Number of States Developing Laws Requiring Presidential Candidates to Show Proof of Natural Born Citizenship Status Now up to 10…
Obama’s birth certificate continues to be hardest hit.
Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.
And they aren’t all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a “natural born citizen” – have been met.
In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.
According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.
There is Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.
Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.
The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.
Posted by ZIP on Thursday, January 27, 2011, at 9:53 am | 
Tweet
PLUG THE HOLE!
In the end, the Birther issue will be resolved by We the People, NOT by Congress or the Courts.
There’s no way he gets out of producing some kind of documentation, which will promptly be dissected and investigated by us. No way he gets away with another forgery or fake.
The Doctors, Nurses, Hospital Adminstartors etc, will all be interviewed and have their stories verified.
This marks the beginning of the end of Barry Soetoro’s fraud upon the USA.
It’s certainly about time this requirement is instituted and properly enforced. Even if at the end of it all Obama was born in Hawaii, this issue needed to be addressed and clarified.
All Obama has to say is the Hawaiian government destroyed the original.
And with the SCOTUS refusing to hear the case, Obama will get a pass again like he does with everything.
Since Gotti is dead we should be calling Obama the Teflon Don.
I know it would be a compliment within his inner circle but it’s pretty clear no one has been able to slow down his agenda.
Sadly he will get away with it again, makes my blood boil but i know there is nothing i could do…
Zero’s Waterloo coming, on nbc. Pass the popcorn.
Here’s Donofrio’s article easy to understand article on nbc again. The Supreme Court has defined if previously as requiring to US citizen parents, as he shows:
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
Zero’s dad was a British Subject.
*it
*two
(typo fingers)
Indiana SB114 concerns annexation….says nothing about presidential eligibility…..darn it
http://insystemicthinking.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/inside-sb-114/
C’mon Pennsylvania get on it!
I dont know how this wasnt in effect since day 1 of the country’s founding.
50 states should require proof of eligibility. It ain’t no rocket science. Anyone against that simple enforcement needs to have a talkin’ to.
Wait a minute. Only Republicans have to conform to actual laws. You know that.
By now, anyone who has done the slightest bit of serious investigation will have come to the conclusion that he is hiding something.
If could have produced a BC, he would have, a LONG time ago.
In a sense, this entire issue borders on the ridiculous. How could it be possible that the POTUS refuses to prove who he is? Every citizen has to produce the BC for any number of reasons. He has been hiding it, obfuscating the issue, lying about it, and still, the news media has refused to touch the issue (including FNC). They all know how explosive it is, and would rather let it resolve the way it is now, legislatively, thru the States. This way, they can all deny any responsibility.
There are stories that everyone in Wash. DC knows how real the issue is, but they just won’t touch it.
They are “scared” of backlash from the Blacks or something.
My state won’t jump on the bandwagon, we have to many of the worst liberal idiots here.
Cleaver, McClasskill, Nixon. Carahan.
We voted out the mandate but getting Obama to show any true form of ID isn’t going to happen unless he wants a drivers license
I do not think that if you were born in a hospital in 1776 there would be a certificate. Then there is the question just how many hospital were there? One per state? People forget in those days, giving birth was usually AT HOME.
Well Obistan got away with it in 2008 but in 2012 he’s going to have to fork over absolute proof to each state requiring it, if he indeed has it. If he doesn’t the winner in that state will NOT be him.
obama= The most unpresidential character to ever reside in the white house in American history.
Get on board Louisiana!!!
if more state pass this into law, we might see Obama sit out 2012, instead of providing proof
Well that’s pretty simple the only thing Obama has to do is provide the COLB which would be a certified copy of his birth certificate.
HB 2544 of Arizona would get knocked down in circuit court. Several reasons. First off most states only issue short form birth certificates. Clause 1 would be a violation of Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Also the clause about dual citizenship would disqualify those of Jewish and Italian descent.
People are sick & tired of playing this stupid evil game, as this shows it..
Maybe Arizona’s law as stated has some problems, however I believe that the states have traditionally set the rules regarding elections held in within their boundaries and as long as the laws are not discrimatory they are valid, and I don’t see that requiring proof of citizenship is discrimatory.
Time to put up or pack up, Comrade Barry.
C’mon New Jersey – get on board!
Joe said: Time to put up or pack up, Comrade Barry.
—————–
You do know any law requiring additional requirements for the Presidency not covered in the constitution will get struck down as unconstitutional right? Most of the laws out there call for a certified copy of the birth certificate. In Obama’s case all he would have to do is present the COLB and he would be put on the ballot and you guys would still be whining.
Bob what about Mccain being told to give us his birth certificate?
DohBiden said: Bob what about Mccain being told to give us his birth certificate?
