Proposed State Eligibility Bill

This is a bill that I would like to see at least one state enact. I believe it addresses the vulnerabilities in our current system and provides a Constitution-compliant way of ensuring that the Constitution’s requirements are met and the people are able to make their government accountable to the rule of law.Proposed Eligibility Bill 2

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Larry
    Posted January 1, 2011 at 10:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Dear BDZ,

    Happy New Year to you and your family! Thank you for the great work you gave us last year! It is greatly appreciated.

    I mainly came by for that, and there’s a new post! I will be back later to look over what promises to be an interesting and worthwhile proposal from you.

    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you, Larry. I hope you and yours have a fantastic 2011, also. =)

      I had a discussion about this proposal, beginning with about Post 130 at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2649720/posts . Someone there suggested some potential legal problems, which I’m trying to sort through. I think the Department of Injustice would challenge the Constitutionality of it in any event, just to try to stall so it couldn’t impact the 2012 election. I think there would have to be something in the bill which would make the documentation part of the bill remain in effect regardless of whether the particular procedures to flag problems and determine whether or not the candidate was eligibile were challenged in court.

      Maybe there need to be a pair of bills – one to require the documentation, and for the procedure to determine whether the candidate’s name can be placed on the ballot. I don’t think there would be Constitutional grounds to challenge the requirement for the documentation. The public posting of the documents includes redaction of whatever information is confidential by law. And there is already supposedly a requirement for this kind of documentation before any federal employee, including POTUS, can even receive a federal paycheck. So I don’t think there would be any grounds for the DOJ to sue for unconstitutionality. There shouldn’t be any jurisdictional grounds for the feds to interfere with that part either, because the Constitution gives the states the authority to administer the presidential election.

      So then if the DOJ was going to sue they’d probably sue to stop the other bill, which would say what things should be flagged to cause the candidate to be left off the ballot, which would require judicial action for the candidate to be placed on the ballot. If the DOJ sued by saying the law was unconstitutional for excluding candidates without 2 US citizen parents, then eventually the courts would have to decide whether 2 citizen parents are required for natural born citizenship status. They would probably have to decide whether a person is Constitutionally eligible if their birth records have been tampered with at the DOH where the record was kept. Etc.

      Once the judicial system had decided on which criteria should remain as reasons to exclude someone from the ballot, we would have a functioning definition of “natural born citizen”. And any ruling they made on what procedures can or can’t be followed to determine any individual’s eligibility would tell the state how to amend the law or what a different law would have to say, in order to pass Constitutional muster and go into effect.

      But the reason I’m putting this out into the public is so that others, especially including lawyers hopefully, can help me process how to close any vulnerabilities so we wouldn’t waste time and money on the arguments from the Department of Injustice.

      As long as just the documentation portion was in effect, the SOS would have tremendous pressure to make the right ruling on blatantly ineligible candidates such as Roger Calero, even if the law never specifically said he/she HAD to exclude somebody who wasn’t born in the US. And as long as the transaction records for the BC, passports, etc were required to be disclosed (with confidential information redacted) so it could be seen whether the record had been manipulated or corrupted, it would keep both the HDOH (which has already indirectly confirmed that what they have is amended and therefore not legally valid) and the Department of State (which has already allowed Obama’s passport record to be sanitized) from presenting a corrupted and/or forged record and passing it off as genuine. If the HDOH and DOS had to disclose the transactions taken on Obama’s BC and passport files, the story of who knew what and when would become very clear and there would be immediate public accountability for those who perpetrated this hoax. That would be a strong deterrent against anybody EVER trying this crap again.

      It seems impossible to believe that a judge or AG would refuse to conduct an official investigation of the Passport Office or HDOH if those agencies basically failed an audit on the candidate’s records and it was forced to be publicly disclosed that the records they oversaw were manipulated from within their own departments. Just having that made public would compel an investigation, I would think. I wonder if an investigation could or should be required in such an event.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: