Ten States (107 Electoral Votes) File Bills For Pres Candidates To Prove Eligibility

[USArmyRetired]

Ten States!!!!....All combined, it's 107 Electoral Votes. They are taking the Arizona approach to ensure they are constitutionally qualified. I believe as a voter that America should have the best qualified candidates on the ballots. As things stand, the Constitution makes certain requirements about who can be elected President of the United States, but does not provide for any mechanism to ensure these requirements are met and avoid possible election fraud. Arizona has taken the lead with their bill that will require many stipulations for a presidential candidate to be on the ballots for 2012 and beyond.



[The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.]

10 states now developing eligibility proof-demands

"1. TX-filed. Republican majority in both houses and Republican Governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass and be confirmed.

2 GA- filed. Republican majority in both houses and Republican Governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass and be confirmed.

3. Mo- filed. Republican majority in both houses and Republican Governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass and be confirmed.

4.MT- filed. Republican majority in both houses and Republican Governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass and be confirmed.

5 PA announced planned filing. Republican majority in both houses and Republican Governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass and be confirmed.

6. AZ announced planned filing. AZ past eligibility bill in the stare Assembly last year and was 2 votes short in the state senate. There are more Republicans in the state assembly and senate and Repub governor. Eligibility bill is expected to pass both houses and be signed by the Governor

7. OK- past eligibility bill in the state Assembly last year, was 1 vote short in the state Senate. There are more Republicans in OK this year, eligibility bill is expected to pass both houses.

The others are:

Connecticut's SB391
Indiana's SB114
Maine's LD34

10 states now developing eligibility proof-demands

 

[Oddball]

 

[gekaap]

Unconstitutional. It'll go down as a footnote the encyclopedia of political stupidity.

 

[skookerasbil]

Unconstitutional. It'll go down as a footnote the encyclopedia of political stupidity.

indeed..........except if some dumbass candidate cant come up with his birth certificate!!!

 

[gekaap]

None will have to, because these proposed laws are all unconstitutional. These will be struck down easily if passed.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

What utter frauds you right-wingers are. Utter fucking frauds.

All you have is ignorance .. and because you KNOW that you have no fucking chance what-so-fucking-ever to beat Obama at the polls .. you desperately search for gimmicks and bullshit to do what you have no chance of doing otherwise.

... and oh yeah .. I didn't vote for Obama, don't even like him .. but I'm also not a goddamn fraud who believes he should be removed by gimmick.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If the Republicans keep pulling this shit they are going to very quickly fall out of grace with the people who just gave them a landslide election. This stupid, childish crap is not what they were elected to do.

 

[USArmyRetired]

What utter frauds you right-wingers are. Utter fucking frauds.

All you have is ignorance .. and because you KNOW that you have no fucking chance what-so-fucking-ever to beat Obama at the polls .. you desperately search for gimmicks and bullshit to do what you have no chance of doing otherwise.

... and oh yeah .. I didn't vote for Obama, don't even like him .. but I'm also not a goddamn fraud who believes he should be removed by gimmick.

How is filing a eligibility bill fraud?

 

[Agit8r]

"...and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to..."

Sounds like the AZ Republican party is afraid that Jesse Ventura will win and shut down their FEMA immigrant internment camps

 

[USArmyRetired]

If the Republicans keep pulling this shit they are going to very quickly fall out of grace with the people who just gave them a landslide election. This stupid, childish crap is not what they were elected to do.

What is wrong with filing a bill to make sure Article 2 Section 1 is upheld?

 

[gekaap]

1) It's unconstitutional.

2) It's clearly an attempt to further the asinine birther conspiracy, and government ought to have much better things to do with their time than waste it on this kind of frivolous stupidity.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

 

[goldcatt]

Since it's WND, considering how they don't know the difference between a Supreme Court Conference and Oral Arguments - "submitted bills" probably means some janitor scribbled it on a napkin and they found it while dumpster diving for lunch.

But just in case it's even remotely based on something akin to reality.....

 

[goldcatt]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The laws listed here, IF true and accurate, are a violation of Full Faith and Credit.

But they're welcome to try. I'm sure their taxpayers will be pleased to waste millions getting shot down in Federal court.

 

[Sheldon]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The laws listed here, IF true and accurate, are a violation of Full Faith and Credit.

But they're welcome to try. I'm sure their taxpayers will be pleased to waste millions getting shot down in Federal court.

I made it a really big if.

What are they, like 0-70 in court now?

 

[gekaap]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The states do not have the power to prescribe qualifications for the Presidency. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to enforce immigration laws, because the Constitution lays that power at the feet of the federal government. This isn't much different. Whereas a given matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government or some federal law (like the Constitution's prescribed qualifications for the Presidency) the states do not have jurisdiction to add qualifications, or to enforce them.

 

[goldcatt]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The laws listed here, IF true and accurate, are a violation of Full Faith and Credit.

But they're welcome to try. I'm sure their taxpayers will be pleased to waste millions getting shot down in Federal court.

I made it a really big if.

What are they, like 0-70 in court now?

30 cases, 70 dismissals and/or refusals at different levels of the process. Go team!

It's not exactly free entertainment, but I'm not the one paying for it.

With the amount of sanctions chucked out there, neither is Obama. *shrug*

 

[SFC Ollie]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The states do not have the power to prescribe qualifications for the Presidency. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to enforce immigration laws, because the Constitution lays that power at the feet of the federal government. This isn't much different. Whereas a given matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government or some federal law (like the Constitution's prescribed qualifications for the Presidency) the states do not have jurisdiction to add qualifications, or to enforce them.

I cannot find this ruling anywhere... Are you sure?

 

[DiveCon]

Since it's WND, considering how they don't know the difference between a Supreme Court Conference and Oral Arguments - "submitted bills" probably means some janitor scribbled it on a napkin and they found it while dumpster diving for lunch.

But just in case it's even remotely based on something akin to reality.....

HP0027, LD 34, item 1, An Act To Require Candidates for Public Office To Provide Proof of Citizenship

that one actually exists

 

[goldcatt]

I see nothing wrong with a State making laws to follow the Constitution.

However if someone has a problem with it i would have to wonder why.....

The states do not have the power to prescribe qualifications for the Presidency. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the power to enforce immigration laws, because the Constitution lays that power at the feet of the federal government. This isn't much different. Whereas a given matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government or some federal law (like the Constitution's prescribed qualifications for the Presidency) the states do not have jurisdiction to add qualifications, or to enforce them.

I cannot find this ruling anywhere... Are you sure?

There is precedent, but if I understand correctly it's a reference to the AZ challenge? The Supreme Court has heard arguments, but the opinion has not yet been released.

Supreme Court appears divided over state laws against illegal immigration - Los Angeles Times