Obama on the campaign
trail |
WASHINGTON – And then there were 11.
The push at the state level to ensure no future
president enters office under the cloud of suspicion that he or she might not be
constitutionally eligible is growing.
At the request of a local tea-party group, Tennessee
state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates to
show an original birth certificate establishing constitutional
eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.
Beavers told a local television station she said she
wouldn't comment about whether or not she believes Obama meets the test because
she has no personal knowledge about whether or not he can prove it. She said,
however, this legislation would erase all concerns in future
elections.
"We just want to make doubly sure in Tennessee if we put
someone on the ballot, they are qualified to run," said Beavers.
That makes 11 state legislatures now considering such
bills – with several of them well on the way to passage.
Order your copy of Jerome Corsi's upcoming blockbuster, "Where's
the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be
President," autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this
historic book when it is released this spring.
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.
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.
Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South
Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona's
probably got the closest to law, falling a "pocket veto" short in the state
Senate, despite widespread support.
Arizona
This is the one that could change the game. A plan in
Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy
the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been
introduced.
The proposal from state Rep. Judy Burges was
brought forth with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors. It needs only
16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need
for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several
chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but
simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
The proposal is highly
specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack
Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:
Within ten days after submittal of the names of
the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the
presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the
candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that
prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age
and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of
the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the
United States.
"I think every American should consider it of prime
importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our
nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND.
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall
be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth
certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital
and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not
held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely
to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party
committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents
prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that
presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the plan explains.
The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan
Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington,
such as in 2010 when lawmakers adopted provisions allowing state law-enforcement
officers to enforce federal immigration law. The move prompted an immediate
court challenge by Washington.
Connecticut
In Connecticut, SB291 has been referred
to the Judiciary Committee.
It would require "that candidates for president and
vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed
on the ballot."
That is needed to make sure the candidate "is a natural
born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified
to appear on the ballot."
Georgia
In Georgia, 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.
"Each political party shall provide for each candidate
... original documentation that he meets the qualifications of Article, 2
Section 1, Paragraph 1, and Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the United
States Constitution to serve as president of the United States if elected to
such office," it states.
"Any citizen of this state shall have the right to
challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following
the publication of the names of such candidates," it says.
Indiana
In Indiana it was Sen. Mike Delph who proposed
SB114 to require
candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an
affirmation they meet the Constitution's requirements for the president.
It calls for the candidates "to certify that the
candidate has the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of
the Constitution" and accompany that certification with "a certified copy of the
candidate's birth certificate, including any other documentation necessary to
establish that the candidate meets the qualifications."
In also provides "that the election division may not
certify the name of a nominee for president or vice president of the United
States unless the election division has received a nominee's certification and
documentation."
On his blog, commentator Gary Welsh observed that state law already requires the elections division
to deny ballot access to unqualified candidates:
"However, it makes no provision for requiring candidates
to furnish any evidence with their declaration of candidacy to
indicate whether they are eligible to hold the office. Article II, Section 1 of
the U.S. Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, at least
35 years of age and have resided within the United States for at least 14 years
in order to be eligible to be president. Under Delph's legislation, no major
party candidate will be eligible for the Indiana presidential primary unless
they file a declaration of candidacy attesting that he or she meets the
constitutional eligibility requirements and furnish the state election's
division with a certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and any
other evidence the Commission may require to establish the candidate satisfies
the constitutional eligibility requirements."
He cited the "unprecedented" 2008 election, where "the
candidates nominated by both major parties for president had questions raised by
citizens about their eligibility, which resulted in dozens of lawsuits being
filed across the country. Sen. John McCain's birth in Panama where his father
was serving his country in the Navy led to lawsuits being filed against his
candidacy, while questions about the birthplace of Barack Obama resulted in even
more lawsuits being filed challenging his eligibility.
"Obama furnished to Factcheck.org what was purported to
be a certified copy of his birth certificate [the online certification of live
birth], although questions lingered about his natural born status because his
father was not a U.S. citizen and persistent Internet rumors that he was
actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii as he claimed."
But he said the issue was that neither candidate was
"required to furnish any election authority with any document such as a birth
certificate ... ."
He said, "After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the
Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections
division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice
presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in
the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party
officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar
attestation.
"Critics will no doubt poke fun at SB114 and label Delph
and those who support it as 'birthers.' To them I say it is no more absurd than
the documentary proof required under state law for persons seeking a driver's
license, or requiring all registered voters to present a valid picture ID in
order to cast a vote in person at an election. And it certainly is no more
burdensome than evidence required of ordinary citizens in any number of
transactions," he said.
On Welsh's blog, a forum participant wrote, "All I can
say is he is the only president in my memory who has not only REFUSED to present
medical records, tax records, birth records, college records, etc., but he has
hired a battalion of lawyers who vigorously fight every effort to force him to.
Why is he so secretive?"
Maine
Maine's LD34 calls for a requirement for candidates for public
office to provide proof of citizenship.
It states, "A candidate for nomination by primary
election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a
certified copy of the candidate's birth certificate and the candidate's driver's
license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State."
Missouri
The Missouri plan,
HB283, by nearly two dozen sponsors, would require that certification for
candidates "shall include proof of identity and proof of United States
citizenship."
Nebraska
In Nebraska, with LB654,
the certification for candidates would "include affidavits and supporting
documentation."
That paperwork would need to document they meet the
"eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the
United States."
It requires an affidavit that says: "I was born a
citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the
jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other
country at the time of my birth."
Montana
Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also
provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for
"unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election
officials' to do their duty.
