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

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Usurper Detection Legislation Should Be Passed Within Each State
10-30-2009 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 10/30/2009 3:00:46 PM PDT by Uncle Sham

Since it appears that the judicial branch is intent on abandoning it's duty to uphold the Constitution, perhaps it's time for the states themselves to individually pass legislation that will protect their citizens from the actions of anyone who illegally occupies the Oval office.

There is nothing to prevent a state from passing a law requiring that the President must file his PROOF of meeting eligibility requirements with the state and that such a filing is open to public challenge in court.

Such a law could stipulate that any legislation signed by a President who refuses or is unable to meet this requirement to file shall be declared null and void within the borders of the state. No orders affecting any of the states citizens from such a usurper would have legal standing within the borders of the state. In addition, the act could command all legislators at the national level to institute whatever legal mechanism is required to challenge the standing of such a usurper.

It seems to me, any state-passed law that ENFORCES the Constitution would be judged as "Constitutional". Perhaps this can be done through a ballot initiative if the legislators refuse to look into it. We do not have to WAIT until the next Presidential election to handcuff a possible usurper. This can be done NOW and immediately protect a state's citizens from having to live with ILLEGALLY made legislation or orders.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: article2section1; bho; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; colb; colbaquiddic; eligibility; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamacolb; passport; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last
To: Lady Jag; Jacquerie

Here’s another thread in case you haven’t seen it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2383292/posts

The Coming Storm - State Sovereignty


101 posted on 11/10/2009 3:20:35 PM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Thanks for the information. Do you suppose the law I’ve suggested would be easier to enact, at least in a couple of states? If so, which states would, in your opinion, be most likely to consider it?


102 posted on 11/10/2009 3:35:27 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, it was good seeing you once again. Keep up the good health! This is the thread I told you about.


103 posted on 11/10/2009 3:37:24 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag; PGalt; seekthetruth; All
Wisconsin SR 6 Referred to Ethics Reform and Government Operations Committee 04/09/09 JLR: ak

Unfortunately, Doyle the Boil is a despicable NEANDRATHOL!

Is it any wonder months ago, Doyle *Proclaimed* he would not seek re election?

Uhh Doyle?

Do Wisconsin an Un Paid intellectually Honest favor!

Quit!

Release Wisconsin's hard working tax payers from your bondage! I found your *Photo Op* with Ovomit in Milwaukee, outrageous and embarrassing! When you accepted worthless Federal money from a unaccomplished THUG, squating in America's White House, I along with thousands of Wisconsin residents, heaved up collective chunks of undigested rat poison. Sadly, we accepted your corrupt leadership, Mr, Doyle and his Republican/Democratic Minions need to be purged from their cushy corrupt caves.

The sooner the better!

104 posted on 11/10/2009 3:47:19 PM PST by katiekins1 ( I am preparing a table for you in the presence of your enemies, and you shall feast on the beasts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Nice work! I rarely see an accurate representation of all the pending legislation in GA.


105 posted on 11/10/2009 4:43:57 PM PST by tunedin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; pissant; BP2; EternalVigilance; Candor7; george76; VirginiaConstitutionalist; rxsid; ...
Since states conduct their own elections for president and VP every four years (technically, elections for pledged electors), one way to go would be state legislation requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to provide documentation of their constitutional qualifications as a prerequisite to get on the ballot within that state. (Incidentally, I believe that Missouri may have already passed such legislation, although I'm not sure of that.) Of course, O could not possibly be impacted by such laws until 2012.

As far as initiative is concerned, please remember that many states don't have any provision for it at all.

106 posted on 11/10/2009 5:47:50 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Thanks for locating this info, Lady Jag.

Makes me sad to see this about my state: “Failed on the floor to pass with amendment.”


107 posted on 11/10/2009 5:49:10 PM PST by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Additionally, to ensure the validity of electons, the states must make it a priority to investigate and prosecute voter fraud NOW.