——————
What about it McCain never gave his birth certificate to the public
Also there is a supreme court ruling that would destroy most of the birther laws on the spot.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
The supreme court decided that states cannot impose eligibility requirements more stringent than those mentioned in the constitution. Striking dual citizenship would posthumously invalidate Thomas Jefferson for starters who had both American and French citizenship as an adult. Also Spiro Agnew who was both Greek and American would be invalidated as Vice President. Chester A. Arthur would be invalidated as President. You would also eliminate the eligibility of a large section of the US Population which is about 6.5 million people. Also a fair amount of Italian Americans would be disqualified
Yes, let’s start letting the states decide who gets on their ballots. That way, red states can pass laws that ban Democrats from getting on their ballots and blue states can pass laws that ban Republicans from getting on theirs.
But Fut what would the birther candidates do?
Punt.
I’m sure that if Massachusetts had found some way to ban Bush from getting on their ballots in 2000 or 2004, the conservatives would have screamed bloody murder.
And it wouldn’t have had to be successful, just that they made the attempt to do it would have been enough to start them squealing.
[Yes, let’s start letting the states decide who gets on their ballots.]
They already do Tard,
And you better use the name that’s on your long form birth certificate, if you have one.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JUUtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d58FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5801,2271004&dq=jimmy+carter+south+carolina+ballot&hl=en
Okay, moron, then blue states can pass a law to ban Republican candidates in the next election. Is that what you want dumbass? How about no Mormons on the ballot in MA?
This might be a dumb question but dont the mormons have a list of the people born in the us?
Actually each state does have its own laws for getting on the ballot.
Each state has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots and who may not. According to Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access
That’s irrelevant. A state can pass any law it wants to.
What you are failing to understand are the far reaching implications of passing such a law. It may be convenient for red states to pass this law believing that it will get a Republican president into office by giving him an advantage over his opponent by restricting that opponent’s access to being on certain state ballots. That will never happen with President Obama and this silly law, but it sets a precedent that other states can follow with their own laws that discriminate against certain candidates
And as such they control who gets on the ballot not the Federal Government. So if these 10 states determine that as a requirement then either put up or shut up.
[Eldridge Cleaver was nominated for president at the Peace and Freedom Party National Convention in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was also nominated for president at the State Convention in Sacramento, California. The Secretary of State refused to place Cleaver's name on the ballot in California because he did not meet the legal age requirement to hold the office if he were to be elected.]
How is showing a birth certificate as proof of natural born citizenship discrimination?
Well then I guess you have no problem with blue states passing laws to ban Republicans from getting on their ballots then. Fair enough. Let the games begin
How is it discrimination? Because the birther klan doesn’t think that Obama has a valid birth certificate and cannot get on the ballot, and they are passing this law at this time because of that mistaken belief. It’s the same as if a blue state passed a law that no Mormons could get on their ballot because they knew Romney was the GOP nominee
Tell me how the two are even close. Here are the requirements…. if you meet them fine if not too bad so sad, how upset would a GOP candidate be if the People’s Republic of Massachusetts left them off the ballot? It’s not like they would win anyhow.
It’s the same as if a blue state passed a law that no Mormons could get on their ballot because they knew Romney was the GOP nominee
========
Where does it say this in the US constitution?
Well numbnuts, proving citizenship is not discriminatory, saying no Mormons is. Can you differentiate, or should I go Obama on you and use little words?
Yes, “Here are the requirements…..”no Mormons according to FL law. You’re saying that the states can set their own requirements, then a state can set whatever requirements they want
Yes, it is discriminatory, numbskull. They want to pass it because they think he can’t meet the requirements, and that’s the only reason they’re passing it now and never did before
It doesn’t have to say it in the constitution. A state can pass any law they want. It doesn’t define natural born citizen in the constitution either, so how can a state define it? They are trying to get around that by passing a state law
wtf said: [Yes, let’s start letting the states decide who gets on their ballots.]
They already do Tard,
And you better use the name that’s on your long form birth certificate, if you have one.
————————
Congrats you just disqualified Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald Ford from being President.
So if it’s okay for a state to pass a law that defines something the constitution does not, then that state is adding an extra-constitutional requirement. If one state can do it, all states can do it
All I’m saying is be careful what you wish for. Once you open Pandora’s box, there’s no putting those demons back. They may be your friend now, but they may come for you in the future.
We have a system that has worked just fine throughout our history, and to go fixing something that’s not broken is not a good idea.
Even if this law is passed, it will never keep a viable presidential candidate like President Obama off the ballot. He was born in Hawaii and will be on the ballots in all states, and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a big shock.
Soxfan said: And as such they control who gets on the ballot not the Federal Government. So if these 10 states determine that as a requirement then either put up or shut up.
—————–
And then the district court strikes down the law as unconstitutional as you are violating existing caselaw and the constitution. Most states no longer issue the long form certificate. Requiring it is a violation of Article IV Section I of the Constitution also known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. There is also the point that this violates what the Supreme Court decided in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
That states can’t throw on additional requirements above what the constitution says.
