Posted on 03/13/2009 11:57:12 AM PDT by AJ in NYC
Rep. Bill Posey, a freshman Republican from Florida, introduced a bill yesterday mirroring proposed state legislation in Missouri and elsewhere that stems from fringe doubts about Obama's eligibility for office.
The full bill text isn't yet available, and Posey's spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but here's a summary:
H.R. 1503. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution; to the Committee on House Administration.
Though Posey's spokesman wasn't available, a Feb. 13 letter from Posey to a constituent on the subject appears on a website pushing the story in which Posey noted that courts and Hawaii officials had rejected the claims, but didn't state his own view on the subject.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
That may well be, although there are also various classes of non-citizens.
But "citizen at birth" is not the same as "natural born citizen". All natural born citizens were citizens at birth. However Congress only has the power to define uniform rules of "naturalization". Thus some citizens at birth, those whose citizen at birth classification is due solely to laws passed by Congress, were really "naturalized at birth".
THEN, the Laws are established and Rules are written as to how to enforce them.
SCOTUS shirked its responsibility, and basically chickened out when it was needed the most. They were not appointed to make only easy decisions, or ones that are simply redundant of lower court rulings. They are there to make the tough calls, like Brown v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, and Roe v. Wade.
So, I don't buy this argument that Federal laws have to be passed first before the meaning of Article II can be determined in the case of We the People v. Barack H. Obama.
Which came first? Laws against using extracted or involuntary confessions or SCOTUS decisions involving the 5th Amendment, such as Brown v. Mississippi, Chambers v. Florida, Ashcraft v. Tennessee, Haynes v. Washington, and, of course, Miranda v. Arizona.
Why is it that the language of the Constitution with regards to the qualifications of Presidential Candidates never required any Federal election laws to be passed before it was put into play to decide controversial elections?
The Presidential elections of 1800 and 1824 were decided on the basis of Article II of the Constitution and not pre-existing Federal law. Why would it not be equally valid to let the language of Article II on the NBC clause apply to the election of 2008?
All previous attempts to change the "natural born citizen" requirement to include "naturalized" citizens have failed, and the Supreme Court was not even called upon to render a decision.
The request for a Presidential candidate to provide proof of his Constitutional eligibility is not the least bit unreasonable. As to who should do it now, if not the Supreme Court, why wouldn't one or both houses of Congress be enjoined to request this proof of an elected President? Each State's Secretary of Elections could have made it a requirement, and should have made it a requirement, for all twenty-three (23) Presidential candidates on the ballot to prove their eligibility.
It is increasingly clear that what is at stake is that a Presidential candidate who has refused to prove that he is even a naturalized US citizen, let alone a natural-born one.
There are two extraordinary cases concerning the Supreme Court's involvement in two FOIA cases in 1991 that are relevant to the today's situation.
Freedom of Information Act lawsuits are exceptional in that a defendant agency loses its right to appeal an adverse order, and the case becomes entirely moot, unless a court "stays" that disclosure order pending the outcome of the agency's appeal. In each of the two cases raised before the Supreme Court in the Summer of 1991, a stay pending appeal had been denied at both the district and appellate court levels, necessitating the Supreme Court's intervention.
On March 29, 1991, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the FBI's investigation of student political groups in the 1960's ceased to have a legitimate law enforcement purpose as of a certain date in 1965, thereby precluding any Exemption 7 protection for all individuals and confidential sources appearing in such FBI records generated after that date.
Judge Patel ordered the FBI to "reprocess" many of the requested files in a way that would disclose much sensitive information -- including information pertaining to exceptionally sensitive national security sources. See Rosenfeld v. Department of Justice, 761 F. Supp. 1440 (N.D. Cal. 1991). At the same time, Judge Patel flatly refused to issue a stay of her disclosure order pending its appeal through the ordinary appellate process.
The FBI therefore sought an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but that court surprisingly declined even to consider issuing a stay, due to a procedural technicality which it thought left it without jurisdiction to grant such relief at that juncture. See Rosenfeld v. Department of Justice, No. 91-15854 (9th Cir. June 12, 1991).
So the Solicitor General had to file an emergency stay application with the Supreme Court, as a last resort before disclosure would be required. That application was considered first by Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, who took the unusual step of referring the matter for consideration by the full Supreme Court. Also unusual was that the Solicitor General submitted a classified affidavit directly to the Supreme Courtin support of the stay application.
On June 24, after a great deal of procedural activity, the Supreme Court granted the stay application unanimously. See Department of Justice v. Rosenfeld, 111 S. Ct. 2846 (1991). Most significantly, the Court chose not merely to grant a temporary stay until such time as the Ninth Circuit's perceived jurisdictional problem could be resolved. Rather, it took the extraordinary further step of granting a full stay of disclosure pending final disposition of all appeals, effectively bypassing the court of appeals on that critical procedural issue.
