Somebody is taking some interest in this charlatan's background!
From WND
3 Dozen Lawmakers Want Proof of Obama Eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
By Bob Unruh
Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.
"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."
She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would essentially have the same effect as the federal law proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:
"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."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not aimed directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.
"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.
"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.
"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"
Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an equal impact, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.
"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat. "The question has been asked and answered."
As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
_________________________
Yeah, us 'birthers' are very rude and hateful folks...
Never mind that all we want is the truth... everyone on The Left and EVERY Obama supporter has accused us of being deranged zealots refusing to accept the obvious truth of his birth and citizenship.
Just produce the legal, authentic documents and we'll go away... It's really that simple.
SHOW US THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
What is missing from these proposed bills is forcing SCOTUS to define the Constitutional term Natural Born Citizen. This could be done directly by Congress or indirectly through Secretary of States in the event the bill is a state and not federal bill. Sos or any election committee is not qualified to define NBC, neither should Congress attempt it. The separation of powers clearly assigns that task to SCOTUS. The currently proposed language of these bills is somewhat vague and again not forcing the judiciary branch to define NBC.
ReplyDeleteSCOTUS and the lower courts so far are hell-bent not to define NBC. As Ambassador Alen Keyes puts it, they practice “dereliction of duty”. If you leave the definition to party affiliated SoS or other unqualified entities the problem will never be solved.
It is amazing that our representatives, most of who are lawyers have not arrived to the same conclusion: SCOTUS must be forced to define NBC.
I believe I'm in total agreement with your assessment. But, what I find particularly troubling is that this is largely an effort to close the barn door after the cow has escaped!
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the courts simply address this issue?
Why doesn't the charlatan simply address this issue?
I'm baffeled at the rampant complacency!
Yes, the cows have gone. These bills are very weak attempts to respond to concerned citizens and any effect resulting from them could only take place in 2012.
ReplyDeleteNothing is going to happen until 2012. The 50 or so lawsuits will not be heard on merit. NBC will not be defined. The Constitution is made unenforceable due to “dereliction of duty” of all three branches of government, the media, which is not a branch but more powerful than any government branch, as well as both political parties. I never thought I will live in an era which resembles the structure of a typical banana republic.
The most difficult part to understand is the GOP’s attitude. The GOP is now celebrating after Scott Brown’s victory and hoping that O-Care and Cap & Trade will not happen. But if Cheney had asked for objection on January 8, 2009 at the Electors Confirmation hearing at the joint session of congress, as the law required that he should, and a representative and a Senator had objected based on eligibility, SCOTUS had to define NBC. As a consequence none of the O-Care and Cap & Trade would have even surfaced.
McCain’s attitude is especially puzzling. He practically endorsed his opponent during the campaign. Michael Savage (radio) said McCain’s job was to throw the election. Michael maybe exaggerating as he often does, but the question remains open. Did you see the letter McCain wrote to Orly (few days ago on WND)?
Also puzzling, that Hillary did not follow up on her campaign statement that her opponent “does not have American roots”. A friend says he does not believe that the NBC issue is real because the Clinton’s powerful machinery would have dug it up and used it. I would be interested in your opinion on that – why she did not follow up?
Rush said today that he thinks Hillary will run in 2012. Maybe, just maybe, Hill and Bill will use this issue. They probably regretted that they did not in 2008.