#eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Arizona Responds
Thursday, January 21, 2010 Update:
Commenter “slcraig” received the following response from sources in Arizona via email:
“To: SL Craig
Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.
In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.
I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441
Back on Friday, January 8, Georgia GOP Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal had sent a letter to the President, presumably to ask him about his birth certificate (to date, the actual content of that letter is still unknown).
Today, at a University of Georgia gubernatorial debate, Mr. Deal downplayed both the letter and the entire eligibility question. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
– The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.
Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.
Obama had not answered, he noted.
The Athens Banner-Herald reported more specifics from the Congressman:
Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.
“I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.
Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.
Advertise on this site
At the State level, Arizona Republican State Representative Judy Burges and 39 other State Legislators had filed a candidate eligibility bill for consideration of the 2010 Legislature. Now, as WorldNetDaily reports, several other States are also considering various eligibility initiatives:
The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”
WND already has reported on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.
Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.
A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York state, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.
Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.”
Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”
There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.
An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it “authorizes a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.” It could apply only to local elections.
In Virginia, a summary says the proposal “provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence.”
And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would provide that “an individual seeking placement on the New York State’s election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.”
WND followed up on legislator thoughts regarding the Arizona bill:
In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
As referenced, above, the Database of Election Reform Legislation is relatively simple to use in looking up bills. Go to the link and then select “Candidates-Qualifications for Office” in the “Subtopic” multi-select form.
The New York proposition reads as follows:
The Accountability Bill
A Bill To Be Entitled
New York State Presidential Candidate Qualification Verification
Accountability To NYS Citizens Act
1 Section 1: An individual seeking placement (ISP) on New York State’s election ballot(s) for the
2 office of President or Vice President of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per
3 requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
4 A) Hard-copy proof is to be submitted to the New York State (NYS) Board of Elections
5 Executive Director(s) office.
6 B) Determination of age, natural born citizenship and past fourteen years residency is by
7 information on or within an individual’s official birth certificate, school and work records, social
8 security information, documentation of international travel history that the ISP knows of to
9 the best of his/her ability and his/her past seven years of tax records.
10 (1) Written and signed permission by an ISP must be granted to the NYS Board of Elections
11 Executive Director(s) office to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office from various
12 sources listed within the documents.
13 C) The NYS Board of Elections Executive Director(s) office is to make its determination
14 within four weeks from the date of an individual’s full submission of documents, confirmation of
15 such full submission by the ISP and his/her signed statement, granting the office
16 permission to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office, as per Section 1 B (1).
17 D) With the exclusion of social security numbers, contained on documents, all pertinent
18 information obtained and pertinent findings that are obtained from such documents of
19 an ISP who is approved are to be made available to the public for viewing, in order for
20 the office’s approval to be enacted and the ISP to be placed on New York State’s ballot(s),
21 pending the fulfillment(s) of other current and future New York State requirement(s).
22 (1) An ISP must first view the information and findings of the NYS Board of Elections
23 Executive Director(s) office that it deems pertinent and approve such findings to be made
24 public, in order for such to be made available to the public for viewing.
25 E) Compliance with this act and the burden of proof of eligibility is fully on the ISP.
26 F) Disputes are to be handled through the New York State courts, with all legalities applicable.
27 Section 2: This act will be instituted in the State of New York.
28 Section 3: This act is to be instituted on or before November 1, 2010.
Written by Debra J.M. Smith – September 17, 2009
References: The U.S. Constitution
Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal – Appellant’s Opening Brief – Filed 19 Jan 2010
Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. See this link to download and read it:
We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.
We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.
“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced. The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too. And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.
This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with sole allegiance andUnity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.
Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant’s Brief in the next few days.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
261 responses to #eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Arizona Responds