There was none of this bullsh*t "standing" business back then.
The article said — “H.R. 1503. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution; to the Committee on House Administration.”
—
Now that’s a good move.
I just heard about Missouri, the other day, being the third state that I know of that is passing similar state legislation. It’s Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma so far (unless someone knows of any others...).
I think it’s going to be easier getting these laws through the states, though. I find it hard to imagine that a predominant Democrat Congress will go for this. But, in the states (not all, but a sizable number), there’s not that kind of problem and they can move right ahead on it.
I’m glad to see the first signs of rationality, in people doing this sort of thing. This is what will work to get Obama out of office...
Nope
“Natural Born Citizen” means Citizen at Birth.
You said — “Essentially, this laws says: Submit proof that you are in compliance with the Constitution of the United States of America
—
Yep, exactly. And that’s what was needed, because no one had ever thought that this was necessary before. BUT, they were wrong and we’ve already found out that it is necessary...
By and large, almost every Citizen fits into one of these two groups.
I can find no authority, anywhere, which shows that a person who was a Citizen, at Birth, is not, simultaneously, a Natural Born Citizen.
I do take note of the fact that you seem to admit, now, that I MIGHT be right.
You simply claim, now, that I have not been proven correct.
Why doesn’t some computer savy Freeper post Birth Certificates of 5 or 10 previous Presidents and then show us the difference between obambi’s and the previous ones.
You said — FINALLY!, someone has the courage to stand up and say “the emperor has no clothes”.
—
Actually, it’s already being done in Arizona, Oklahoma and Missouri. And besides that — they have a *better chance* of success in those states, than this does in Congress...
Unless you’re already in one of those three states I mentioned — I would say it’s time to get one of those bills going in your own state. The more states we have, the better it is.
You said — “Apparently, given their increasing numbers, these people are not that “fringe” anymore, Bill.”
—
Well, I would say that it’s more like — “It’s the first rational thing that will actually work!” :-)
You asked — Why doesn’t some computer savy Freeper post Birth Certificates of 5 or 10 previous Presidents and then show us the difference between obambi’s and the previous ones.
—
No one has asked them for it before... :-)
This election, all three candidates were not qualified, according to Leo Donofrio. McCain shouldn’t have run, Obama shouldn’t have run and whoever that other guy was (LOL... can’t remember the jerk...), he shouldn’t have run either. That’s, at least, according to Leo Donofrio...
Why? ... Because obambi’s birth certificate is not being released as per obambi’s directives, along with his college records, his passport records, etc. The democrat party likes having a fraud-in-chief, he’s just like their criminal enterprise.
I agree.
You said — “An honest reporting of this would say that this bill closes a loophole in the Constitution by codifying into law the process for a candidate to prove their eligibility under the Constitution.”
—
Bingo! Bingo!
The conversation here is getting *might intelligent* now... I’m surprised. I’m actually glad to see that *someone else* actually *sees* what the problem was — finally...
You’re very right...
You said — “Still, I think it shows that someone is going to have to define what natural born citizenship is: Congress or the courts. Until that is done, how does anyone determine elegibility under the Constitutiion.”
—
Another Bingo! Bingo!
The conversation is getting *mighty intelligent* now!
You’re very right...
Yes..., indeed.
I’m seeing some quite intelligent posting on this subject. You’re the third one that has presented a very good argument, for what has happened...
You said — “Folks, try to separate the law from your personal feelings about individuals.”
—
Yes, indeed, I’ve been reading your posts, and you’re exactly right. Folks “here” have a major problem in separating out the law from personal feelings about candidates... so very true...
You said — “How in the world can you call me a “liberal” while I hold all of these positions? “
—
I’m not the one you posted this to, but what is happening is the same thing that happens over and over again. When someone in “this group” does not like an answer — the only way they “converse” with you — is to basically call you a “liberal”... LOL..
No joke..., that’s the way it goes with this group... :-)
I’m having fun reading through this conversation — because you’re *so on target* here...
You said (to another poster) — “You, sir, do not meet MY definition of a “Conservative” because you seem to figure out what you want, and then you seem to determine that everything you want is Constitutional and everything you don’t want is “Unconstitutional” -—”
—
Yes, indeed — it’s *that very thing* — as you describe it, that is going on. It’s exactly as you say. It’s first “you figure out what you want” — and then, secondly “it is Constitutional”... and then, yes, everything you don’t want is then “Unconstitutional”....
You’ve nailed it exactly, along with the “resulting labels” of “liberal” “Obot” “troll” etc. etc and etc... LOL...
Good post there..., but, at the same time — this is *very instructive* for all who read it — that there is no “rationality” to certain ones in “this group”...
But, still..., you’re doing good and intelligent work on your postings...
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.