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

Skip to comments.

"Birther Bill Losing Supporters"
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 3/3/11 | April Hunt

Posted on 03/03/2011 7:19:13 PM PST by jamese777

Some Georgia lawmakers couldn’t backpedal fast enough Thursday on a “birther” bill supported earlier this week by a majority of House members.

First to block out his name with a heavy black marker on House Bill 401 was John Meadows, chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

A steady stream of legislators followed all day. By 5 p.m., at least 23 of the original 93 backers were gone from a proposal requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates prove they were born in the United States. Among them was the bill's lone Democratic supporter, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro.

Seventy sponsors is still a sizable chunk of the 180-member chamber, but is an abrupt about-face from just 48 hours before. Why?

“We’ve got state problems we’ve got to take care of,” said Meadows, R-Calhoun, who said he heard complaints from constituents.

Many of those removing their names said they hadn’t read the bill and disagreed with how far it goes in making a candidate prove eligibility. Others simply said they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom.

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; antipatriots; certifigate; chickens; cowards; georgia; naturalborncitizen; spineless; traitors; yellow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next last
To: jamese777
they’d been told to take their names off but declined to say by whom

That is a scary statement. I am hopefully the remaining lawmakers have more character and will stand up to the bad guys.

21 posted on 03/04/2011 6:24:33 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Obama and the left are making a mockery of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.
22 posted on 03/04/2011 7:34:18 AM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Excellent post.

It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.

IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.

23 posted on 03/04/2011 8:03:50 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Here is a report with the same dateline:

< < Second Georgia Bill Requiring Birth Certificates for Presidential Candidates Has 88 Co-sponsors
March 3rd, 2011

Two bills are pending in the Georgia House of Representatives to require birth certificates for presidential candidates. The first, HB 37, was introduced on January 10 by Representative Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta). It requires political parties to submit “original documentation” for candidates who appear on that party’s presidential primary, and also for the party to submit “original documentation” for its nominee in November.

The second bill, HB 401, was introduced on February 28 by Representative Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross). It originally had 93 co-sponsors, but now it has 89, because four co-sponsors have removed their names. The Georgia House has 116 Republicans, 63 Democrats, and one independent. All of the co-sponsors are Republicans. HB 401 requires “A certified exact copy of the candidate’s first original long-form birth certificate that includes the candidate’s date, time, and place of birth; the name of the specific hospital or other location at which the candidate was born; the attending physician at the candidate’s birth; the names of the candidate’s birth parents and their respective birthplaces and places of residence; and signtures of the witness or witnesses in attendance at the candidate’s birth.” However, the bill says if such a document does not exist, the candidate shall attach other documents. The bill does not say who is responsible for furnishing the birth certificate, for purposes of the general election ballot. The parties are responsible for submitting such documents for purposes of the presidential primary ballot.

HB 401 also says that if any presidential elector votes for someone in the electoral college who has not submitted documentation of birth, the elector will be guilty of a “misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.” Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news. > >

This report comes from Ballot Access News. The other (i.e.: the one posted by the SP) comes from one of the most leftist fish-wraps in the country, with a well deserved reputation for inaccuracy and over-the-top bias.

Hmm...which one am I going to believe.

Decisions, decisions.

(Hint: it helps to see which report the OP, a leftist liberal, pounced on. He is a liar himself, so...take it from there.)

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/03/03/second-georgia-bill-requiring-birth-certificates-for-presidential-candidates-has-88-co-sponsors/


24 posted on 03/04/2011 8:10:03 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.


25 posted on 03/04/2011 8:13:46 AM PST by McGruff (Is it time to Drill Baby Drill yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

I haven’t spoken to my friend yet. It’s near the top of my To Do list. You might have a look at the news item I posted in 24. It’s too soon to say with one-hundred-percent certainty, but it’s beginning to look like the Urinal’s reputation for shoddy, inaccurate reporting will emerge from this intact.


26 posted on 03/04/2011 8:19:44 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

Go defend your Messiah someplace else, we’re all booked up here.


Don’t try to kill the messenger.


27 posted on 03/04/2011 8:32:04 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
So it looks as if there are TWO bills competing for the attention of the Georgia Legislature ... and by backing off one of the bills the defecting Republican legislators mean to imply that they are backing up the other?

Call me suspicious, but it would appear that this is a parliamentary device to avoid choosing either bill by tossing the matter into committee. Of course it also possible that the Democrat seeking eligibility legislation designed his bill as a smoke bomb. Clever.

Going back to the SCOTUS vigil now.

28 posted on 03/04/2011 8:33:47 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Excellent post.
It sheds some light on an largely undiscussed aspect of the eligibility wars. That is, that legislators on every level fear the potential racial repercussions in their districts.

IMHO, this is exactly why this discussion did not take place when it would have made a modicum of good sense, i.e., in 2007 and 2008.


A way around that is for formal investigations of the issue to take place in states with small and next to no minority populations. Obama was on the ballot in Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire and Utah, just to name a few as well as New York, DC, and California.
Idaho politicians have nothing to fear from a minority backlash.
Unlike you, I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility.


29 posted on 03/04/2011 8:36:19 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

If it turns out that only four out of ninety-odd sponsors backed off, that’s really not a big or newsworthy story. Unless you’re a leftist shill.


30 posted on 03/04/2011 8:40:58 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Both the Republican a democratic leadership wants this dropped. There is now no question that obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii. IF the public finds out that congress allowed a foreign national to become President all their jobs could be gone. obama would have to provide proof that both of his parents were U.S. citizens at his birth to be eligible to be President. obama is not nor ever can be the President of the United States.


Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.
No court, including the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Barack Obama is ineligible due to not having two US citizen parents. Another appeal making that very claim, Hollister v Soetoro is being heard in conference at the Supreme Court of the United States today. We should have the Justices’ decision on whether four of them think that this issue raises enough serious constitutional issues that it should be heard by the full Court, on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


31 posted on 03/04/2011 8:48:59 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I hate to say but I believe these bills are mostly symbolic with content such as that above. If they do get through and passed, which would be a major step forward, they will then get challenged in Federal court. My guess is they would be thrown out due to states having ‘different standards’. We have already seen this approach with the immigration laws.

I think states should beef their penalties for perjury and fraud related to the current requirements. Some states already require the local or national party to ‘certify’ their candidates as Constitutionally eligible before they can be placed on the ballot. I am not sure if Georgia is one of these, but Hawaii was. And the local party refused to provide certification. But Nancy P and the DNC did and they saved the day.

So states that already require a formal ‘sign-off’ of eligibility should simply put a specific and harsh penalty on those that provide the formal ‘sign-off’. You would see a lot more hesitation of putting a name on the ballot if someone specific may go to jail. It has worked for businesses! SBX makes CEO and CFO crazy for paperwork in todays world. Why? Because they may personally go to jail for bad paperwork. So what is good for business leaders should be good for politicians.

In my view if someone want to do legal action at a grass roots level the key starting place is in the those states that already do require sign-off. You will find Democratic party leader, almost all, if not all at a state level, that have ‘signed-off’ legally, in their state, on the edibility of the 2008 Democratic ticket. These are really the only people who could be held directly accountable. Of course, most were only going through the motions. They would not really be part of a cover-up. But, it is they that signed on the dotted line. They are ultimately responsible. That is were the legal action should be. To much of the activity has started out at the wrong level.


32 posted on 03/04/2011 8:49:31 AM PST by bluecat6 ("They question our heritage but not the accuracy of our story.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility

Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.

33 posted on 03/04/2011 8:50:50 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

You made a slew of excellent points. It sounds like a winning strategy to me.


34 posted on 03/04/2011 8:53:21 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Unlike you, I think that when Michael Steele, also an African American was Chairman of the Republican Party, that would have been the perfect time to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

I quite agree.

However, this sort of activity would have been very far outside of the Steele Thought-Box. It also was (and is) the very last thing the RNC had on its collective so-called mind.

IMHO, we are fighting the ineligibility war with rebel militia. The official army has yet to join the fight. Like George Washington, we need a victory to attract more powerful support. This could be the week.

35 posted on 03/04/2011 8:57:47 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Odd, but I never had to ask, "Who, or what exactly is Dwight Eisenhower?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Except courts have already ruled in Obama’s favor on that issue: “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.” Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” November 12, 2009. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision and the lawsuit was not appealed to the federal courts.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry, wrong again....

The formal ruling was this:

AFFIRMED

There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.

The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.

Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....

“blah, blah, blah, blah....

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.

But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.

A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....

“Hoooooosier daddy?!”

It applies here...


36 posted on 03/04/2011 9:03:13 AM PST by bluecat6 ("They question our heritage but not the accuracy of our story.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

“Birther Bill and an image of second thoughts”
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/03/the-birther-bill-and-an-image-of-second-thoughts/


37 posted on 03/04/2011 9:04:17 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Sorry, wrong again....

The formal ruling was this:

AFFIRMED

There is a difference between judicial pontification and the result of the actual ruling.

The original case was not about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (Citizen is upper case as it is a proper noun). Thus the appellate ruling was not about the definition. It merely affirmed the lower court decision to toss the case.

Here is the short version void of the judicial diarrhea included in the ruling....

“blah, blah, blah, blah....

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial courts grant of the Governors motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

He ruled on a motion to dismiss, nothing else.

But he provided lots of troll fodder with his pontification.

A judge from Indiana....geesh....My favorite Indiana saying.....

“Hoooooosier daddy?!”

It applies here...


This lawsuit, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana” was an attempt to force Governor Mitch Daniels to decertify Indiana’s Electoral College votes for Barack Hussein Obama
on the grounds that Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen due to his father not being an American citizen.
The original trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals which, as bluecat6 correctly points out AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision to dismiss. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. That ended Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana.
If Ankeny had won, that would have started a cascade of lawsuits in other states invalidating the awarding of electoral college votes to Obama. That didn’t happen.

Bluecat6 is also correct to point out that the vast majority of judges and justices do provide a legal rationale for their decisions rather than simply issuing a one word verdict such as “affirmed” or “dismissed.”


38 posted on 03/04/2011 9:18:15 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Ah. Disinformation. I hope that the legislators are aware of the inaccuracies of that rag and don’t allow themselves to be swayed by some feeling that the people don’t support bills that require documentation of eligibility.


39 posted on 03/04/2011 9:19:01 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Alan Keyes was/is a birther. His support among the conservative base is probably roughly equivalent to that of Steele...meaning not much. If Steele would have pushed birtherism, he would have been run out of the party before the end of his chairmanship term.


We’ll never know since the operative word in your post is “if.”
To compare Alan Keyes’ support as a minor party candidate operating outside the resources of the national Republican Party and only being on the ballot in 3 states to the support that Steele would have had from within the Republican Party with tens of millions of dollars of resources behind him, just doesn’t seem that equal to me.


40 posted on 03/04/2011 9:23:01 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-131 next 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