Main Menu

Birther bill introduced in Congress

US House of Representatives sealHR 1503 has been introduced in Congress  by Representative Bill Posey (R – FL) to require presidential campaign committees to submit birth certificates and other documentation to the Federal Elections Commission to establish their candidates’ eligibility. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Administration.

Barack Obama took leadership on this issue in 2008, by becoming the first US presidential candidate in history to post a copy of his birth certificate on the Internet.

This is the text of Posey’s bill:

A BILL

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.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of 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.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATE’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.

    (a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended–
    • (1) by striking `and’ at the end of paragraph (5);
    • (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and’; and
    • (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    • `(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, 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 section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.
    (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.

As you know, I don’t have a strong objection to such legislation in principle. However, this bill doesn’t define “birth certificate”, nor does it resolve (nor could it) the current brouhaha over what a “natural born citizen” is. I find it rather naive in that it doesn’t deal with the broad range of types of birth registrations in the United States. Further it seems to place with the Federal Elections Commission (an executive agency) the responsibility for determining presidential eligibility, which is at odds with the Constitution, which places this responsibility with Congress.

The part of the US Code (2 USC 433(a))  to which this bill  would be applied is the registration requirements for “authorized campaign committees.” The definition of “authorized campaign committee” in the statute is “the principal campaign committee or any other political committee authorized by a candidate under section 432(e)(1) of this title to receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of such candidate.” A “political committee” is defined as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year…” This means that if a candidate authorizes a local club, that club has to file a copy of their candidates’ birth certificate. At least that’s the way I read it. That could require filing hundreds if not thousands of birth certificates. (There are currently 813 authorized or principal campaign committees listed on the FEC web site covering, I think, the past 3 and future elections.)

I find this bill half-baked and not a workable idea.

64 Responses to Birther bill introduced in Congress

  1. avatar
    Loren April 21, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    As is the case with the Arizona bill, why is Posey’s bill so concerned with papers proving the eligibility of the Presidential candidate, but requires absolutely nothing at all with regard to the Vice Presidential candidate?

    It’s almost as if the bills were drafted with a specific Presidential candidate in mind, rather than with the general Constitutional requirements as they pertain to Presidential elections.

  2. avatar
    Dave April 21, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    I’d add, in case anyone doesn’t know, that this bill was introduced over a year ago, has attracted few co-sponsors even among the GOP, and is going nowhere fast.

    But I am quite puzzled by this bill, and I’m hoping someone will take pity and explain. It appears to require candidates to submit documentation to the FEC, but what is the FEC supposed to do with it? The bill doesn’t say. I suspect all that happens is that whatever the candidate submits is publicly available, period. Can anyone clarify?

  3. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 21, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Also, Doc, since the bill does not define “birth certificate,” the courts would have to consult existing federal law to see if there were any legal definition of the term.

    They would find section 7211, which you have described in detail in a recent article. Obama’s COLB satisfies that definition. So he has already complied with the bill.

    The bill is a waste of time.

    If you post a link or print out the Arizona bill, I think that we will find that Obama has already complied with that one, also.

    Obama is probably the only potential 2012 candidate who has already complied with all the birther birth certificate bills.

    Finally, I happen to think that Arizona and all the other states are bound to accept the COLB as a public record of the state of Hawaii under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

  4. avatar
    Tomtech April 21, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    I wish McCain would have been required to do this.

    Like me, the only officially recognizable document McCain could provide is a State Department “Certification of Report of Birth of a United States Citizen” which only states that the named person’s birth was registered with the Consular Service and a “Consular Report of Birth was issued”.

    I was born at a U. S. base hospital in a former U. S. territory and that is all I can get.

    It doesn’t specify the hospital, doctor, or witness.

    The fact it took 105 days between the birth and the consular report would make great fodder for the birthers.

    See Here

  5. avatar
    Tomtech April 21, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    I wish McCain would be required to put his up because it would drive the birthers further up the wall.

    Like me, The only legally acceptable document McCain can produce would be a State Department “Certification of Report of Birth of a United States Citizen”. You can see a redacted version of mine from 2001 here.

    There is no hospital listed, no doctor, no witness, no name of the registrar, and no date of registration.

    The 105 day delay between my birth and the date the Consular Report of Birth was issued would be fodder for the conspiracy theorists.

    Please notice that there is no place of birth listed for the parents.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    The section of the US Code (2 USC 433(a)) to which this bill would be applied contains requirements for “authorized campaign committees.” The definition of “authorized campaign committee” in the statute is “the principal campaign committee or any other political committee authorized by a candidate under section 432(e)(1) of this title to receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of such candidate. A “political committee” is defined as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year…” This means that if a candidate authorizes a local club, that club has to file a copy of their candidates’ birth certificate. At least that’s the way I read it. That could require filing hundreds if not thousands of birth certificates.

