After much input and thought, this is the eligibility bill I am finally asking people to lobby their state legislators to pass.
Features of this bill:
- 1. It gives the Constitutional basis for the law being needed.
- 2. It is based upon the most restrictive interpretation of “natural born citizen” (born in the US to 2 US citizen parents), which will certainly be appealed by the DOJ – the only way to get SCOTUS to rule clearly on the definition of “natural born citizen”.
- 3. It has a severability clause which means that even while the definition of “natural born citizen” is being decided the documentation and procedural elements will remain in effect.
- 4. It will go into effect immediately upon signing, giving candidates for 2012 fair notice as they are deciding whether to run.
- 5. It requires the candidate to consent for the SOS to receive certified copies of all his/her birth and citizenship records as well as citizenship records for his/her parents.
- 6. It requires the written and embedded transaction logs to be received by the SOS so that any tampering with the official records must be identified. This is the only way to hold bureaucrats accountable to the law.
- 7. It requires all the documentation to be posted on the SOS website so that any person can scrutinize for discrepancies or problems – thus empowering “we the people” to hold our government accountable.
- 8. It requires originals to be available for public viewing so that the authenticating elements (signatures and seals) can be scrutinized by the public.
- 9. It requires documents available to the public to be redacted according to legal standards, to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the candidate as determined by FOIA and state disclosure laws.
- 10. It allows any person to contest the candidate’s eligibility and requires the judiciary to determine eligibility (when contested) before the candidate can be placed on the ballot, thus eliminating the “standing” problem for “we the people”.
- 11. Because the SOS has to “show the work” transparently by posting the documentation and conclusions online, with the public able to contest the SOS conclusions, the politics or personal agenda of the SOS cannot frustrate the ability of “we the people” to see the law and Constitution enforced.
- 12. It complies with the state’s Constitutional role of choosing presidential electors while complying with the judiciary’s Constitutional role of interpreting and applying the Constitution in both law and fact.
- 13. Because the judiciary ultimately has to rule on the eligibility of any contested candidate, this law requires the judiciary – accountable to documentation already made public – and not the political workings of any party or state to decide this issue. States or political parties who defy a judicial ruling of ineligibility can be held accountable by contempt of court charges. This means that no matter how insignificant this state might be in the electoral vote, the rule of law will have nationwide effects – preventing a mish-mash of different SOS interpretations of the US Constitution.
- 14. It requires expedited judicial procedures if a suit is filed in state court, in order to prevent any candidate from being sandbagged through court procedures, running out the clock so there is no ruling before the ballots are printed and the candidate has to be left off the ballot. State law can’t tell the federal judiciary to expedite the process, but by requiring the SOS to deny placement on the ballot, the State would automatically be a party in the suit, giving the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction in the case, which expedites the process for the sake of the candidate. This would also ultimately save both the candidate and the State money and time in getting to a lawful decision.
- 15. The state AG would ultimately argue the case for the state before the US Supreme Court, but the AG is required to submit to the court any amicus briefs from the public in cases regarding either the initial constitutional challenge to the law (when “natural born citizen” will be defined) or any following cases filed because of the law’s provisions. That gives both the AG AND THE PEOPLE (“the public” from anywhere, not just a particular state, since the issue affects the entire nation) power to argue on both constitutional grounds and in specific cases, so that no input is censored. I believe that public access and transparency of the process are both critical to restoring public trust in government and its accountability to the people.
- 16. This is all done in as few and as non-technical words as I think possible to still be understandable to the normal person.
I’m describing the elements of this bill so people can understand the legal reasons that this kind of law is necessary. There are constitutional, procedural, and accountability issues that need to be addressed that aren’t addressed by simply requiring a birth certificate to be shown to an SOS, who still has no SCOTUS clarification on what requirements he/she is even verifying in practical terms.
And we have the experience of what has happened in the last presidential election which also illuminates why this kind of law is necessary. I would be happy to summarize some of those experiences to any lawmaker who doesn’t know the history involved.