Banning dual citizenship is going above the constitution and could potentially disqualify millions of Americans from being able to run for president because of the laws of their parents or grandparent’s countries. Take for instance Israel which gives citizenship to all jews around the world. Or Italy that gives citizenship at birth to children of citizens. Or Greece which does the same. You’re basically undermining our own laws.
What are the Constitutional requirements to be President?
In order to be on the ballot you must prove that you are a natural born citizen by providing this document for proof. To say no Mormons, or any other religion, race or sex is discriminatory and as such not valid under US law.
Of course, and both will be struck down because in the former case, there is no definition of natural born citizen in the constitution. If any of these states try to insert their own definition of that term in order to exclude a particular candidate, that’s just as discriminatory
Soxfan said: What are the Constitutional requirements to be President?
In order to be on the ballot you must prove that you are a natural born citizen by providing this document for proof. To say no Mormons, or any other religion, race or sex is discriminatory and as such not valid under US law.
——————-
And the Certificate of Live Birth that most states now issue instead of the long form proves natural born citizenship. Do you understand the mess its going to create? Many states no longer issue a long form certificate. So you’re basically taking several states out of play just because you want to try to disqualify Obama. Funny story though, Arizona one of the states that is trying to pass a birther bill no longer issues Long forms for children born after 1990. In 14 years candidates born in Arizona will no longer be eligible to run for President under this birther bill
I am just using the Mormon thing as an example. I’m sure that if a state government wanted to find a way to exclude a particular candidate they would be able to find a better reason to do that. I’m just using that as an example.
And I’m sure that with all the attorneys in state legislatures, they would be able to find some way to do it if they really wanted to. Moreover, I don’t know who the GOP candidate will be, so my example is limited to one who might be the GOP nominee; in addition, I don’t know enough about him other than his religion, but if I looked, I could probably find something
Bob Ross says:
January 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm
——————-
And the Certificate of Live Birth that most states now issue instead of the long form proves natural born citizenship. Do you understand the mess its going to create? Many states no longer issue a long form certificate. So you’re basically taking several states out of play just because you want to try to disqualify Obama. Funny story though, Arizona one of the states that is trying to pass a birther bill no longer issues Long forms for children born after 1990. In 14 years candidates born in Arizona will no longer be eligible to run for President under this birther bill
———————————————
Yeah, this will last up until the time that a GOP candidate shows virtually the same thing that President Obama has, Bob. Then the “long form” won’t be important to them any more.
They are so focused on excluding the president that they fail to see that the unintended consequences of their actions is that they will end up excluding their own candidates
That’s called “shooting yourself in the foot.”
They are so focused on excluding the president that they fail to see that the unintended consequences of their actions is that they will end up excluding their own candidates
—————————————————————————————-
I see that as plus
Born a Brit or any foreign allegiance not Legit, Period!
That’s what the founders intended
WTF said: I see that as plus
Born a Brit or any foreign allegiance not Legit, Period!
That’s what the founders intended
————-
Yes because like Sylvia Browne you can read the thoughts of people long dead. I think they rather wanted it so a foreign prince wouldn’t be able to get power over here. Do you understand how ridiculous your notion is? At any moment a country like Iran can claim anyone born in America is automatically a Iranian citizen at birth. That means there would be a dual allegiance in your mind and there would be a disqualification of all Americans. Vice President Agnew had dual Citizenship, President Chester A Arthur had dual citizenship. Thomas Jefferson willingly became a french citizen as an adult and had dual citizenship when he ran for President. In fact Jefferson stepped down as Secretary of State so that he could meddle in French affairs. If anything he had a dual allegiance and he was still allowed to serve as President. You want to punish a child who has no control over him becoming a citizen at birth because other countries have jus sanguines nationality laws. Even if the child never steps foot in the other country what exact allegiance can you claim the child has? Allegiance is determined by where you’re born and where you reside.
Hey Futtstheshuckup or numbnuts or whatever you go by, my point is if the state requires it you show it. I personally would like to believe our intelligence agencies, the secret service, etc. would ensure that our candidates are qualified. And if Obama had any respect for the office and position he would produce it and move on. The fact that he confronts every challenge with lawyers rather than the truth speaks volumes.
Soxfan claims: Hey Futtstheshuckup or numbnuts or whatever you go by, my point is if the state requires it you show it. I personally would like to believe our intelligence agencies, the secret service, etc. would ensure that our candidates are qualified. And if Obama had any respect for the office and position he would produce it and move on. The fact that he confronts every challenge with lawyers rather than the truth speaks volumes.
—————————
He released it to the agencies who were responsible. Just because you haven’t seen a long form doesn’t mean the office wasn’t respected. You require more from Obama than any previous President.