  7. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution is known as the ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause’. It means that every state must respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of other states.

    According to Wikipedia, A Pennsylvania court explained in 1786 that the (similar) provision in the Articles of Confederation did not direct that “executions might issue in one state upon the judgments given in another”, but rather was “chiefly intended to oblige each state to receive the records of another as full evidence of such acts and judicial proceedings.”

    Congress passed a law further implementing the provision. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 reads: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

    Again according to Wikipedia, In 1813, the United States Supreme Court interpreted this federal statute, in the leading case of Mills v. Duryee.[12] Justice Joseph Story wrote for the Court that it was the federal statute (rather than the constitutional provision) that made records from one state effective in another state:

    ==> It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.<==

    It is within Arizona's authority to specify the criteria to determine the eligiblity of candidates to appear on ballots in the state. The 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' requires Arizona to recognize the Hawai'ian birth certificate. Anything other than that is unconstitutional.

    End of interest in this story.

    Official Notice: Arizona is my home state (Go Cat's; Devils suck). I am completely embarrassed by their recent actions on this, immigration (unconstitutional IMHO), concealed weapons, etc, etc. The only defense I can offer is Phoenix is totally insane, Tucson at least has a few brain cells left.

  8. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    Oops, I thought this was in the Arizona thread. Sorry.

  9. avatar
    Scott Brown April 22, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    I would agree – a COLB will most likely be the accepted form of ‘proof’ (although it will likely prove nothing).

    However, surely we hope that our federal officials will be knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between a COLB that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and ACCEPTED and RECORDED by the registrar.

  10. avatar
    Scott Brown April 22, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    What would be the point? McCain is NOT a NBC. Although Congress passed a non-binding resolution to the contrary – doesn’t make it so.

    You can say a lie over and over, but it won’t ever make it the truth.

    Truth is – he was born in Colon, which was never a US possession. The naval hospital birth register for the day he was born, does NOT contain his name.

    No fodder here – move along.

  11. avatar
    Scott Brown April 22, 2010 at 8:56 am #

    If you say it twice, it makes it so?

    Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

  12. avatar
    Bob Ross April 22, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    More bunk from fake scott brown. How about we throw in more caviats. How about Received, accepted, filed, acknoledged and other words which have no real differentiation

  13. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    Whether or not McCain met the technical criteria for NBC (he did, because he was a citizen at birth), this points out the idiocy engendered by this pointless antiquated clause (Santa Claus is more useful). Why shouldn’t the voters have the right to elect John McCain if they deem him the most worthy candidate? Or for that matter, Schwarzenegger or Granholm?

    The Constitution was never meant to be holy, unchaging writ, but rather a framework that evolved with the country to serve the needs of the people.

    NBC and assorted other anachronisms should be done away with yesterday!

  14. avatar
    BatGuano April 22, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    .However, surely we hope that our federal officials will be knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between a COLB that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and ACCEPTED and RECORDED by the registrar.

    what’s the difference in your state scott ?

  15. avatar
    Bob Ross April 22, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    If you make up stories about your COLB being denied without telling us what state you’re from does that make it true?

  16. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    What would be the point? McCain is NOT a NBC.

    Says you. Ted Olsen was solicitor general. Lawrence Tribe wrote a definitive treatise on Constitutional Law. They both say he is a NBC.

    What are your qualifications?

  17. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2010 at 11:35 am #

    although it will likely prove nothing

    It proves that the state of Hawaii places enough faith in the document to put its seal on it and to sign it under pain of perjury that it is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the information they have on file.

    However, surely we hope that our federal officials will be knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between a COLB that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and ACCEPTED and RECORDED by the registrar.

    Quote me a case or statute that explains the difference. A case that shows that the one is not acceptable, but the other is.

    You are full of it, Scott.

  18. avatar
    Black Lion April 22, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    A obvious birther posted a link to Mario’s site where he again attacks the birth announcements in the HI newspapers….

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/newspaper-birth-announcement-ads-in.html

    Kerchner, who wrote the article makes the following wrong conclusion….

    “The two announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 only prove a birth was REGISTERED there, not that he was born there. A registration was allowed under Hawaiian law in 1961 to be made by any family member via a simple mail-in form to the state Health Department. No 3rd party or independent witnesses to the birth were required. The statement of a family member registering a new born child as born home was accepted into the registration system with little or not questions back then. Thus the family could lie and register a birth in Hawaii when it occurred elsewhere, anywhere in the world, simply to get the child U.S. citizenship, a highly coveted status then and now. The false registration was not done so he could be President some day. The false registration was done to get the new born child citizenship for that time. It was a case of birth registration fraud to illegally gain U.S. citizenship for a foreign born child of the family.

    Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961, as I said, Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and if Obama’s maternal grandma filled out the form and mailed it in to the birth registration office saying Obama was born at their home in Hawaii, a vital record would be created. And the birth announcement was on the list of births registered that week and which lists were sent routinely each week to the two newspapers. With data systems it is GIGO, garbage (false registration data) in yields garbage out (fraudulently created birth record in the state’s vital record system out). And with a falsified birth registration in the system, subsequent computer print outs in later years and carefully crafted statements by Hawaiian officials that they have a record of Obama being born in Hawaii can be obtained and made. But those printouts and statements are being made based on a falsified vital record mail-in registration form back in 1961.”

    So Kerchner, trying to apply a statute that was not in effect until 1982, attempts to claim that the newspapers were just reporting the original misinformation. In other words he makes the claim that Obama’s grandmother or mother just registered a baby, and the state of HI would just take their word for it and believe them.

    When it is pointed out to him that then the BC would not state born in HI, look at the following exchange….

    cfkerchner said…
    Posted by Teller

    ———————-
    Teller Said:
    You said: “A registration was allowed under Hawaiian law in 1961 to be made by any family member via a simple mail-in form to the state Health Department.”

    Yes, but that document could not say “born in Hawaii” on it unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have said twice that the original document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    ——————–

    Answer: Did you not read and understand the full statement in my post!? Or do you choose to only focus on what you want to spin. The state of Hawaii took as evidence the single statement of one family member as all the evidence they needed to create a vital record of a live birth occurring in Hawaii. The COLB shown on line says the registration was filed. It does not say it was ultimately accepted. But the simple act of the grandmother filing a falsely completed registration of birth form stating Obama was ‘born in Hawaii’ when he really was not, is all that it takes to get the Vital Record created in the Health Department system saying he was ‘born in Hawaii’ and that in turned generated the newspaper announcement ads. Garbage/false data into a database and system yields garbage/false reports out of it [GIGO]. Read my post again and also listen to this radio interview I did with Bill Cunningham to explain the birth registration fraud going on in 1961 in Hawaii once again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

    And then we have the numerous statements in Kenya that Obama was born there which you seem to gloss over.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

    CDR Kerchner
    http://www.protectourliberty.org
    [An Editor and Moderator for this Blog … an Obot free no-spin zone.]

    What is hilarious is that Kerchner claims that therre was this rampant fraud in HI in 1961 but can never give any examples of it. I guess only Obama’s family would have committed fraud under his theory. The best is his reasoning for not having any dissenting opinions on his blog….

    cfkerchner said…
    To whom it may concern:

    For the Obots reading this blog and the “closet Obots” pretending to be interested and trying to help in this lawsuit’s merits and visiting here trying to post spin and misleading information in this blog, re-read the rules of this blog. That is not allowed. Also, blatant flaming and telling informed, long-time posters here in this blog to “shut their pie hole” will get your posts moderated and/or deleted too. Spinning for Obama and spreading the typical lies and disinformation and obfuscations found in the Obot blogs is not permitted in this blog. Posting links to the Obot propaganda sites will get moderated out too.”

    So it is no wonder why those birthers continue to believe the lies spun by Mario, Orly, and the others. Because they are only getting selective information.

  19. avatar
    Rickey April 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Scott Brown says:

    However, surely we hope that our federal officials will be knowledgeable enough to discern the difference between a COLB that has merely been RECEIVED by the registrar and ACCEPTED and RECORDED by the registrar.

    Total nonsense.

    Obama’s COLB says nothing about it being RECEIVED by the registrar. It says DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR.

    http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    What state were you born in?

  20. avatar
    SFJeff April 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    I can see why there would be some concerns about whether McCain qualified as a NBC, so who would be entitled to make that decision?

    It could be the voters. Of course Birthers don’t think voters can be trusted to decide whether someone is a NBC, so can’t be voters.

    Electoral College? Likewise, it is clear that Birthers don’t feel the Electoral college can’t be trusted to make that decision.

    Congress? Birthers don’t believe Congress is either, but Congress is the body- as I understand it- that ultimately is required to confirm the President’s election. If the sense of Congress is that McCain is a NBC, then seems likely to me that they would confirm him just like they did President Obama.

    Of course Birthers put their hope on the Supreme Court- except of course when the Supreme Court doesn’t do what they want. I would suspect if the NBC issue does come to the Supreme Court they would consider it a Legislative issue, since Congress has to confirm the President.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Scott Brown: McCain is NOT a NBC.

