Tuesday, March 24, 2009

HR 1503 Would Mandate Presidential Candidate Eligibility Requirements

You may recall my previous post on this subject which underscored the conspicuous omission in our legal system of a process for properly vetting the eligibility of presidential candidates--whether Republican, Democrat, Green Party or Communist Party USA.

Finally, some progress. On March 12th, freshman Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced a bill which would require all future presidential candidates to properly document their eligibility. If passed, which, given the liberal lock on Congress, is doubtful, the commonsense provisions of this bill would be effective 2012 and would not be retroactive.

In the face of some vicious personal attacks on his mental health and judgement, Rep. Posey observed that he "had been called some pretty nasty things," going on to say that "the more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives, the more I think I did the right thing." And so you did, Mr. Posey.

Noting how very surprised he was to find that to "run for President it's not required for presidential candidates to file [eligibility documentation] when submitting their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he pointed out that his poll showed that 75% of Americans support such a requirement. He went on to explain that partisanship did not shape his rationale for submitting this bill, but that the glaring absence of proper vetting provisions for presidential candidates did. And for that he should be applauded by all Americans, not condemned. The rule of law should trump blind partisanship.

With scant chance of passage in the Democrat-controlled Congress, HR 1503 would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by requiring that "the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president include...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." A pretty straightforward, bi-partisan, rational requirement, I'd say. Certainly nothing to be feared by any candidate, right?

As we all know by now, Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate for Barack Obama on file, but cannot release it without his permission. To date, disclosure of his vaulted birth certificate has been strenuously blocked tooth-and-nail by his legal team. HR 1503 would mandate future candidates to divulge all pertinent evidence of their eligibility, inclusive of their birth certificate. With passage, courts would then have clear jurisdiction in such issues and would be able to order candidates to comply, something the courts are currently unable to do.

When I phoned Mr. Posey's DC office on March 24th to express my gratitude and support and to enquire as to the bill's progress, his spokesman noted that the bill was in committee, which "didn't mean much", but that he was "encouraged" by the large number of supportive phonecalls from around the country. Beyond that, the spokesman couldn't accurately predict the bill's fate.

Though many suits are going forward around the country demanding that Obama divulge evidence of his eligibility, without a law requiring him to do so, and absent his voluntary compliance, those suits stand precious little chance of success. But, they go forward in earnest nonetheless.

If HR 1503 should pass, a very remote possibility, and should Mr. Obama opt for re-election, he would finally need to show evidence of his eligibility to run for office in the 2012 prsidential election. The irony is bittersweet, to say the least. But, better late than never, I suppose. Until then, I just hope America can survive what now clearly appears to be a "presidential usurpation". And on that acutely unsettling score, I fear I no longer have any rational doubts. I sincerely wish I did.

("All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson)

7 comments:

Doublee said...

This is a non-partisan bill. I am aware of 4 people in the political arena who are not natural born citizens according to the definition in Minor v. Happersett, 1875, which states that a natural born citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens. Vattel, in The Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 212 says essentially the same thing.

Whether this definition stands up in court is yet to be determined, but I believe it is the definition that should be tested.

Democrats

President Barack Obama - Father was a Kenyan native and British subject who passed on his Britsh citizenship to his children

Governor Bill Richardson - Mexican mother travelled to the U.S. to give birth in the U.S.

Republicans

Governor Bobby Jindal - Foreign born parents not naturalized at the time of Jindal's birth.

Senator John McCain - Born in Colon, Panama

The framers of the Constitution wanted to assure that the President had complete allegiance to the United States. Any definition of natural born citizen should take this into account. For example, there is the case of Yaser Hamdi, who was born of Arab parents while they were in the U.S. on temporary visas. He was returned to his home country while still a child and raised there. He later was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, but was treated as a U.S. citizen. He obviously had no allegiance to the United States.

Jim D said...

Doublee,

Good comment.

You may have read my earlier "SCOTUS-POTUS" posts on the subject, but it appears that Pres. Chester Arthur was hands-down unqualified. As for Jindal, my understanding is that he was born of immigrant parents (not yet naturalized) on US soil/within US jurisdiction, thus is unqualified. As for McCain, I'd have to study it in more detail, but it appears that the Canal Zone hospital where he was born may have been considered US territory/within US jurisdiction. That was the finding of a Congressional resolution in 2008, but I don't put much stock in Congfessional opinions on the subject. Also, I believe there is some real question about Andrew Jackson's qualifications since he may have been born aboard a ship enroute to the US. A historical study of "who was not qualified" would be very interesting. Unquestionably, it should be encumbent upon Obama to prove his eligibility. Yes, eventually SCOTUS will need to define "natural born citizen". I just hope it is defined while the court isn't infested with progessive interpreters of the Constitution. If progressive jurists are in charge, anyone who claimed simpole citizenship at birth would be qualified. We have to remember that "US citizenship by birth" which is anyone born on US soil is discrete from "natural born citizen", the latter requiring a necessarily much higher bar of eligibility.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jim,
I think the reason nobody checks for Presidential eligibility, is because they would have to first precisely interpret what the legal specifications of Natural Born Citizen are, and nobody but SCOTUS has the authority to do that.

Jim D said...

That's the interesting thing about 1503. NBC eligibility is not defined in the bill. But, begetting simple proof of US citizenship is at least a start. Right now, there's nothing, nada.

zapem said...

In New Jersey, I wrote the Secretary of State on this issue, wanting to know why Roger Calero was allowed on the ballot. He was refused in several other states for being "constitutional ineligible". So I wanted to know why New Jersey allowed it. Guess what I was told?

Essentially, you have FOUR days, that's right, FOUR days, to object to a candidate after they have filed their papers. That's you, the voter. The Secretary of State's office and the Electors completely excused themselves of all responsibility to make sure a candidate was eligible at all and I have the letters to prove it. Somewhere along the line, they changed the procedure and the blame so if you sued them, they'd play the "not my job" act and that's exactly what they're doing. They should be fired! All of them involved!

When I see people object to a bill that clarifies even the simpliest of operations that aren't being done to uphold the Constitution, I question their motives because they are unAmerican.

I'd also love to know why this bill only has ONE co-sponsor? Shows you how unAmerican the people in Congress are and I'm taking names of those who didn't support it. Even Ron Paul amazes me. Go to Open Congress. You'll see him and a bunch of others tracking this bill and didn't support it. Mr. Constitutionalist himself, or so he claims.

This isn't a partisan issue. This bill should have been passed a long time ago. Thanks for bringing attention to it and don't ever stop.

zapem said...

Technically, if that's how New Jersey bypassed their responsibility, come 2012, any voter can object if they file the objection in a timely fashion. You just have to make sure you get your objection in within the time frame that they file to be on your state's ballot.

There's more than one way to stop this nonsense.

Jim D said...

Zapem,

You'll be encouraged to know that Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (sp?)opted to co-sponsor the bill earlier this month. Something to celebrate.

Post a Comment