Posted on 02/01/2011 9:36:35 AM PST by Libloather
McLachlan sponsors birth certificate bill in Hartford
Stacy Davis, Staff Writer
Published: 11:02 p.m., Monday, January 31, 2011
DANBURY -- State Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, submitted a bill proposal mandating U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates provide their birth certificates for their names to be placed on the ballot.
"You have to have a birth certificate to get a driver's license," McLachlan said. "The same should be true to become president or vice president."
He submitted his proposal Jan. 20 after hearing several arguments about President Barack Obama's citizenship, he said. "They claim that he is not a natural-born citizen."
McLachlan said his bill does not suggest Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Instead, he hopes passage of the bill will stop such arguments in the future.
"Let's stop talking about this," he said.
**SNIP**
"I don't care about the political part of it," Carter said. "There's no mechanism in place."
McLachlan suspected he might receive some negative feedback about the proposal but said he is trying to enforce the U.S. Constitution, which says in Article 2, Section 1, "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at newstimes.com ...
Good idea, but wont fly in Conn.
Maybe he has a true certificate and it says he is a gay fag muslim? I have no idea but why are they fighting it?
You don't have one!
It’s a good idea in that it raises the level of awareness that something needs to be done. But I think that these State initiatives, which all seem to focus on providing a birth certificate to appear on the ballot, miss the target.
It’s not enough to provide a birth certificate. It still remains to determine if the BC proves that the candidate meets the Constitutional qualifications. Which means that we need specificity about what natural born means. And we need a defined process for arriving at a clear certification of qualifications.
Furthermore, not appearing on one or more State ballot would not preclude being elected and sworn in as President.
Not appearing on ten state ballots probably would, though. That’s how many states have this legislation in the pipeline.
Personally, I just don't see how Obama will be able to run without proving he is a natural born citizen. I think that is a given.
But...If Obama is a usurper, I pray to God ( literally daily) that he will be removed from the White House, tried, found guilty, and serve a lifetime sentence wearing an orange jump suit.
Their 'end around' plan is to have other candidates (who can meet the BC test) run as proxies. For instance someone like Senator Boxer could be placed on the ballot in Arizona, and then her slate of electors would vote for Obama in the Electoral College.
This is how lefties think. It's quite amusing that while denouncing "birthers" as "idiots" "imbeciles" and "morons" the host did not suggest that Obongo merely produce the BC, this despite the loud and repeated claim that he was born in Hawaii.
So when push comes to shove the "progressive" think to do is CHEAT.
“Their ‘end around’ plan is to have other candidates (who can meet the BC test) run as proxies. For instance someone like Senator Boxer could be placed on the ballot in Arizona, and then her slate of electors would vote for Obama in the Electoral College.”
That’s why I have argued that we need a defined process for certifying Presidential qualifications before either the actual election (as in Electoral College vote) or taking office (swearing in).
Do states have the legal responsibility to ensure that candidates on their ballots are Constitutionally eligible for the office they seek or is it the honor system and buyer beware?
That’s right! Immigrants don’t have a U.S. based BC to show. They show a Certificate of Naturalization to prove US Citizenship.
Statutory citizens, foreign born persons with at least one US citizen parent, show a Certificate of Citizenship to prove US citizenship.
My fervent hope as well every morning when I hop onto Free Republic to see the latest. Nancy Pelosi should serve a similar sentence since it was she who certified as to Obama's constitutional eligibility. She was legally required to ascertain whether he was eligible or not regardless of what he may have represented to her.
An afterbirther talking point is that Obama is withholding evidence to make the Article 2 defenders look silly.
Anyone who would withhold evidence of his natural born citizenship for a political dirty trick is sadistic. This is a person who would pull wings off flies just to enjoy seeing them squirm.
In an effort to make a political point, LTC Lakin, a decorated war veteran of 18 years, is in prison. Major Cook immediately lost his security clearance and his job.
How many **thousands** ( millions?) of tax dollars were wasted sending government attorneys across this nation to prevent the release of common documents? Obama wasted the talents and resources of government attorneys at a time when plots were being laid to bomb Times Square, a Pittsburgh marathon, and a passenger plane over Detroit, and actually *KILL* our soldiers on their bases and recruitment centers.
Someone who would do that just to play political JOKE, would stab the eyes out of kittens for fun.
Section three of the Twentieth Amendment is in place and it requires that Congress verify a President elect meets qualifications for the oval office or they must name an interim President. If they did this, what did Obama present to them as proof of eligibility? We the people have a right to know.
In addition, McLachlan is one of those under the oath of office in Article six which requires that he "support this Constitution". He has standing to go before a judge to inquire whether or not section three of the Twentieth amendment was in fact enforced and if so demand to see the proof that it was, otherwise he, McLachlan, is breaking his oath of office.
He doesn't need a bill. He just needs guts.
The 'qualifications' may be nothing more than having the electoral votes counted properly. There's no evidence that they look at anything in connection with Constitutional eligibility.
By the way, it's worth noting here that Obama himself voted for a Federal law in 2005 that requires states to verify the validity of your birth certificate with the issuing agency when you use it to apply for a drivers license or ID card. You don't have any say as to whether the issuing agency can divulge that information to your state's DMV. Now why on Earth does Obama not allow the same to happen for his own birth certificate to resolve questions about its validity??
Read the passage itself and you will find repeat instances of the term "shall have qualified" for every person considered as an interim President. None of these had any electoral college votes.
There's nothing in the constitution that says this. Also, the history of the 20th amendment is based on shortening the lame duck session between the time of the election and the time that the electees are sworn into office.
This paragraph from the document I linked explains part of the motivation:
If it should happen that in the general election in November in presidential years no candidate for President had received a majority of all the electoral votes, the election of a President would then be thrown into the House of Representatives and the memberships of the House of Representatives called upon to elect a President would be the old Congress and not the new one just elected by the people.
Reciting the history of this amendment doesn't remove the clearly stated instructions to Congress to verify a President elect's "qualifications" in section three. Also, note the time indicated in the initial passage. It clearly refers to that period AFTER Congress has ratified the electoral college results because the beginning of a term of office can only occur once there is someone to "begin" that term. Not only this, but Congress ratifies the electoral college on January 15th. The beginning of a Presidential term is January 20th which is after the electoral college ratification process is completed.
”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Section three of the Twentieth amendment comes in to play as the LAST step in a process to ensure that a President is in fact legal. The passage "if a President elect fails to qualify" places the burden of "qualifying" upon the President elect. He/she must prove to Congress that they meet the qualifications in Article two for the office of President or Congress is instructed to name an interim President. If someone does not have a birth certificate as the governor of Hawaii has stated, how was this proof of eligibility established? We the people have a right to know don't we?
Feel free to cite the statute or part of the Constitution that actually says this. I understand what you're saying; there just isn't anything that legally supports this opinion from what I've seen.
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.