    I’m so much interested in what was said here, but how it was said. It is stated emphatically. While one might state emphatically that the President must be a natural born citizen, we can do so because there is a common authority that we all recognize, the US Constitution, that says so. However, in the case of John McCain, a case that is complicated, what does it mean to assert that he is or is not a natural born citizen? All we can express with certainty is what our own opinion is.

    If a particular presidential candidate were challenged on eligibility and the case was decided by the US Supreme Court, would that settle it? Would that be the shared authority that we could all agree on, allowing us to speak emphatically about the eligibility of that candidate? I would say “no.” While the Court might make a ruling that contains a definition of natural born citizen, the Constitution assigns the responsibility for making sure our President is eligible to the Electoral College and the Congress.

    This is why I can say emphatically that Barack Obama is eligible to be President of the United States, because the bodies tasked by the Constitution to determine eligibility have determined that it is so.

  22. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin April 22, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Oops, I thought this was in the Arizona thread. Sorry.

    I used to live in Sierra Vista, AZ and liked to drive up to Tucson to see how civilized people lived.

    And you’re right, Phoenix is totally insane.

  23. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Absolutely, Doc. The birthers like to say that Congress can’t make someone a natural born citizen. Wrong! They absolutely can in the case of the winner of a Presidential election, by the simple expedient of certifying the result. Just like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences can make someone an Academy Award winner. You can disagree with their decision, but their perogative trumps yours. If Schwarzenegger won and Congress certified him, guess what? He would be the legitimate President and (effectively) a natural born citizen.

  24. avatar
    Kevin Bellas April 22, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    I find it so funny that a worm like Kerchner would use an old interview he gave to support his own arguement. It’s like taking the bricks in your foundation to build your chimney and to expect your building to remain standing.

  25. avatar
    SFJeff April 22, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    These people find it easy to accept as truth statements made by Kenyan politicians(while assuming that all American Politicians are liars), and at the same time find it easy to assume that a respectable American grandmother would commit fraud to get U.S. citizenship for a child that would easily be able to get U.S. citizenship in any case.

    No wonder they can find dupes to pay them money to fund their ‘investigations’

  26. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    I used to live in Sierra Vista, AZ and liked to drive up to Tucson to see how civilized people lived.
    And you’re right, Phoenix is totally insane.

    Ya got a bleedin’ barrage balloon hanging out over your old back yard now. Did you know that?

  27. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 2:26 am #

    Hey “Scott Brown” – still waiting to hear what state you were born in? You’ve been dodging this question constantly for at least 5 days now…why is that Scott? Is it because you are nothing but a liar?

  28. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 2:30 am #

    Hey “Scott Brown” – why are you still dodging telling us what state you are from? Still waiting for your answer…

    How come you can keep posting here repeatedly every day, but when asked my multiple people to answer which state you were born in in response to the “story” you kept repeating here about not being able to use your “short form BC”…that you can’t even answer what state you were born in, eh?

  29. avatar
    G April 23, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    “Scott Brown” – you are nothing but a lying coward. Until you fess up or answer the question about what state you were born in and why you were told your short form wouldn’t suffice for a US passport, I’m going to continue to bring this up.

    So, come on, Scott – admit you made up the whole story and are running scared trying to pretend you never answered it, or have the courage to answer the question already! Are we to really believe that you are too stupid to know what state you were born in or too inept to figure it out, after at least 5 days of being prompted for such?

  30. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Did any of you read what “scientist” said?

    After reading his earlier comment and his most recent comment above, the only conclusion to be drawn is that “scientist” has no respect for any laws.

    According to “scientist”, Congress is not restrained by the Constitution. If that be the truth, there is no such thing as “unconstitutional”.

  31. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    This sounds like a comment left by one of Duke’s finest offspring.

    “Why shouldn’t the voters have the right to elect John McCain if they deem him the most worthy candidate? Or for that matter, Schwarzenegger or Granholm?”

    Pure Slartistry! According to “scientist”, we need no amendment process. We can just ignore the Constitution if we don’t like what it has to say.

    Is that a liberal point of view, or just the point of view from a liberal scientist, KK?

  32. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Tomtech,

    Here’s a link to McCain’s birth certificate.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

    Do you have any more questions?

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    WTF?: According to “scientist”, we need no amendment process. We can just ignore the Constitution if we don’t like what it has to say.

    Scientist did not say that. He expressed an opinion of how things might be better, not a commentary on how one might arrive at that state politically.

  34. avatar
    nbC April 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Yes, why are you referring to a document which is a known forgery

    Have you no shame? Or are you just allowing others to mislead you?

  35. avatar
    nbC April 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Scott Brown

    Truth is – he was born in Colon, which was never a US possession. The naval hospital birth register for the day he was born, does NOT contain his name.

    What evidence do we have of this? Don’t tell me you have been fooled by the forged document that we have seen presented on the internet?