"There should be no question after the fact as to the
qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs
to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."
Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's
requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that
the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants
to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the
Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and
domestic."
But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent
on Obama's defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them
and some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step
beyond.
"Whereas, it would seem only right and just to
positively certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the
federal level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is
negligent in the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and
whereas, this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense
and litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their
duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the
Constitution," says his proposed legislation.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, SB91 would
require "proof of citizenship for certain candidates" and take the openness one
step further, allowing the public access.
It demands an "original" birth certificate issued by a
state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen
abroad ...
"Copies of these documents shall be made by the election
board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open
Records Act.
Pennsylvania (pending)
In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP
majority of both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's
office.
Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would demand
documentation of constitutional eligibility.
He described it as a "problem" that there has been no
established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the
Constitution's requirements for age, residency and being a "natural born
citizen."
"We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and
put it into law before the next session," he said.
Texas
A bill filed for the Texas Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman,
R-Tyler, that would require candidates' documentation.
Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and
simple:
It would add to the state election code the provision:
"The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate
for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the
candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a
natural-born United States citizen."
It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time
for 2012 presidential campaigning.
State Rep.
Leo Berman |
Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor
indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a
president be a "natural-born citizen."
"If the federal government is not going to vet these
people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.
He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because
of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts
agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two
citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been
qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan
subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen
with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions have called for a "natural born
citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over
the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented.
The "certification of live birth" his campaign posted online is a document that
Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2,
Section 1, which 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."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not
qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails
to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and
the United Kingdom's Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the
Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts
over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing
hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who
is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost
unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other
taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other
presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has
reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could
be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during
a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged
his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president.
Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of
American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls,
however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American
voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's
demands.
Orly
Taitz, the California lawyer who has
worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was
encouraging residents of other states to get to work.
"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state
of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and
the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and
senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there
were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as
the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our
Constitution any further," she said.
There also was, during the last Congress,
Rep. Bill Posey's
bill at the federal level.
Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:
"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 provided:
"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."
It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at
the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House this
year will move such a plan forward.
There
also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers
asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under
the Constitution's eligibility requirements.
"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans
endorsing this strategy on the petition – encouraging more action by state
officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such
measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state
regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama
run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said
Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.
An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal
authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans,
and it attracted more than half a million names.
For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national
figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule,
name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in
addition to the earlier petition, he has:
Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.
"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the
Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated
his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column.
"However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with
a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or
re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly
impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying
with the law to be effective."
If you are a member of the media and would like to
interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
Does the “Will of the People” matter
when government is run by a cadre of demigods? After all, is it really immoral
to force Americans to do the good and avoid the bad? Contra, one can argue the very cornerstone
of US constitutional theory is summed up in the doctrine of Consent of the
Governed, since without acknowledging the popular will, every other act by
government is tyranny. Yet, former constitutional instructor Barack
The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed Justice Waite’s definition of natural born citizen (from Minor v. Happersett). Gray cited the definition verbatim and acknowledged that Waite REJECTED Virginia Minor’s claim of 14th amendment citizenship. Gray wrote that the Supreme Court was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment …” IOW, this is saying the 14th amendment does NOT apply to natural born citizens (since they are already citizens). Gray further affirmed this by noting that Minor’s citizenship was due to jus soli AND jus sanguinis criteria: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States …”
The other thing that’s noteworthy about the MInor and WKA decisions is that both technically acknowledged that the concept of being a “native” is equivalent to being a natural born citizen in that you still need to be born in the country to citizen parents. Gray’s concept of 14th amendment “citizenship by birth” is a public law class of citizenship, but it is not technically “native born” citizenship. The modern concept of “native born” citizenship is based on a superficial understanding of the term, but is not based on the Supreme Court’s actual interpretation.
Harry H.:
The very last phrase of your post is undoubtedly correct!!!
A well written and powerful discussion of the subject.
Paralegalnm seems to have fingered the necessary distinctions here, but waiting for a walrus-like judiciary to act appropriately and justly could take a while. And many people will never understand or admit to understanding what they consider the legal niceties of Article II.
In contrast, everyone can understand that a non-citizen should not be our Commander-in-Chief. Since I believe Obama is not even a citizen, much less nbC, I think the easiest, surest way out of this mess is to indisputably verify where the usurper was born. If by some miracle it turns out Obama was indisputably born in the U.S., the nbC question still has to be answered.
Congress should take the easiest step first by establishing as a legal fact where our putative president was born. If it can’t even do that, Congress is a useless parasite on the body politic.
One thing that is certain, recent revelations (Adams, Abercrombie, Miss Tickly’s blog, etc.) have made it more and more evident that Obama-liar was born somewhere else than in Hawaii. That contradictory fact alone constitutes criminal fraud and should be sufficient legal justification to oust the usurper, regardless of wherever he actually was born.
Certainly there are plenty of Kenyans (apparently including his step grandmother) who are convinced that he is a native son of Kenya and drew his first brand-spanking-new breath as a Kenyan on Kenyan soil.
Given that eyewitnesses and university enrollment records placed his mother in Seattle within scant weeks of his purported birth date, and given that he had a great aunt who lived nearby in northern Washington state at that time (the perfect hiding place for a “very young and very single” mother), it is also quite possible that he was born just over the border from Blaine, Washington in White Rock, Canada.
In my opinion, these are the two most likely scenarios, but given the dearth of nativity information from the “most transparent administration ever,” all we know for certain is that, whatever the truth actually is, it would mean the immediate end of the Obama-fraud’s illegal occupation of the Presidency.