Ultimately, this is not really about Obama though. It is about creating a system where the will of the Constitution is implemented fairly and with due process by bureaucrats who are held accountable to both truthfulness and the rule of law. In addition, there are aspiring leaders who will need to know what the Constitution means for their particular situation, as they consider what path to take; this law would be for their good as well as for the good of the country. That is the real focus of this bill. This is not meant to favor or punish any person or group, but to allow a transparent and accountable process with input from all sides at every point in the process, so the nation can get the rules it needs and commence to play the game fairly for all.
All that being said, I appreciate any help I can get in presenting this to legislators in as many states as possible. It will be helpful to know who is covering what, so if somebody intends to work on this in a given state, it would be great to get a note to that effect so I know how to best spend my time and energy. Everybody is welcomed and even encouraged to print out this description and/or the proposed bill itself to pass on to lawmakers, neighbors, or whoever.
Thanks!
Nellie
Final Short Form Eligibility Bill
Butterdezillion's Blog 
4 Comments
Arizona would have passed this bill last session. The Repub chairman held it because of the political ‘circus’ caused by SB1070.
Arizona has contributed so much to this country. They’ve got a real battle on their hands with SB1070 – a battle the whole nation needs them to win. I’m so thankful for the patriots in Arizona, and do realize they would have passed an eligibility bill already if possible. It’s time for the other states to step up to the plate and take up this issue of lawfulness while AZ fights the other battle regarding the rule of law. No one state can do it all; we all have to add what we can.
I do believe that the measure to require the embedded transaction logs is critical at this point. I think every government office which has records for Obama (or should have records for him, such as the selective service administration’s office) has already documentably engaged in some kind of alteration and or forgery of records for Obama’s sake, and I think Abercrombie would not have brought the subject up if he didn’t already have a forgery he was willing to submit if a state eligibility law was passed simply requiring a birth certificate. The fact of the matter is that the integrity of our state and federal government offices is severely compromised, and the only way to hold the bureaucrats in every state and the federal government accountable is to require transparency in how the records have been processed.
That isn’t about Obama himself but about the rule of law within the unchecked and unaccountable bureaucracy. HRS 338-18 and the HDOH Administrative Rules talk about establishing procedures and rules so that the integrity of the vital records system is maintained and trusted. Well….. at this point what is required to maintain the public trust that the records are being dealt with honestly is the embedded transaction logs, which alone will reveal what really happened with that record, when, and by whom. The bureaucrats have no reason to fear those transaction logs being revealed if they are acting with integrity, and if they balk at showing them then we are absolutely right to wonder why.
So spread the news around and let’s try to get people to pursue this in as many states as possible. =)
“…if any person contests the eligibility of the candidate within 30 days after both the documents and the list are posted to the website, the Secretary of State shall deny placement on the ballot unless and until the judiciary, with all appeals exhausted, rules the candidate eligible.”
This paragraph, as written, would make an election impossible.
Then tell me, in practical terms, how an election could EVER obey the 2nd article requirements.
As that bill was written, the state AG was to simply present the evidence and his/her own arguments, together with amicus brief arguments for either side, in a specifically-expedited state court proceeding. The point of that was to eliminate the opportunity for long delays because of lawyerly wiffle-waffling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Because the state was a party in the case (citizen v NE SOS) the case would be appealable to SCOTUS immediately. Because a person would have their name kept off the ballot unless the proceedings were completed, a SCOTUS’decision to ignore or delay the issue of Presidential eligibility would be seen for the Constitutional crisis that it is. This bill also did not limit when a person could submit their name for the ballot (NE has a primary), and a person who knew there would be questions about eligibility would have an incentive to begin the process early rather than late, because getting the name in late could result in their name not being able to be on the ballot.
Basically this means it is up to the candidate to prove their eligibility, and if they fail to do that, they will not be placed on the ballot. The default would be set for the safety of the country – which is how the 20th Amendment reads as well. A President elect, “having failed to qualify”, is not allowed to act as President. The responsibility and burden of proof is placed on the one who wishes to be President. Obama should have been BEGGING the courts to take up the issue of his eligibility. But he knew that the default is set to screw the Republic and the courts had already been bought.
To fix the problem we have to reset the default so that it is set to protect the Republic and Constitution, rather than any crook who chooses to do the lawyerly “piss on America” ritual.