  36. avatar
    G April 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    I just read Scientist’s post and I think he is overreaching to make a point.

    However, I did not get the same takeaway of what Scientist said as you did, WTF, which could simply be because as a long time reader here, I’ve seen Scientist make similar statements and I think the context of what he is saying is not as extreme as how it comes off at first glance.

    Here’s my interpretation of what Scientist has been arguing in these regards:

    1. His main point seems to be that the whole issue of “is the president the president” becomes moot once the electoral college has voted, congress has certified it and the person is sworn in at inauguration. At that point, the arguments become moot and that person is the POTUS and can only be removed by an act of congress as spelled out in law. That position and points are backed by our law process, so I disagree that he is in anyway advocating that we ignore or not follow laws. If anything his argument is that the lawful election process was followed and should be respected and that should be the end of it.

    2. Where Scientist’s post can be misleading at first glance, is it glosses over the whole process of the election beforehand, but only because I believe that scientist’s point is that any legitimate issue with the presidential candidate’s eligibility would have been caught and addressed prior to being certified and sworn in and even more importantly, such a candidate would most likely have never made it all the way to winning at the ballot box in the first place.

    3. Scientist has made references to Schwarzenegger a number of times because as he points out, prior to the 2008 election cycle, there were a number of folks in the GOP who were clamoring for amending the Constitution to do away with the NBC requirement for POTUS so that Schwarzenegger could run for President.

    4. Scientist has used this to support his opinion that the NBC requirement, which is only found for POTUS might be archaic in his view and that there are people out there that could make good presidents for the US who are only prevented from running due to this requirement. I don’t think he has ever advocated not following the law, but just pointing out that he would support a Constitutional Amendment that did away with the NBC requirement (which some folks in the GOP were clamoring for just a few years back). Doing such would be the legal process to address such an issue.

    5. I personally don’t have a problem with the law as it stands today, so while I have no compunction to advocate or support pursuing such a Constitutional Amendment, I view this as Scientist merely using some extreme examples to express some of his opinions, but in no way did I interpret this as his disrespecting the law or the process of following the law.

  37. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    So G?

    If Schwarzenegger ran for President; won the election; was certified by Congress; and took the Oath of Office, would we be operating this country under the provisions of the Constitution?

    I’m talking a worst case scenario.

    If needed, we can change the scenario: What if proof of election fraud (not directly involving any of the candidates) was found and proven after the President took office? The President would not have committed an impeachable offense, but he would not have been legally elected. We know that fraud vitiates all acts. Where do we go from there?

  38. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    G,

    Let’s say it wasn’t Schwarzenegger, but someone in his same circumstances, who people believed was a natural-born citizen, but he really wasn’t?

    Can you tell me with 100% certainty that Bill Clinton was a NBC? Can you even provide conclusive evidence of who his father was? You do know that Bill Clinton was adopted; don’t you?

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm #

    WTF?: Do you have any more questions?

    Yes, how were you fooled by such a crude forgery?

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    … [John McCain] was born in Colon, which was never a US possession. The naval hospital birth register for the day he was born, does NOT contain his name.No fodder here – move along.

    Corrections: The only “evidence” that John McCain was born in Colon is a crude forgery (actually two crude forgeries). The birth register of the Panama Canal Health Department omits McCain, not that of the naval base. On the other side a contemporary newspaper announcement shows him born on the base. On balance, I would say with reasonable confidence that John McCain was born on the Coco Solo Naval Base in the Panama Canal Zone.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    The only legally acceptable document McCain can produce would be a State Department “Certification of Report of Birth of a United States Citizen”.

    Hey THANKS for sharing that. This makes it totally obvious why John McCain was unwilling to release his birth certificate!

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    In all fairness, I myself was fooled to the point of accepting the possibility that McCain was born in Colon. There are comments on the blog to that effect. The cache of a document being presented in court clouded my judgment. That all went away when I zoomed in and actually looked at the thing.

    Here’s my article on the subject: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    Compare the compact, easy to follow analysis I make to the interminable rants and irrelevancies of those from “Dr. Polarik”.

  43. avatar
    G April 24, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    Dear WTF,

    I’m not sure what point you are trying to make and I’m wondering if you are misinterpreting my arguments.

    I was trying to explain what Scientist seemed to be implying, not advocating for Schwarzenegger or anyone else as president for that matter.

    As I’ve clearly stated, I don’t have any issues with the POTUS qualifications as outlined in the Constitution and I’m fully behind having our laws being followed.

    Furthermore, as folks like Schwarzenegger clearly don’t meet the NBC requirement, the rational argument is that these issues of their ineligibility would clearly have been brought to the surface and addressed long before a swearing in ceremony – to think that none of the members of congress or the electoral college would notice such an obvious discrepancy that he wasn’t NBC is ludicrous on its face. Had things even gone that far, there most likely would have been clear objections to such a a candidate in every step of the process. That is even assuming that the issue would even get that far, which is highly unlikely at best.

