

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 doctor, 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 again 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.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.

For nearly two years, 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 would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.