Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kudos for Arizona leading the way. Now Georgia will introduce legislation to make a Presidential candidate prove they are a Natural Born Citizen by showing certified documents. Other states that are introducing Bills are Florida, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina which will propose requirements to ensure presidential eligibility requirements are validated prior to being placed on the ballot. This is about insuring that the Constitutional guidelines are met and that the presidential candidate is not a Citizen or Naturalized Citizen but only a Natural Born Citizen that meets Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 to be President:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Eligibility Bill introduced in Georgia | The Post & Email
THE PEACH STATE FOLLOWS ARIZONAS LEAD IN REQUIRING ELIGIBILITY PROOF FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Apr. 24, 2010) Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield has introduced into the state legislature House Bill 1516, which would require proof of eligibility in order for presidential candidates names to be placed on the state ballot for future elections.
A poll taken by CBS/New York Times shows that only 58% of those asked think Obama was born in the United States. Hatfield has stated that Americans have a right to know if the leader of their country is eligible to serve in that position.
This is GREAT for conservatives and republicans (and teabaggers, too)
since any document presented by any democrat or liberal will be dismissed as "a fake!"
and ONLY documents presented by conservatives will be accepted....
no democrat or liberal wil ever be able to run again!
ever!
Really? Why is that? That sounds like more partisan hackery to me, pure unadultrated bullshit!
I would offer the opinion that the "birther" controversy has been detrimental for the president, and for the country. If it is required up front that the candidate provides the documentation of eligibility, there will not be another "birther" issue in the future.
How is that bad? How does that translate into; "no democrat or liberal will ever be able to run again!"?
My understanding is that our current president has provided documentation of his eligibility and won't be affected by these state laws in any way other than putting another piece of paper in the file.
The only way that; "no democrat or liberal will ever be able to run again!" becomes true is if the dems or liberals try to enter an unqualified candidate into the race.
Oh, and i corrected your spelling of "wil" to will.
Love it..
Let those states publicly declare themselves to be birthers. It does not legitimize the birthers but delegitimizes those states
How does it delegitimze the state to preempt any future birther claims?
Because the Federal government(under the previous administration, in this case George W Bush administration!) check for eligiblity.
The states have the right to check as well through proper channels and no law is necessary to ensure this. In other words, the politicians are wasting time and taxpayers dollars playing, of all the disgusting things, wingnut-politics!
The birthers are a source of misery for right wingers. Their cases keep getting kicked out of court,they come across like Chavez-leftists, and they make little viable contribution to the understanding of right-wing ideological views.
What is bad is that some two bit political hack with an axe to grind gets to tie up potential Presidential candidates with endless challenges and queries for additional documentation.
I'm wondering the same.How does it delegitimze the state to preempt any future birther claims?
Got one!
Which birther claims? Obama presented his qualifications to be President, they were certified by the State of Hawaii as official. There is no controversey except in the feeble minds of birthers
And the states which placate them
I know there is no real controversy. But this is to avoid any future controversy. How is that bad?
How does it delegitimze the state to preempt any future birther claims?
Because the Federal government(under the previous administration, in this case George W Bush administration!) check for eligiblity.
The states have the right to check as well through proper channels and no law is necessary to ensure this. In other words, the politicians are wasting time and taxpayers dollars playing, of all the disgusting things, wingnut-politics!
The birthers are a source of misery for right wingers. Their cases keep getting kicked out of court,they come across like Chavez-leftists, and they make little viable contribution to the understanding of right-wing ideological views.
There is a difference between being "kicked out of court" and having the court refuse to hear the case. The supreme court has always refused to hear this case because they KNOW what will happen when they do. They will continue to refuse to hear the case as long as they can. When the truth comes out, and it will, it will be too late, of course, as far as I'm concerned, America is already dead. We live in a fascist state now.
What is bad is that some two bit political hack with an axe to grind gets to tie up potential Presidential candidates with endless challenges and queries for additional documentation.
What additional documentation is needed? Once a single state certifies it, the Full Faith and Credit clause certifies it in all states. There is no way a two bit political hack could endlessly challenge it. It would be settled immediately.
Where does Hawaii state that having a Birth Certificate is part of their state Presidential vetting process?What is bad is that some two bit political hack with an axe to grind gets to tie up potential Presidential candidates with endless challenges and queries for additional documentation.
What additional documentation is needed? Once a single state certifies it, the Full Faith and Credit clause certifies it in all states. There is no way a two bit political hack could endlessly challenge it. It would be settled immediately.
Isn't that exactly what happens now?
Hawaii certified the birth and the birthers keep moving the goalpost of what makes acceptable proof.