    Simply put, if someone like Schwarzenegger, who is only a naturalized citizen, tried to run for POTUS, the issue of his ineligibility under the NBC clause would be discovered and made apparent very early in the process of his even registering to run and the likelihood that such a candidate would make it onto ballots for said office and survive to election day is extremely unrealistic. (I just want to state for the record that I have nothing at all against Schwarzenegger; he just is clearly not eligible for POTUS).

    It is why the whole birther movement falls flat on its face. Obama’s past was not some “mystery” as his detractors state – this is a man who had a best-selling autobiography years prior to running and although is rise in national politics was rapid, he’d been in public office prior to that (State senator of IL). His presidential campaign was a nearly 2 year battle, the most covered and closely followed in history. His opponents in both the primary and general election fiercely fought against him and both had deep and powerful political connections and access themselves. Had there been any legitimate “dirt” or problems with Obama’s eligibility, these would have surfaced quickly during the campaign. None did because there are no real problems with Obama’s eligibility. It is all just birther fantasy.

    It is simply unrealistic to think that someone who was not an NBC could make it onto the national stage and run for President without their eligibility issue being discovered and therefore their being disqualified very early in the whole process.

    In reality, it would just not get very far. If you don’t think that a tremendous amount of vetting happens behind the scenes at all levels of politics, then you are naive.

  44. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Let me expand on my statements:

    1. Yes, I believe the natural born citizen clause, if it ever served a purpose (questionable) is completely pointless at the present time and should be abolished. Why would you think that someone who acquires citizen ship by a mere accident of birth would value it more than someone who made a conscious choice as an adult? In fact, I would say the latter shows more deep-seated love for their country, if anything. Certainly Govs. Schwarzennegger and Granholm, whether you like them or not, have run 2 large states, and are highly qualified for the Presidency. I find it silly to presume they are less loyal to America than anu of the other 48 governors.

    2. I recognize that in the current atmosphere of mindless partisanship amending the Constitution is probably impossible (despite the fact that the there are many badly needed changes of more significance than natural born citizen). So we are stuck with many antiquated provisions, among them NBC. So, no, I don’t think Schwarzennegger and Granholm should run, even though they might make an excellent bipartisan ticket.

    3. So who decides what the term NBC means? The birthers want courts to do so; that is until the courts rule against them, which 70 some have done. Nevertheless, if you read the ENTIRE Constitution, it is clear that there are a few areas in which Congress has absolute jurisdiction, not reviewable by the courts. One is impeachment. If a President or other official is impeached and convicted, he has no recourse to the courts, even if he feels his offenses did not rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors” (as Clinton did). Similarly, if you read the 20th and 25th Amendments, it is clear that Congress determines Presidential qualifications, and their decision is not reviewable by the courts. By the way, Judges Carter, Land, the Indiana Court of Appeals and others have said the same.

    4. Congress in assessing whether a President-elect qualifies must of course consider the Constitutional requirements. They can certainly ask for the opinion of legal scholars if they are in doubt. In Obama’s case, not a single recognized legal scholar (note: Apuzzo, Donofrio and Taitz are not recognized legal scholars) has the slightest doubt that he is eligible. In McCain’s case a few had doubts, but most considered him eligible. Therefore, Congress acted completely properly when they certified Obama’s election.

    5. In the case of a massive electoral fraud, it’s hard to imagine that wouldn’t come out before the election was certified. In that case, Congress has the ability to appoint an interim President until the fraud is sorted out. In the (fictional) case you cited, where the President was installed before any hint of fraud arose, the country would have to bear the fraudster for 4 years, or impeach him (remember Congress has unchallenged impeachment power). I say that as one who has grave doubts about whether Bush won Florida in 2000 and how the Supreme Court was complicit. Nevertheless, I accepted him as the legitimate (if incompetent) President. It astounds me that the birtheres can’t do the same with Obama, who at least did win the election.

  45. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Can you tell me with 100% certainty that Bill Clinton was a NBC? Can you even provide conclusive evidence of who his father was? You do know that Bill Clinton was adopted; don’t you?

    Since Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas, then yes it is 100% certain he was an NBC. His adoption or parentage is irrelvant. Same was the case for Gerald Ford who was adopted. And of course it’s also true for Obama, who wasn’t adopted, though it wouldn’t matter if he were.

    Given that “traditional” families where the parents are married and remain together for life are now a minority, I suspect that many future Presidents will have complicated family histories, none of which will matter.

