"Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil."
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (The Message)

State Initiatives: OK Eligibility Bill Fails, MO’s Withdrawn; TX Sovereignty Bill Passes Committee

Oklahoma

A local Oklahoma news station reported today that HB1329 failed in the State Senate, 23-20:

The vote was 23-20 on Thursday for the measure. It takes 25 votes to pass a measure in the 48-member Senate. …

Opponents said the bill was unnecessary because candidates’ residency and qualifications are subject to challenge by opponents.

This is not the first time that Oklahoma’s State Senate has blocked this measure from going forward.

Missouri

The status page for HJR34 shows that the bill was withdrawn without reason on March 12, merely 8 days after it was introduced.

Texas

Via TenthAmendmentCenter.com, the State Senate passed HCR50:

House Concurrent Resolution 50, introduced by Texas State Representative Brandon Creightonpassed out of committee today.  The vote was 10-2 with 3 not voting.

The resolution passed without amendment and is awaiting further action.

A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.

-Phil

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

14 Responses to “State Initiatives: OK Eligibility Bill Fails, MO’s Withdrawn; TX Sovereignty Bill Passes Committee

  • 1
    Trouble
    April 24th, 2009 18:12

    Phil you have some errors here.

    MO-In Senate Committee and has NOT been withdrawn. It is HCR13 not HCR 34.
    http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/hcr13.htm

    OK- Awaiting Governor’s signature.
    http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/613607.html

  • 2
    Trouble
    April 24th, 2009 18:39

    Oops, I just discoverd I misread your page. You had the eligibility bills up not the Sovereignty ones.

    My error, go ahead.. Laugh. :)

  • 3
    Phil
    April 24th, 2009 21:36

    Trouble,

    Phil you have some errors here.

    MO-In Senate Committee and has NOT been withdrawn. It is HCR13 not HCR 34.
    http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/hcr13.htm

    OK- Awaiting Governor’s signature.
    http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0409/613607.html

    Actually, you’re linking to other bills that are worth mentioning, which I’ll have to do soon.

    OK and MO’s bills were on presidential eligibility, not sovereignty, which is what the bills to which you reference are talking about.

    -Phil

  • 4
    Joseph Maine
    April 26th, 2009 23:51

    Phil,

    Do you not think JUST ONE of our fine states can pass a single eligibility bill, which is all we need to see this impostor crumble?

    I have no personal animosity towards this so called president, except for that it affects me as a constituent, knowing the following:

    1) He knows he is not eligible
    2) He consistently talks about violating the Constitution (recently in regard to people who are not even US Citizens)
    3) it is unsconscionable that our highest authority cannot be held as a benchmark, rather citizens have to prove the dishonesty of a candidate re: a positive requirement of said Constitution

    Unlike people previous to me, I wish no harm on the current president, I would just like integrity and proper action to be diligently and honestly followed.

    I have to admit this however, I will truly relish the day when I see him on TV describing why he won’t show his real original birth certificate. Vindication for all of us whose claims have NEVER been about “conspiracies” or “theories” rather, as you have said, facts about enforcing the constitution and in what manner. Thank you, Phil.

    Say it ain’t so!

    JM

  • 5
    da verg
    April 27th, 2009 13:12

    how many republicans in OK voted against this bill?

    don’t these yahoos realize that IF BOTH CANDIDATES are INELIGIBLE (like we had this last election) that NEITHER ONE WILL CHALLENGE or FILE A COMPLAINT?

    These people JUST DO NOT GET IT

    OKlahoma’s need to have a chat with their so called republican elected state officials……

  • 6
    earl
    April 28th, 2009 09:52

    da verg says:
    April 27, 2009 at 1:12 pm
    “These people do not get it.”

    No, they get it. You folks calling for state eligibility laws are the ones who don’t get it. No state can pass a law that places a stricter limit on a candidate for federal office than federal law requires. OK and MO state legislators know this. MO was smart enough to not spend any time on it. OK was smart enough to defeat it. Any state presidential eligibility law would be found Unconstitutional. Another example would be a state trying to place term limits on their US Senators or Congressmen. Unconstitutional.

  • 7
    Phil
    April 28th, 2009 10:30

    earl,

    No state can pass a law that places a stricter limit on a candidate for federal office than federal law requires.