108 posted on 11/10/2009 6:30:49 PM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Uncle Sham; pissant; BP2; EternalVigilance; cripplecreek; Dajjal; rxsid; ...
"Birthers" committing sedition? Wow, I've been on FR close to five years and that's the first I've heard of any Americans accused of "sedition." The word has not even been used in connection with the young American man who went off to fight with the Taliban and was captured by American troops, nor the American who gives pro-Islamist speeches from behind Islamofasist lines.

If I am not mistaken, there were two anti-sedition acts passed in American history (one during the John Adams administration and one during World War I), and both were either repealed or declared unconstitutional. Despite the fact that federal criminal law is now touches on just about every activity known to mankind, there is no crime on the books now known as "sedition."

On the contrary, what the "Birthers" are doing - by going to court and seeking redress of a likely insult to the Constitution - is well within the confines of the First Amendment's rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

109 posted on 11/10/2009 6:48:50 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
Additionally, to ensure the validity of elections, the states must make it a priority to investigate and prosecute voter fraud NOW.

Right on, ExTexasRedhead!

110 posted on 11/10/2009 6:51:54 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: tunedin; Slings and Arrows; martin_fierro; MeekOneGOP; Daffynition; Allegra; restornu; ...
Not familiar with this website but the links are full of info.

War On You

*** 31 States already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty. ***

NOTE: Sovereignty is NOT the same as Secession.  These states (except for Hawaii) are not claiming to leave the union (for now).

All of these ‘movements’ (except for Hawaii) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment.  Hawaii is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that Hawaii was never really a state of the U.S.A..

However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed, FOCA-type laws, or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play.  Check them out:

States That Already Are Sovereign / Passed 10th Amendement Restatement Legislature:
– California (CA): [
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO and HERE]
– Colorado (CO): [CLICK HERE for bill text - HERE for the scan]  *NEW*
- Hawaii (HI):
[General info: HERE or HERE -- SCOTUS Case: HERE for docket & HERE or HERE for summary]
– Louisiana (LA): [CLICK HERE - §26]  *NEW*
– Massachusetts (MA): [CLICK HERE - Article IV]  *NEW*

– Oklahoma (OK): [CLICK HERE and HERE - 99% done... stay tuned! (I'll count it as passed for now)*NEW*
– Texas (TX): [
THIS WEBSITE] has good Republic of Texas info & bill text HERE]
– Utah (UT): [CLICK HERE and search for HJR003 or HERE for a pdf]  *NEW*

States Claiming Sovereignty:
– Arizona (AZ): [
CLICK HERE]
– Arkansas (AR): [CLICK HERE]
– Georgia (GA): [
CLICK HERE]
– Kansas (KS): [CLICK HERE for bill text - hearing date set for approx. 03/04!]  *NEW*
- Kentucky (KY): [CLICK HERE and HERE*NEW*
– Indiana (IN): [CLICK HERE]
- Iowa (IA): [CLICK HERE and more info HERE]
– Michigan (MI): [CLICK HERE (HCR No. 4)]
– Minnesota (MN): [CLICK HERE - more info HERE and HERE]
– Missouri (MO): [CLICK HERE --
CLICK HERE for even more info (but currently broken)]
– Montana (MT): [
CLICK HERE]
– New Hampshire (NH): [
CLICK HERE]
- South Carolina (SC): [CLICK HERE]
– Tennessee (TN): [CLICK HERE or HERE]

– Washington (WA): [
CLICK HERE]

States Planning / Motioning Toward Claiming Sovereignty:
- Alabama (AL):
(Sources below*)
– Alaska (AK): (Sources below*)
– Idaho (ID): (Sources below*)
– Maine (ME): (Sources below*)
– Nevada (NV): (Sources below*)
- Ohio (OH): (CLICK HERE, HERE, and HERE*NEW*
– Pennsylvania (PA): (CLICK HERE for page and HERE for text & Sources below*)
– West Virginia (WV): (CLICK HERE — Bill text HERE)


[
Source # 1]  & [Source # 2] for the “pending / planning” states.