  46. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    scientist,

    You are confused. The qualifications of the President and Vice President are not something left to the discretion of Congress. The qualifications are a mandate in which Congress is left to perform a ministerial role.

    While items that a left to the discretion of Congress are not reviewable by the court, the same cannot be said for ministerial acts of Congress.

    Maybe you were thinking of the qualifications for Congressmen. That is something left to the discretion of Congress.
    (See Article I, Section 5, Clause 1)

  47. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 7:08 pm #

    I stand corrected. I accept your analysis of the McCain birth certificate.

  48. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    WTF: No, it is YOU who are confused. Under the 20th Amendment Congress determines whether a President-elect is qualified and whether the votes were properly tallied. There is a procedure specified in the law by which objections can be made. If one is made, Congress has broad authority to review the votes and the candidate’s qualifications, including to set aside electoral votes from one or more states.

    This isn’t just me saying so. This has been discussed in the ecisions of Judges Carter, Land, the Indiana Court of Appeals and others. That is why they consider the matter of Obama’s qualifications non-justiciable under the political questions doctrine. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v Gore, legal scholars all said that Congress could still decide otherwise. They were never going to, of course, because Congress was controlled by the Republicans, but no one doubted that they could have.

    What authority do you have for your position that disagrees with judges and legal scholars?

  49. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    In response to April 24, 2010 at 7:20 pm Scientist,

    You are confused when it comes to a discretionary act.

    If the Constitution requires the President to be at least 35 years old, Congress cannot decide that 34 1/2 is close enough. If Congress did such a thing (because they thought it was the right thing to do, and they found the amendment process too burdensome), it would be an unconstitutional (illegal) act.

    If Congress performed that illegal act, any state could file suit. That is part of our system of checks and balances. To say that it is not is to completely ignore Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
    “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States”

  50. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Scientist said “This isn’t just me saying so. This has been discussed in the [d]ecisions of Judges Carter, Land, the Indiana Court of Appeals and others.”

    No. It’s just you. No court has said that Congress is at liberty to define the requirements of Article II. No court has determined that Congress can perform an unconstitutional act.

    Feel free to quote from the cases you cite. I probably cannot correct your belief, but I could at least have a chance to permit others to see where you went wrong.

  51. avatar
    Scientist April 24, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Here is Judge Carter:

    “Three provisions of the Constitution speak to which branch of government has the power to evaluate the qualifications of a president: the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment provides a role for Congress to make the ultimate determination of who shall be president and vice president through the counting of the electoral votes. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the succession to presidency and vice presidency in the case the president is disabled.”

    The Article III power is not absolute. Impeachment is a clear exception. Who decides whether an act constitutes “high crimes and musdemeanors”? Congress alone. The impeached official has no possible appeal to the courts. None. Zero.

    In your example of a 34 year old, someone could sue-probably not states, but likely the losing candidate. I don’t think the courts would have the power to do anything though.

    Anyway, you seem to want to pretend that the courts don’t consider Obama to be an NBC. What evidence dp you have to support that, given that the Supreme Court swore him in? No law requires them to do that, so even if they lacked the power to prevent him from taking office, they could have stayed away. But they didn’t.

  52. avatar
    WTF? April 24, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    scientist,

    Since you brought Judge Carter into it, here’s what page 25 of his opinion said;

    C. Quo Warranto Claims

    The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
    President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

    D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the
    United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia. At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
    Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because, while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of
    Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.”

    Judge Carter and Judge Lamberth have both now recognized the D.C. quo warranto statute, and its application to the President.

  53. avatar
    aarrgghh April 24, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    wtf?, ftmfl:

    “Judge Carter and Judge Lamberth have both now recognized the D.C. quo warranto statute, and its application to the President.”

    … both having deep-sixed its application to birfoonism. case dismissed x2 lol.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    WTF?: Judge Carter and Judge Lamberth have both now recognized the D.C. quo warranto statute, and its application to the President.

    Judge Carter said such claims must be brought in the District of Columbia, not that they were necessarily valid there.

    Judge Lamberth of the DC District court just kicked Orly’s quo warranto suit out of court, so it’s not valid there either.

    Read the decision here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/court-not-willing-to-tilt-windmills-with-orly-taitz/

  55. avatar
    WTF? April 25, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy said; “Judge Lamberth of the DC District court just kicked Orly’s quo warranto suit out of court, so it’s not valid there either.”

    Why the need to obfuscate if the truth is on your side, Doc?

    The case was dismissed on standing, not on jurisdiction. Judge Carter ruled that his court did not have jurisdiction to hear quo warranto. Judge Lamberth did not make the same ruling.

    Quo warranto has been used to remove governors, while the associated state constitutions granted their House with the sole power of impeachment.