What keeps a two bit hack politician from refusing to accept another states birth certificate because it doesn't meet the standards of your state?
I wish that were true!!This is GREAT for conservatives and republicans (and teabaggers, too)
since any document presented by any democrat or liberal will be dismissed as "a fake!"
and ONLY documents presented by conservatives will be accepted....
no democrat or liberal wil ever be able to run again!
ever!
We know you wish that , your contempt of democracy is obvious
Where does Hawaii state that having a Birth Certificate is part of their state Presidential vetting process?What additional documentation is needed? Once a single state certifies it, the Full Faith and Credit clause certifies it in all states. There is no way a two bit political hack could endlessly challenge it. It would be settled immediately.
Isn't that exactly what happens now?
Hawaii certified the birth and the birthers keep moving the goalpost of what makes acceptable proof.
What keeps a two bit hack politician from refusing to accept another states birth certificate because it doesn't meet the standards of your state?
What was there sources to back that claim up? Did they give references?Where does Hawaii state that having a Birth Certificate is part of their state Presidential vetting process?Isn't that exactly what happens now?
Hawaii certified the birth and the birthers keep moving the goalpost of what makes acceptable proof.
What keeps a two bit hack politician from refusing to accept another states birth certificate because it doesn't meet the standards of your state?
The state of Hawaii has both 1.) Confirmed that the Certificate of Live Birth is genuine (legal proof of birth) and 2.) Repeatedly confirmed that Barack Obama was born there.
Just because you and Orly Taitz won't give up doesn't make it true.
Kudos for Arizona leading the way. Now Georgia will introduce legislation to make a Presidential candidate prove they are a Natural Born Citizen by showing certified documents. Other states that are introducing Bills are Florida, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina which will propose requirements to ensure presidential eligibility requirements are validated prior to being placed on the ballot. This is about insuring that the Constitutional guidelines are met and that the presidential candidate is not a Citizen or Naturalized Citizen but only a Natural Born Citizen that meets Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 to be President:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Eligibility Bill introduced in Georgia | The Post & Email
THE PEACH STATE FOLLOWS ARIZONAS LEAD IN REQUIRING ELIGIBILITY PROOF FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Apr. 24, 2010) Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield has introduced into the state legislature House Bill 1516, which would require proof of eligibility in order for presidential candidates names to be placed on the state ballot for future elections.
A poll taken by CBS/New York Times shows that only 58% of those asked think Obama was born in the United States. Hatfield has stated that Americans have a right to know if the leader of their country is eligible to serve in that position.
What was there sources to back that claim up? Did they give references?Where does Hawaii state that having a Birth Certificate is part of their state Presidential vetting process?
The state of Hawaii has both 1.) Confirmed that the Certificate of Live Birth is genuine (legal proof of birth) and 2.) Repeatedly confirmed that Barack Obama was born there.
Just because you and Orly Taitz won't give up doesn't make it true.
Why stop there why not make all citizens prove their citizenship to vote. I would not be offended at all. I'm offended that I am not asked to prove who I am!!!! Time to start dying your fingers to on voting day too to prevent fraud!!! I am sick of my vote not being counted due to fraud and illegals voters voting!!!!!! remember people died for the right to vote.
What was there sources to back that claim up? Did they give references?Where does Hawaii state that having a Birth Certificate is part of their state Presidential vetting process?
The state of Hawaii has both 1.) Confirmed that the Certificate of Live Birth is genuine (legal proof of birth) and 2.) Repeatedly confirmed that Barack Obama was born there.
Just because you and Orly Taitz won't give up doesn't make it true.
Kudos for Arizona leading the way. Now Georgia will introduce legislation to make a Presidential candidate prove they are a Natural Born Citizen by showing certified documents. Other states that are introducing Bills are Florida, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New York, and South Carolina which will propose requirements to ensure presidential eligibility requirements are validated prior to being placed on the ballot. This is about insuring that the Constitutional guidelines are met and that the presidential candidate is not a Citizen or Naturalized Citizen but only a Natural Born Citizen that meets Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 to be President:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Eligibility Bill introduced in Georgia | The Post & Email
THE PEACH STATE FOLLOWS ARIZONA’S LEAD IN REQUIRING ELIGIBILITY PROOF FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Apr. 24, 2010) — Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield has introduced into the state legislature House Bill 1516, which would require proof of eligibility in order for presidential candidates’ names to be placed on the state ballot for future elections.
A poll taken by CBS/New York Times shows that only 58% of those asked think Obama was born in the United States. Hatfield has stated that Americans have a right to know if the leader of their country is eligible to serve in that position.
