Skip to comments.Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy
Posted on 01/12/2010 3:25:13 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president - and, by extension, the vice president - to be "a natural born citizen."
(Excerpt) Read more at eastvalleytribune.com ...
Sounds good to me. I wonder what others think?
“A. Parents’ citizenship at time of birth is irrelevant to the eligibility of an American-born candidate”
True. Unless they are a candidate for President or Vice President. Then Parents have to be citizens for the child to be Natural born.
Well gee, it's soooo easy to lie online... I'm sure your last line was sarcasm. There was another After-Birther pushing that same line - it's a talking point or a lying point for them.
I figured that s/he/it (hmm - as in “sheeeit”?) was making up the “working hard on getting it law in my state” and now that such is being discussed - wowie zowie - it’s not doable, practical, etc.
What a disgusting steaming pile s/he/it is.
Thanks. Nationally, maybe this will take care of the boring talk about whether a certain law in certain state could be passed to deal with this ghost of a POTUS. Your friendly Ghoster
Well, that's just not true but for the sake of debate let's pretend this birther myth is the Law of the Land. How must each and every presidential candidate prove to the Arizona Secretary of State that their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth?
I wonder if all talk of hustling to pass such laws in home states will disappear like mist in the sun...
I’ll call your Schwarzenegger and raise you Bobby Jindal!
Such a law should also clearly provide that any candidate who fails to provide absolute and unambiguous proof of NBC shall not be listed on the ballot for either President or VP and that even if elected (through printing error or write-in votes) shall not receive any electors;
and that any candidate which provides false, forged, or otherwise tampered with documents, false testimony, or any other false evidence shall be guilty of a felony offense, penalty of which will be no less than 20 years at hard labor, and prima fascia evidence of treason;
and that electors representing the State shall not cast any vote for such disqualified candidate;
and elector casting such vote shall be guilty of a felony offense, penalty of which will be no less than 20 years at hard labor, and prima fascia evidence of treason.
The law should also contain a definition of Natural Born Citizen as: one who has never owed allegiance to any other country and was born in the United States and whose birth mother is a US citizen and whose birth father is a US citizen;
and that all submitted evidence of proof is a public record open for examination and challenge by any citizen;
and that every citizen, in their own behalf, or any government agency on the state’s behalf, has standing to bring suit to force production of said proof if said proof has been withheld from the public.
If such laws were enacted in even a handful of states, it would compel compliance, or at least a great deal of litigation and scrutiny. No Presidential candidate could afford to be not on the ballot in four or five states as it would lead to great damage to the state parties and candidates in the affected states.
You were saying ... Is that proof going to require documentary evidence that both parents were American citizens at the time of birth??? That understanding, that you're presenting here, is disputed among conservatives and others, as to whether that is a requirement. You may think so, but others think not. As far as I can see, this kind of requirement that is spoken about here on Free Republic with a few Freepers maintaining that this is so -- is only going to be resolved by a Supreme Court decision. You're not going to find any legislature that will pass that kind of specific requirement into law -- but -- you will find that state legislatures will have a relatively easy time of passing a law that requires a birth certificate to be shown or else the candidate cannot be on the ballot.
She doesn't mind state legislatures passing laws that all candidates present birth certificates because she knows that the Hawaiian Democratically-controlled criminal syndicate will provide Obama with any piece of paper that he might need to comply with any state law, 50 different birth certificates if necessary.
But she bristles at the thought of the candidate being required to provide proof that both parents were US citizens at the time of birth -- as it is truly Obama's Achilee's heel for which they have no answer. She is probably NS's wife.
One state should be enough, but 4 or 5 would seal the deal.
It would be pretty obvious if ‘bammy refused to be on the ballot in 1 state, but 4 or 5, besides making even the some liberals question his qualifications, would make it electorially impossible to win.
See? I told you there were others. And I’m betting they have a sound understanding of the judiciary and know what a non-binding resolution is.
Sham wow -- all of that and yet they can't understand Justice Marshall's words in the Venus decision. Go figure.
What if the Senate passes a non-binding resolution stating that Obama is a natural-born citizen because he was born in Hawaii? Will that clear it up for you?
And considering that the states control their ballots and can set their own criteria for who can be on it then there is no reason why such a law wouldn't be upheld by the courts. And it would take only one state to pass a law for it to have its desired effect - no candidate from a major party can refuse to run in any state without eyebrows being raised.
I can see the ‘bamma supporters spinning out excuses why he doesn’t need to be on the ballot in X state because he wouldn’t have won it anyway.
Of course, for this same group, no written rule means anything, the only thing that means anything is for their people to attain the power to give them free stuff and to punish others.
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.