Birther Bills Summary

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6099
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Birther Bills Summary

#76

Post by June bug » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:06 pm

SueDB, not that it's likely to make any difference since it seems the GA bill is probably going to die a (mostly) unmourned death, but based on the quote from WND:The state's Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act would specify, "It is [highlight]unlawful for any presidential elector from this state to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate who is not approved[/highlight] by the Secretary of State as having submitted adequate evidence of eligibility. Any person who violates this Code section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."I take this to mean that Hatfield is trying to criminalize a vote by a presidential elector in the electoral college, not by a regular voter in the actual presidential election.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#77

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:12 pm

SueDB, not that it's likely to make any difference since it seems the GA bill is probably going to die a (mostly) unmourned death, but based on the quote from WND:The state's Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act would specify, "It is [highlight]unlawful for any presidential elector from this state to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate who is not approved[/highlight] by the Secretary of State as having submitted adequate evidence of eligibility. Any person who violates this Code section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."I take this to mean that Hatfield is trying to criminalize a vote by a presidential elector in the electoral college, not by a regular voter in the actual presidential election.That how I read it too. It's a sign of how crazy this bill is that only one other bill has a provision like that the Nebraska bill:(3) It is unlawful for any presidential elector from18 Nebraska to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate19 who is not certified by the Secretary of State as constitutionally20 eligible to serve in accordance with section 32-620. Any presidential21 elector violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class IV22 felony.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#78

Post by DaveMuckey » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:12 pm

SueDB, not that it's likely to make any difference since it seems the GA bill is probably going to die a (mostly) unmourned death, but based on the quote from WND:The state's Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act would specify, "It is [highlight]unlawful for any presidential elector from this state to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate who is not approved[/highlight] by the Secretary of State as having submitted adequate evidence of eligibility. Any person who violates this Code section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."I take this to mean that Hatfield is trying to criminalize a vote by a presidential elector in the electoral college, not by a regular voter in the actual presidential election.Yeah. That'll work. ](*,) ](*,)



User avatar
bob
Posts: 25250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#79

Post by bob » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:47 pm

P&E [/break1]thepostemail.com/2011/03/07/eligibility-case-inexplicably-reassigned-to-obama-appointee/comment-page-1/#comment-47949]comment:


The following expresses my cynical prognostication relative to the possibility of even one state passing and signing into law a sufficiently specific requirement of irrefutable, visible proof of Constitutional eligibility to run for the presidency and be listed on that state’s ballot:





obama will sue said state on the grounds that as the sitting president he is exempt from the requirement which can only apply to future candidates for the office. He will assert said law cannot be applied retroactively!!!! And the courts will likely side with him.





Also, too many of the proposed laws being floated among states identify requirements that are, in my opinion, insufficiently specific to trap obama and keep him off an individual state’s ballot.





I would so love to be wrong . . .The good news is you are wrong.





The bad news is it is not for the reasons you think.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#80

Post by Piffle » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:53 pm

Also, too many of the proposed laws being floated among states identify requirements that are, in my opinion, insufficiently specific to trap obama and keep him off an individual state’s ballot.Uh huh, I'm afraid that's true: A lot of those birfer bills are insufficiently specific. Hell, some of them read like the special requirements could apply to other unintended candidates, some of whom are perfectly good Americans -- quality white folks, even.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Birther Bills Summary

#81

Post by SueDB » Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:23 pm

SueDB, not that it's likely to make any difference since it seems the GA bill is probably going to die a (mostly) unmourned death, but based on the quote from WND:


The state's Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act would specify, "It is [highlight]unlawful for any presidential elector from this state to cast his or her electoral college vote for a candidate who is not approved[/highlight] by the Secretary of State as having submitted adequate evidence of eligibility. Any person who violates this Code section shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature."


I take this to mean that Hatfield is trying to criminalize a vote by a presidential elector in the electoral college, not by a regular voter in the actual presidential election.Yeah. That'll work.





](*,) ](*,)My point is that I cannot write in anyone I please for President - If anyone I please gets the most votes for President, then the elector cannot vote for someone that is not "pre approved by the state". ](*,)

Edit: add a little colour


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#82

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:06 pm

My point is that I cannot write in anyone I please for President - If anyone I please gets the most votes for President, then the elector cannot vote for someone that is not "pre approved by the state".I think some of these assbat state legislators who are proposing this garbage are openly inviting a repetition of Sherman's March to the Sea. I hope they enjoy it if they get it.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Birther Bills Summary

#83

Post by SueDB » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:30 pm

My point is that I cannot write in anyone I please for President - If anyone I please gets the most votes for President, then the elector cannot vote for someone that is not "pre approved by the state".I think some of these assbat state legislators who are proposing this garbage are openly inviting a repetition of Sherman's March to the Sea. I hope they enjoy it if they get it.It is going to be more like Obama's March to the Sea.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#84

Post by Welsh Dragon » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:36 am

