Skip to comments.Texas bill would require birthplace proof for presidential candidates (About Time Alert)
Posted on 04/29/2010 8:44:11 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III
FORTH WORTH, Texas A state lawmaker wants to make sure that any candidate on the presidential ticket from now on can show proof they were born in the United States or not be allowed on the Texas ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Finally. Hope it happens
Don’t mess with Texas
This looks to be a growing trend in state legislatures. It’s a slap in the face to the Obamites and they know it.
One presidential election too late...
Well yeah, but hey, if it keeps him off the ballot the next go round, then it’s worth it.
Laws are usually written to address a problem,not anticipate one;who imagined the Democrat and Republican party bosses would ignore the Constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate?
Of course the POS 0dumbo will keep arguing the fak bc he put out is proof
then he will lie and say Gov Lingle said he was born in Hi
and then his supporters will call all of us crazed birthers
Bring it on
I am sure that, as we speak, the Whitey House is preparing a press statement condemning the Texas Legislature’s actions.
AZ might not have enough electoral votes for O to care; but Texas does.
Not to mention the entire federal judiciary, the SCOTUS, and the entire media.
IMHO, this is going the wrong way. The bill should require proof of “Natural Born Citizenship” status, not birthplace proof. The Constitution requires the former, not the latter. Just proof of location doesn’t guarantee constitutional requirements.
Hopefully the proposed bill would require proof of “Natural Born Citizen” status not just a birth place.
Less than one minute!!! GMTA
If there is a next "go round." I get the sense that Obama will not go meekly into the night.
Actually, it needs to require birth certificate and proof of citizenship for both parents.
Arizona started the ball rolling on this type of bill. It will be ready for Gov Brewers signature soon.
unfortunately it is only happening in states 0bama has no chance on winning. We need to see a law like this in a state that is always close, such as OH, PA or MO.
“If there is a next “go round.” I get the sense that Obama will not go meekly into the night.”
Just like clinton then.
Bingo. He’s never winning Texas anyway. But we ought to be able to pass this in Florida. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Minnesota also ought to be targets. Of course, the first two you’d run into Dem governors who would veto the law.
This is a commonsense approach to what will continue to be a bedeviling controversy otherwise.
State the standard. Enforce it. That is all.
Doesn’t matter if its only in states he can’t win anyway. All it requires is one state to not put him on the ballot because he refuses to comply with the law. At that point I don’t think that even the msm can ignore it.
Hook ‘em Horns!
It’s worth it anyway. The Constitution must be upheld and, apparently, there is no process for doing that as to presidential candidates at the moment. If a party hack says, yeah, he’s eligible, that seems to be all there is to it and that is not sufficient.
Hawaii says that their COLB listing a Hawaiian birthplace is proof of birth within their state, and under the “full faith and credit” clause, Texas is obligated to accept it.
This law neither “Free(s) the long form” or establishes that one must be the child of two citizens to be a “natural born citizen”. In fact it seems that any proof of birth establishing U.S. citizenship at birth would fulfill the requirment to be on the Presidential ballot for any of these States that have (so far) passed these measures.
It probably does/will. Remember, this info is being filtered through an LSM “journalist” at the Boston Herald...
Nice choice of words: "a birth certificate not his birth certificate".
This counterfeit administration is so good at foistng counterfeits upon the masses.
But it’s a good thing because the media will have to cover it, and it will bring a lot more people in other states to demand to show his BC. But there is still the Natural Born Citizen thing, which he has already admitted he’s not. Also Mitt Romney is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was born in Mexico.
I'm thinking more like Chavez or Castro.
Are you trying to claim that a child born of two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is not a natural born citizen if one of those parents is not ALSO a natural born citizen?
Do you know how few people would be natural born citizens by that definition? Almost nobody, because almost every American has at least one Grandparent, or Great-Grandparent who was not a natural born citizen; especially by your definition.
It is up to Congress to regulate what criteria is acceptable or unacceptable as far as their documents and procedures; and so far, Congress has made no ruling that a computer printout COLB doesn't satisfy their (and thus other States) requirements as far as proof of birth.
But I am sure you can get Pelosi and Reid right on that one! ;)
From the U.S. Constitution....
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
This is very big. VERY BIG.
Win or lose, this will be at the top of the news before 2012. If Texas wins their case, then Obama would have to throw that state. If they lose, then others will ask “Why?”
We won’t have another presidential election.
Is a Hawaii COLB accepted as proof of citizenship for other questions, such as getting a passport, etc.?
My point is that according to this law, a COLB from Hawaii DOH showing a Hawaiian place of birth would be sufficient to get on the Texas Presidential ballot.
We will have another Presidential election, in 2012.
According to the full faith and credit clause, other States have to accept a Hawaiian COLB as proof of birth. Until Congress rules that Hawaiian proof of birth, and or other State's proof of birth documents, do not meet the necessary requirements and rules that new procedures need to be in place - that will have to serve as Hawaii's document establishing proof of birth.
A state lawmaker wants to make sure that any candidate on the presidential ticket from now on can show proof they were born in the United States
Because one is born in the U. S. does not necessarily mean they are natural born citizens.
I’ve always loved Texas!
Wait a minute......Birth in the USA is not the requirement...at least not alone......Birth to 2 citizen parents in the US is the Constitutional Requirement....Is Texas saying birth alone is sufficient to be on the Presidental ballot?
Woah Nelly! Not Good........NBC is needed to be on the Ballot........as reported they are leaving the impression that mere citizenship like Obama has is all that is necessary.....I ain’t buying it!
Do you realize that by that definition, that less than 1% would need to reproduce exclusively within that less than 1% or it would soon be less than 0.1%?
Your definition has to be the reducto ad absurdum of what it would take to be a “natural born citizen”.
Good luck with finding any support for your preposterous definition.
Awww shucks. If you follow my posts today, my frustration level at “This administration” has my blood boiling over today.
I am proud for Arizona. Great State!!
Texas will be voting on a similar bill when the lege convenses Jan 2011