States on the ‘Watch List’ (these are not counted in the total & not on the map):
- Florida (FL):
[CLICK HERE for a petition]

http://waronyou.com/topics/31-states-already-are-are-now-claiming-or-are-planning-for-declaration-of-sovereignty
November 10,2009

111 posted on 11/10/2009 7:05:19 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income. Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

“Wow, I’ve been on FR close to five years and that’s the first I’ve heard of any Americans accused of “sedition.””

Really? Read more.

“If I am not mistaken, there were two anti-sedition acts passed in American history (one during the John Adams administration and one during World War I), and both were either repealed or declared unconstitutional. Despite the fact that federal criminal law is now touches on just about every activity known to mankind, there is no crime on the books now known as “sedition.””

You are mistaken. Take a look at 18 USC Chap 115. The law is quite current and quite constitutional.

The birthers are the most obvious seditionists as by encouraging mutiny in time of war, they are violating 18 USC 2388, but there are plenty of others roaming around, a number on the internet. I am told some of them think that the government doesn’t know who they are, or the extent to which others are supporting them. :)


112 posted on 11/10/2009 7:48:11 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for the ping!


113 posted on 11/10/2009 7:49:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Bump!


114 posted on 11/10/2009 8:02:55 PM PST by Freedom2specul8 (I am Jim Thompson............................Please pray for our troops....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Very interesting, thanks much for the ping.


115 posted on 11/10/2009 8:18:29 PM PST by Oorang (Tyranny thrives where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people - Alex Kozinski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

A lot of links to info, I’m still pecking away at them.


116 posted on 11/10/2009 8:25:28 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income. Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Oorang
I'm trying to garner more info on this; it's a glimmer of hope.


117 posted on 11/10/2009 8:29:10 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income. Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Sounds like a winner to me.


118 posted on 11/10/2009 8:31:34 PM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Nope. No sedition here, Oh Turk-eater (I read your home page - very nice!)

The requirments to be President are specific: natural born citizen; a minimum of 35 years old; and must have resided within the United State for the past 14 years. Any state requiring a candidate for President to proffer evidence supporting any of the three requirments is, I believe, a neat, effiecient and assured method to affirm the Constitutional requirements to be President.

Natural born citizen proof is a no brainer. It can easily be done by supplying birth certificates of grandparents, parents, and for self a long form birth certificate.

The age requirement too can be affrimed using the long-form birth certificate.

Residency requirement can be confirmed by drivers licenses. (Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine any candidate for President who would not have a drivers license, but there are other means of determining residency such as utility bills and tax returns.)

I started investigating Barack Obama’s background almost two years ago, and it was weird how information about him would just “poof”, disappear off the internet, scrubbed clean. This man has something about himself he seriously doesn’t want known, and that is flat-out wrong. Why? In these kind of situations it is usually because he’s a major security risk.

So the birth certificate, for better or for worse, is emblematic of this President’s term - very secretive and most likely not friendly to American interests.


119 posted on 11/10/2009 9:32:28 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

obumpa


120 posted on 11/11/2009 12:19:44 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Alamo Girl, What is your opinion of this concept and do you think it is obtainable in some form or fashion?


121 posted on 11/11/2009 4:11:05 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
"On the contrary, what the "Birthers" are doing - by going to court and seeking redress of a likely insult to the Constitution - is well within the confines of the First Amendment's rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. "

Thank You for nailing it.

If anything is "sedition" or "treason", it's got to be "usurping" the Presidency and or aiding and abetting a "usurper" to the Presidency during a time of war.

122 posted on 11/11/2009 4:16:54 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
"If the present person in the Oval office is legal, he shouldn’t have any problems with such legislation, nor should his supporters."

