Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

My new hero...Bill Posey.
1 posted on 03/13/2009 11:57:12 AM PDT by AJ in NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: AJ in NYC

Hey Smith, you’ll soon be the one the fringe Lib boy.


2 posted on 03/13/2009 11:59:24 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
It is a very very sad reflection on the situation that we are in, that this law is even being considered.

Essentially, this laws says:

Submit proof that you are in compliance with the Constitution of the United States of America

3 posted on 03/13/2009 12:01:13 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ("They're not Americans. They're liberals! "-- Ann Coulter, May 15, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
noted that courts and Hawaii officials had rejected the claims....

Hawaii reject what claims Smith? You appear to be lying again.

4 posted on 03/13/2009 12:02:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

Good. Regardless of what people believe, all should support this simply because it’s a good idea.


5 posted on 03/13/2009 12:03:05 PM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
Rep. Bill Posey, a freshman Republican from Florida -

FINALLY!, someone has the courage to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes".

Way to go Congressman Posey!

6 posted on 03/13/2009 12:03:36 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (FUBO Kenyan Usurper - "Don't Tread On Me!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

Excellent. Watch the demonrats squeal “racism”


7 posted on 03/13/2009 12:05:17 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

Apparently, given their increasing numbers, these people are not that “fringe” anymore, Bill.

Hey, I have an idea...how about an open airing of this issue? Oh, thats right. You are one those lefty “reporters” who pretends not to have a bias.


8 posted on 03/13/2009 12:08:14 PM PDT by AJ in NYC (Liberals are ill-mannered children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
House.gov hasn't received the text of the bill yet:

"The text of H.R. 1503 has not yet been received from GPO Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed."

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html

12 posted on 03/13/2009 12:13:43 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

I don’t now if this gets us very far. Who gets to decide whether or not the proof is in compliance with the Constitution? John McCain’s birth certificate shows he was born in Panama. Does that comply with the Constitution? There are those that argue natural born means born on US soil. Barack Obama’s may show his father to be a British citizen, which could disqualify him. Does this leave it up to the House committe on Administration to define natural born? What if they decide all you need is for one parent to be a citizen?


13 posted on 03/13/2009 12:15:17 PM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

Fringe doubts my arse.Informed citizens is more like it.


15 posted on 03/13/2009 12:16:27 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's even tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
...that stems from fringe doubts about Obama's eligibility for office.

An honest reporting of this would say that this bill closes a loophole in the Constitution by codifying into law the process for a candidate to prove their eligibility under the Constitution.

It doesn't have to be about Obama's situation. It would apply to anyone running for President in the future.

-PJ

17 posted on 03/13/2009 12:18:46 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LucyT; Star Traveler

PING


23 posted on 03/13/2009 12:33:52 PM PDT by stockpirate ("the imposition of socialist tyranny will produce the enslavement of conscience, " Alan Keyes 09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Beckwith; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...

Thanks, pissant and stockpirate.

Birther bill hits Congress.


24 posted on 03/13/2009 12:37:47 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

It’s retro-active right? If not, why not. If it seems like a good idea, why not satisfy the people with the last election?


46 posted on 03/13/2009 1:15:10 PM PDT by RC2 (http://www.worldviewradio.com/play.php?EpisodeID=10958)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

In truth, I think about the only way this can, or will ever be addressed, is with the creation of a federal “candidate identification” law.

In essence, I suspect that the SCOTUS is rejecting challenges to Obama’s status for a very simple, and embarrassing, reason.

The Constitution of the United States is a framework for law, it is not itself “law”.

This is a pretty extraordinary thing to say, until you think about it. The US constitution establishes how government is ordered, it says very little about what is to be done if the rules are broken.

For example, when the 18th Amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed, nothing happened. This is because congress *then* had to create federal law that “enabled” that Amendment to be enforced. Only when that had happened did prohibition actually begin.

And the congress, from the days of the founding fathers, never got around to creating enabling legislation to require the verification of a presidential candidates qualifications.

So in other words, though it says so clearly in the US constitution, *nobody* currently has the authority or responsibility to determine candidate credentials. Nobody in the government, not the president, the congress, or the courts, is authorized to do this.

Obama becomes president because of a loophole. A lack of federal law.

However, while this is frustrating, it is also very, very important that this law be carefully crafted. The implications are enormous.

To start with, this law could determine if Obama is permitted to stand for re-election. But it reaches beyond that.

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

A federal enabling law must then take into account that “*someone*” has the authority and is responsible to:

1) Determine a candidate is a natural born citizen, and what “natural born” means. What records are valid to assert this, and since they are preserved by the individual States, who is authorized access to those records. This “someone” must be able to get those records even if the State government does not wish to provide them.

2) Determine that a candidate is at least 35 years old. This requires a medical determination and a sworn statement from a physician.

3) Has been a 14-year resident of the United States. Does this mean the *last* 14 years, *consecutive* 14 years, *concurrent* 14 years? Again written into the federal law. (Actually, this one makes sense, since a lot of our candidates are likely “military brats”.)

Until this is put into federal law, the US has a constitutional dilemma.


59 posted on 03/13/2009 2:00:50 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC
Just shot an email off to my Rep (Ralph Hall, R-Tx) encouraging him to support this bill to “help protect the sanctity of our elections”.
85 posted on 03/13/2009 3:29:11 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

Well done, Congressman Posey.


96 posted on 03/13/2009 4:09:02 PM PDT by snowsislander (NRA -- join today! 1-877-NRA-2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

The article said — “H.R. 1503. A bill 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; to the Committee on House Administration.”

Now that’s a good move.

I just heard about Missouri, the other day, being the third state that I know of that is passing similar state legislation. It’s Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma so far (unless someone knows of any others...).

I think it’s going to be easier getting these laws through the states, though. I find it hard to imagine that a predominant Democrat Congress will go for this. But, in the states (not all, but a sizable number), there’s not that kind of problem and they can move right ahead on it.

I’m glad to see the first signs of rationality, in people doing this sort of thing. This is what will work to get Obama out of office...


104 posted on 03/13/2009 7:02:25 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC; Red Steel; GreatOne; David; Just A Nobody; Clintonfatigued; jazusamo; Kevmo; BP2; ...
Even if Congressman Posey's bill is defeated, it will give the issue of Obama's constitutional qualifications - or lack thereof - a higher profile in the public debate.

Congratulations for your courage, Congressman, and best of luck!!!

124 posted on 03/13/2009 8:00:15 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AJ in NYC

obumpa


143 posted on 03/14/2009 1:29:56 AM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson