As the sun sets on the Arizona legislature with no sign of a veto override of the Arizona birther bill HB2177, backers of similar legislation in Indiana are trying to get a summer study committee together to push their proposal forward.
The bill’s sponsor, state senator Mike Delph, told radio station WIBC that his bill (SB 114, which so far has been unable to achieve a hearing) is not about President Obama, but about regaining public confidence. “Trust but verify” is how he puts it. Delph’s bill differs from the vetoed Arizona bill in that it simply calls for a “certified copy of the candidates birth certificate”.
I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Indiana.
“I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for Indiana.”
Letterman is from Indiana, and the 500 race.
Here’s a link:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/IN/IN0114.1.html
Here’s what’s in the bill in addition to a certified birth certificate:
“including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.”
So Indiana legislature is going to leave it to someone else to decide what other documentation is necessary? I think that phrase makes it unconstitutional because whatever they define is “other documentation” besides a birth certificate is an attempt to define natural born citizen differently than what is stated in Article 2.
If its that I don’t see anything wrong with it. It just asks for a certified copy of a candidates birth certificate. Nothing about long forms or any of the other nonsense. Although it does say “including any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution” and who knows what that means to them.
But any bill that erupts in Indiana has to take into account the Alkeny Vs Daniels decision.
I’m not sure that’s necessarily true. Someone born abroad would have a local birth certificate from the country of their birth. They would also submit a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or some other documentation of citizenship. While there is some dispute over whether those born to US citizens are natural born citizens, i don’t think that call belongs to state legislatures. That was another problem with the Arizona bill as well.
It isn’t clear that the “any other documentation” refers to the birth certificate. It may be intended to apply to the residency requirement.
I doubt that there would be a challenge unless a candidate submits a certified birth certificate and the election division rejects it and demands more.
I don’t have a problem with it, but I can see the birther crowd reading requirements into the bill that aren’t there – as is their proven tendency. I have little doubt they will interpret the phrase “any other documentation necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution” as requiring a “long-form” birth certificate in addition to the certified copy.
Question for the lawyers in the room: does the Ankeny decision have any significance here (since President Obama has been declared a natural born citizen by an Indiana court)?
Do you guys admit that NO ONE CHECKS for Natural Born Citizen status?
This would be a useful starting point.
The Courts have actually said that the Secretary of State(s) have the responsibility to do it. I can prove this, beyond the fact that the federal register says it.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html
Who verifies if a candidate is qualified to run for President?
Answer:
The Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to contact their state election officials or their Congressional Representatives.
Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit the National Secretaries of State web site to locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State from each state and the District of Columbia.
Under federal law an objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the Senate during Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes.
This is exactly what happened in 2009.
You seem to be under the mistaken idea that everyone at this site objects to the a law requiring a candidate to show a birth certificate. That is wrong. It is when the states overstep their authority and try to define terms in the Constitution that there are objections. As Arizona’s Secretary of State Bennet indicated, the President’s COLB is adequate proof of age and place of birth. Adding a hospital or doctor’s name will not change that.
Romo Cop,
Presumably, a candidate who was ineligible (we’ve never had an ineligible major party candidate that I’m aware of, so it’s all hypothetical) would be hounded with it by their opponents in the primaries and in the general resulting in a failure to secure the nomination or a loss in the general election (none of these things happened in President Obama’s case – why is that?). If an ineligible candidate was elected, then one Senator and one Representative would have to object (in writing) to the Vice President and Congress would decide (again, why didn’t this happen?) – after the vote is certified, impeachment is the only way to remove the president (cf. 25th for exceptions). This process was followed and because enough people believed that President Obama was born in Hawai’i and that made him a natural born citizen, he was sworn in as POTUS. You may challenge his right to be on state ballots (if you are smart enough to figure out how to get standing in the courts) in the 2012 election, but you will lose and President Obama will be on the ballot and if elected will serve another term – just as the founders intended.
His candidacy actually was challenged, slart, in the Illinois presidential primaries back in November of 2007; in fact, twice by a white supremacist named Richard Mayer. The Illinois Board of Elections determined that Mayer’s claims were unfounded.
I found that when Israeli Insider, one of the links our concerned “friend” posted, said that no one had ever challenged Obama’s candidacy; it was a lie.
I don’t know if this link will post right. I haven’t posted it in a long time. When I posted it in the past, it wouldn’t directly link to the page; instead, it would go to the Board of Elections home page for some reason. This is one of them.
http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/objectiondetail.aspx?objectionid=763&electionid=21
Here’s the other one from 11/8/2007
http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/ObjectionDetail.aspx?ObjectionID=595&ElectionID=21
There is no credible compilation of what verification if any was done during the 2008 election. So I will withhold comment until I have the facts.
The DNC Certification of Nomination is a sworn and notarized affadavit. What’s more credible than that?
Very good answer.
Let’s review, shall we? Any candidate in the primary elections and any candidate in the general election can challenge another candidate’s qualifications to hold an office. In fact, American Independent Party candidate Alan Keyes’ challenge in California is still before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Orly Taitz’s lawsuit “Barnett, et. al. v Obama.” The original trial court judge, David O. Carter contemplated granting standing to Alan Keyes but decided against it since Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and had no chance of getting enough electoral votes to be elected.
It is virtually assured that if John McCain or the Republican National Committee or the McCain-Palin campaign had sued Obama, those persons/entities would have been granted standing to sue. They chose not to file suit.
The 535 members of Congress can vett a president-elect who is thought to be ineligible by submitting written objections (from at least one Senator and at least one Congressman/woman at the Joint Session of Congress held to count and certify the vote of the Electoral College. If objections are received, the joint session of Congress is adjourned and both Houses immediately convene in an investigative session.
For example, in Arizona, in 2008, Barack Obama had to sign a notarized statement attesting to the fact that he qualifies as a “natural born citizen of the United States.” Any other candidate or the Secretary of State of Arizona could have filed suit challenging that attestation of Obama’s.
Here’s a scanned copy of the form that Obama signed to get on the ballot in Arizona:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
If this bill passed, Obama would still be required to document his birth within the United States; the decision isn’t a pass for Obama.
The decision, however, makes it clear birth within the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
Summer study committees are a long practiced practice in Indiana. In addition to their salary and per diem while in session, each Legislator receives $XX dollars to cover time and travel for serving on a study committee – so they always make sure that there will be enough “studies” conducted each summer to keep everyone “busy” … (and it is a great way to tell voters you’re doing something about an issue without really doing something)
We studied DST for 5 or 6 summers (needed to make sure that everyone fully understood the impact on golf course business) …
In 2008, the Socialist Workers party ran Róger Calero for President and Arrin Hawkins for Vice-President. In some states, other people were listed as the SWP candidates. That is because Calero was not a citizen and Hawkins was only 29 years old. I presume that the substitutes ran in those states where an affidavit was required, as Joey mentioned above about Arizona. Note that in none of those states was the qualification of Barack Obama officially questioned.
You are trying to connect unrelated dots and make implications based on pure speculation, yet state it as if it was fact.
Where is your proof that “in none of those states was the qualification of Barack Obama officially questioned” and what do you actually mean by that. Are you claiming none of those states have processes that the Democratic Party had to follow and do you have proof to show it?
If not, your guilty of nothing but spurrious and unsupported innuendo.
Good grief, don’t these people have more important things to address…like jobs? Hello…anybody home at the State House?
No. They’re all at a bar in Gary.