If the present person in the Oval office was legal, he would not have gone to great expense to block the disclosure of his real birth certificate and then sealed his other records, as well.

Big "if".

123 posted on 11/11/2009 5:34:41 PM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
Seems to me it's a good idea for each state to require by law proof of eligibility before a name is "printed" on a ballot.

Generally though laws are not retroactive so I doubt it would be of any help to past elections. But it would help in 2012 etc.

124 posted on 11/11/2009 8:54:40 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"Generally though laws are not retroactive so I doubt it would be of any help to past elections. But it would help in 2012 etc."

The law I propose would go into effect the day it was passed and would not be "retroactive". It would affect all legislative and presidential executive orders occurring from the moment it became law.

Of course, if it exposed a "usurper" while in office, I'm sure that anything he signed before such a law went into effect would be challenged in other ways.

125 posted on 11/12/2009 5:43:42 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Ah, that makes sense.


126 posted on 11/12/2009 9:00:54 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Thanksgiving bump.


127 posted on 11/26/2009 7:13:38 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Would it have more force if it was in a States’ Constitution?


128 posted on 11/26/2009 8:25:25 AM PST by HP8753 (Live Free!!!! .............or don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HP8753

I really don’t think it would matter legally. Putting such a provision in a state’s constitution would take more of an effort than just passing a state law. A law could be passed in a week.


129 posted on 11/26/2009 3:11:53 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Then charge the Birthers with Sedition.

Birther goes to court with his defense that Obama was born in Kenya and is an usurper who has gained his office by (A) False Statements under oath [We have Obama’s signed statement from Arizona during the campaign stating that he was a natural born citizen] BIG TIME SMOKING GUN (B) Obstruction of Justice (c) Criminal Conspiracy.

So bring it on. Bring the sedition charges. You are just trying to SCARE people.

I don’t scare easily.

You know, Bob Bauer, YOU will eventually wind up behind bars for this fiasco, don’t you?

And so will Judge Carter.


130 posted on 11/29/2009 9:33:18 PM PST by bigoil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

The True Answer to the health care fiasco Bump


131 posted on 12/21/2009 5:45:50 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Obama has never presented such proof to anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

The way he got on the ballot in fifty states is: the vast majority of the populace is as intellectually dishonest and lazy, and as willing to swallow publicity stunts (like releasing forged jpg images of forged documents) as “evidence,” as you are.


132 posted on 12/23/2009 9:23:54 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

“The way he got on the ballot in fifty states is: the vast majority of the populace is as intellectually dishonest and lazy, and as willing to swallow publicity stunts (like releasing forged jpg images of forged documents) as “evidence,” as you are.”

So the majority need the Birthers to set the rest of us straight, right? Why, if you folks, a truly tiny minority, could just take over and rule the rest of us, things would be just fine, correct? A tiny minority ruling the rest of us because the tiny minority is so smart and we’re so dumb!

Here’s a tip; the majority might get upset with the tiny ruling minority made up of such smart Birther types.


133 posted on 12/24/2009 3:50:28 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Try responding to what I said, instead of something you wish I had said.


134 posted on 12/24/2009 4:54:36 AM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

You asserted, falsely, that Obama had presented proof of his citizenship status to all fifty states. You did not respond to my factual statement that: Obama has never presented such proof to anybody, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.


135 posted on 12/24/2009 4:56:55 AM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
those books will be written in Chinese

or Arabic.

136 posted on 12/24/2009 7:53:27 AM PST by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

You are wasting your time by trying to debate “Mr.Threat-Machine”. Pay him/her/it no mind. BTW, Happy New Year!


137 posted on 01/02/2010 11:16:49 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

I still think this is a better approach than waiting for the next election cycle to catch a Usurper.


138 posted on 02/12/2011 7:04:14 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

It all comes down to what is proof.


139 posted on 03/30/2011 9:35:37 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MS from the OC

It all comes down to what is proof.


140 posted on 03/30/2011 9:35:55 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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