  56. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    WTF-You are correct that Judge Lamberth didn’t address the issue of whether an interested party could use quo warranto to challenge a sitting President. Nevertheless, the legislative discussion of the federal quo warranto statute made it very clear that Congress opposed its use against a sitting President, as they felt only impeachment was the proper course to remove a President. I don’t know the legislative history of the state statute used to remove the Governor. Anyway, if I recall correctly there was clear evidence against the Governor, not the kind of b.s. speculation regarding Obama.

    Now, since you like fictional scenarios, maybe you could give an honest answer to this. Let’s say that in mid-2002 someone discovered 5,000 Gore ballots in a warehouse in Tallahassee. Let’s say that forensic analysis proved conclusively they were genuine and that therefore Gore really won Florida. So what would YOU say? Remove Bush from the White House and install Gore? Or impeach Bush for electoral fraud? Or forget about it and fight it out in 2004?

  57. avatar
    Bovril April 25, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy said; “Judge Lamberth of the DC District court just kicked Orly’s quo warranto suit out of court, so it’s not valid there either.”Why the need to obfuscate if the truth is on your side, Doc?The case was dismissed on standing, not on jurisdiction. Judge Carter ruled that his court did not have jurisdiction to hear quo warranto. Judge Lamberth did not make the same ruling.Quo warranto has been used to remove governors, while the associated state constitutions granted their House with the sole power of impeachment.

    Dear WTF?

    WTF are you babbling about.

    As has been extensively demonstrated to those with a minima of reading comprehension.

    1. A writ of quo warranto “involve[s] a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.”

    Said “Public Representative” is (in law) regarded as a US Attorney or a AG and NOT a vexatious litigator with a record of zero successes.

    2. The POTENTIAL exception to the rule with a personal action is where the litigant has and can demonstrate their claims to be entitled to the office. So in this case Biden or McCain are the only possible litigants.

    The actual wording from the ruling being……

    “Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because — as far as the Court is aware — she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself.”

    So STFU and quote some reality

  58. avatar
    WTF? April 25, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Bovril says: “The POTENTIAL exception to the rule with a personal action is where the litigant has and can demonstrate their claims to be entitled to the office. So in this case Biden or McCain are the only possible litigants.”

    Have you ever taken the time to read the SCOTUS holding in Newman?

    To have standing, one would need to have a claim to the office OR an interest therein. If the Court would have limited standing to only those with a claim to the office, they would not have need to say or an interest therein.

    Orly Taitz clearly did not have an interest therein that was different than any other taxpayer or voter. That does not mean that no other person can demonstrate an interest therein, peculiar to that person. As an example, Inspector General Walpin would have an interest therein that is directly related to the office, and peculiar to himself in a way that is different than just a taxpayer or voter.

  59. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    WTF-I am going to try again and see if you will answer my question. To repeat:

    Let’s say that in mid-2002 someone discovered 5,000 Gore ballots in a warehouse in Tallahassee. Let’s say that forensic analysis proved conclusively they were genuine and that therefore Gore really won Florida. So what would YOU say? Remove Bush from the White House and install Gore? Or impeach Bush for electoral fraud? Or forget about it and fight it out in 2004?

    Come on, I’ve given you 3 choices. How hard can it be to pick one?

  60. avatar
    ron May 9, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    Dr C,

    Why isn’t anyone concerned about all the false evidence being presented to the public. If they really wanted to prevent this B.S. why not present a bill making it a federal offense to produce fake documents against elected officials.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Ron: Why isn’t anyone concerned about all the false evidence being presented to the public.

    I’m very concerned about it, and that’s why this web site exists.

    I feel that there ought to be some kind of criminality associated with producing false documents for the purpose of influencing an election. It is against the law in some jurisdictions to distribute information that states falsely the time and place of an election (which was done, by the way in 2008). However, this may be difficult to do without infringing on freedom of speech.

  62. avatar
    G May 9, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    Well, look at another recent instance, where the Congress has to pass a resolution to ban deceptive practices by the RNC in their abusing the appearance of Census mailings in their fundraising mailers.

    Unfortunately, that didn’t stop the RNC from continuing to send out more mailers doing the same sleazy thing.

    Enforcing existing laws, statutes and practices seems to be the bigger issue. A lot of times, the enforcement procedures or the punishments also lack sufficient teeth to be an effective deterrent.

  63. avatar
    ron May 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    You would think that would be a real bill that could get bi partisan support. Statements are one thing and I accept those as being protected under free speech, but falsified “official documents” I feel is another case and worth putting more to the test of SCOTUS than this rediculous bill.

  64. avatar
    nemocapn May 9, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    I’m with G that it could get bi-partisan support. If a law passed that made forging the birth certificate of a president a felony, the birthers would be certain that Obama would be the first one prosecuted.