    Considering that there is presently no law regarding enforcement of the Constitution’s eligibility clause, I fail to see how such enforcement could be in any way unconstitutional. Further, no State-based initiative that I’ve seen promulgates adding anything to the requirements for eligibility, so state a specific case where this is being proposed.

    MO was smart enough to not spend any time on it.

    Embellishment on your part. MO tabled the bill with no explanation.

    OK was smart enough to defeat it.

    Another embellishment on your part. The OK State legislature passed their eligibility bill with large margins in both Houses. The Democrat Governor vetoed it. Since the Legislature represents the People, it’s very difficult to say that OK “was smart enough to defeat it.”

    Any state presidential eligibility law would be found Unconstitutional. Another example would be a state trying to place term limits on their US Senators or Congressmen. Unconstitutional.

    Show me any State initiative that proposes to add eligibility requirements to the Constitution. Any bill I’ve seen is proposing to enforce the current eligibility requirements.

    Of course, if you could actually show me an instance where what you say is true, then you might have a case for unconstitutionality (per my posting here).

    -Phil

  • 8
    earl
    April 28th, 2009 10:37

    Phil says:
    April 28, 2009 at 10:30 am
    “Considering that there is presently no law regarding enforcement of the Constitution’s eligi”bility clause, I fail to see how such enforcement could be in any way unconstitutional”

    What is unconstitutional is for States to pass laws that change or alter the qualifications, requirements of federal offices. There is no federal requirement for proof of Presidential eligibility to the general public, so states can’t pass their own. If you want Presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to the general public, work to pass a federal law.

  • 9
    Phil
    April 28th, 2009 10:50

    earl,

    What is unconstitutional is for States to pass laws that change or alter the qualifications, requirements of federal offices.

    Again, cite your source that shows any of the proposed bills would actually “change or alter the qualifications, requirements of federal offices.”

    Again, I will say that none of the bills put forth, to date, actually “change” or “alter” qualifications; enforcement of qualifications does not equate to changing said qualifications.

    I’m not sure what the confusion is here.

    -Phil

  • 10
    earl
    April 28th, 2009 14:01

    Phil says:
    April 28, 2009 at 10:50 am

    “confusion here”

    It is unconstutional for states to pass laws regarding candidates for national office that are more stringent than federal requirements. If the federal govt requires nothing to prove Presidential eligibility, states can’t pass laws that require more than the federal govt’s nothing.

    The way to address this is to pass a federal proof of eligibility law. Don’t get so hung up on states’ rights that you forget the federal govt does reserve some rights for itself and regulating candidates for national office is one of them.

  • 11
    Phil
    April 28th, 2009 22:13

    earl,

    The way to address this is to pass a federal proof of eligibility law. Don’t get so hung up on states’ rights that you forget the federal govt does reserve some rights for itself and regulating candidates for national office is one of them.

    I guess what I find so intriguing about your sudden interest in States’ rights issues is your sudden interest in States’ rights issues! You’ve been around long enough to see postings from me about States going about considering eligibility enforcement acts, and you’re only now raising questions about it?

    Actually, no, I’m wrong. You’re not raising questions. You’re claiming facts that simply aren’t true, and every time I’ve asked you to provide evidence that States are trying to change federal law with respect to eligibility, you’ve given me nothing.

    Further, as I’ve repeatedly mentioned to you, since there is no federal eligibility enforcement laws on the books, it’s kind of hard to rule that a State or Person filing an eligibility bill at the State or local level is somehow unconstitutional, huh?

    -Phil

  • 12
    Dallas
    April 29th, 2009 03:11

    Opponents said the bill was unnecessary because candidates’ residency and qualifications are subject to challenge by opponents.

    Well, I didn’t see John McCain or the RNC challenge Obama’s eligibility…the argument made by the opponents of the OK eligiblity bill is fundamentally flawed.

    Perhaps the OK bill needs to be revised or reworded in that if the candidates fail to challenge one another and there is reasonable doubt, that the States’ electoral college (or some delegated body) can ensure candidates meet certain constitutional and eligiblity standards.

  • 13
    earl
    April 29th, 2009 07:33

    Phil, states can’t make their own laws governing candidates to national office. If no federal law exists, the states still can’t make their own. If you want to address Presidential eligibility, the answer is to pass a federal law outlining what proof a Presidential candidate must give.

  • 14
    Phil
    April 29th, 2009 09:41

    earl,

    You haven’t paid attention to a thing I’ve said in this entire conversation, have you?

    -Phil

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.