After today I won’t be around the board too much for a while, I’m going back to Wales for a visit and am not sure when, if , and how much I’ll be online. Barring accidents normal service will be resumed on March 22nd.In the meantime here is a summary of how I see the current position on birther bills and what may happen next week.Bills are to all intents dead for this legislative session in ME, HI, CT, IN,MT, AZ (but see below),IA & NH. On some there may be movement because some legislatures allow bills to be carried forward at the end of a session but I think it’s unlikely. TX & TN have published next week’s hearing schedules and none of the birther bills are scheduled yet.MO has had its public hearing and is awaiting an executive session of the committee. The committee has published its agenda for next week and no executive session is scheduled. One could be added but if this stands then Spring Break kicks in on March 17th and nothing will happen until at least March 29th. I tend to think this is the most likely one to pass but as the weeks tick by it becomes increasingly difficult. NE of course has had its public hearing yesterday and will need an executive session. I wouldn’t expect one next week and from what the local media is saying about other bills it seems unlikely that any non- priority bill that’s not out of committee yet will get passed. On top of that, despite my praise of BDZ’s performance yesterday, looking at her booklet today I suspect she’s killed it.OK is quite interesting. Two bills are dead but one (SB91) was heavily amended in committee and is awaiting its third reading. The sponsor of one of the failed bills has tabled a floor amendment to re-introduce its vattelist provisions via this bill. At this stage there’s no telling if the will ever get called for action on the senate floor. There’s no public advance notice, the Floor Leader just gets up and asks the President to recognize senator x on bill y. My gut feeling is that it’s not going to happen and there is a deadline approaching: bills have to get their 3rd reading by March 17th. To add to the uncertainty OK has a parliamentary device that allows them to approve third reading while still reserve the possibility of further amendments.(Did I mention that when I said “interesting” I meant as in the old Chinese curse?)GA also has 3rd reading deadline coming up on March 16th and despite what Rep Hatfield was saying last night I think he’s whistling in the wind. At the moment there are no meetings of the relevant sub committees and committees scheduled and I expect both GA bills to effectively die next weekAR of course has a bill but the Democratic majorities will put paid to that one, it’ll probably never be seen again.There are birther rumours of bills to be introduced in AL ,which I discount, and PA which I take a bit more seriously but with a full time legislature like PA that could be months away. For my part I’m surprised that no bill has been introduced in SC since there’s at least one birther rep there who’s tried before. Finally to return to AZ. Orly has dropped hints of the issue being resurrected there by means of an amendment maybe a ‘strike everything’ amendment to another bill. Knowing her contacts and that Judy Burges tried that last year I’ve got to give that some credence. I may be adding 2 +2 and making 625 but there is a Senate Bill 1412 on Early Voting which is currently in House Judiciary. Some AZ tea partiers , who refer to it as the voter fraud bill, are trying to pressure Speaker Kirk to remove it Judy Burges’ State Government Committee – I wonder, I wonder. :-k



Toro
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:50 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#85

Post by Toro » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:05 pm

Thanks WD. Enjoy your trip. Your work is appreciated.



User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#86

Post by Welsh Dragon » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:54 pm

Have a safe and happy trip WD! Your effort on the birther bills has been phenomenal. Thank you so much.I would be willing to keep an eye on MO next week. House and Senate have bills there, right? Sekrit Stuffs!
since I have a particular interest in failure in MO ;)
Thanks Kimba - you're right although it's the House bill that's the main interest - I think the Senate Bill will probably disappear without trace.



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6099
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Birther Bills Summary

#87

Post by June bug » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:04 pm

Have a wonderful time on your trip, WD. And thanks so much for such terrific work in tracking all these pestilential bills! :-*



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28526
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Birther Bills Summary

#88

Post by Addie » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:16 pm

Bon voyage, WD! :hug:


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Princess foofypants
Posts: 3006
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:31 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#89

Post by Princess foofypants » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:26 pm

Bon voyage, WD! :hug:taith ddiogel WD!!!



User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 7402
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Birther Bills Summary

#90

Post by Estiveo » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:28 pm

Safe travels, WD!


Image Image Image Image Image

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#91

Post by BFB » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:32 pm

have a wonderful trip, WD ...



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34570
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#92

Post by realist » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:50 pm

Have a safe and great trip, WD.Thanks again for all the work on the bills. :-bd


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Birther Bills Summary

#93

Post by SueDB » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:10 pm

Have a nice trip, see ya next fall...Oh well,Enjoy your sojourn, Thanks for the gathering all this info...


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27109
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Birther Bills Summary

#94

Post by Foggy » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:27 pm

Yes, have a safe and enjoyable trip, and thanks for all your hard work on this.Boy, that new avatar of Estiveo's looks really ... grumpy. :mrgreen:


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief. And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25250
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#95

Post by bob » Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:52 pm

Apuzzo kills many electrons while adding nothing to the discourse: [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html]The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5





Really, the only thing slightly of note that Apuzzo says:


While the Constitution does not define a 'natural born Citizen,' the states can apply the definition of the 'natural born Citizen' clause in keeping with the sources stated herein.It will come to no surprise to attorneys that states often do interpret the U.S. Constitution, in a variety of contexts. (And if someone thinks the state is wrong, the inevitable result is a lawsuit.) Now, of course, the states are bound by SCOTUS's definitions, but given Apuzzo's usual list of greatest hits (Minor, Dred Scott, etc.), he of course concludes the states will all agree with him.





Apuzzo adds this curious comment:


If the states apply the correct definition of a "natural born Citizen" which is a child born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen father and mother, there is not going to be any patchwork.





Or the states can decide to do a compact which would avoid the patchwork.





Or let one state get sued so that the courts can give us a uniform definition.1. States can avoid SCOTUS's rulings by entering into a compact?





2. Unless said suit went all the way to SCOTUS (and there's no indication one would), there still wouldn't be a uniform definition. This happens all the time in the law (hello, "circuit conflict"!); an attorney really ought to know this.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Birther Bills Summary

#96

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:22 pm

Apuzzo adds this curious comment:


If the states apply the correct definition of a "natural born Citizen" which is a child born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen father and mother, there is not going to be any patchwork.





Or the states can decide to do a compact which would avoid the patchwork.





Or let one state get sued so that the courts can give us a uniform definition.1. States can avoid SCOTUS's rulings by entering into a compact?





2. Unless said suit went all the way to SCOTUS (and there's no indication one would), there still wouldn't be a uniform definition. This happens all the time in the law (hello, "circuit conflict"!); an attorney really ought to know this.I guess he forgot to read that part of the Constitution called the Compact Clause.





No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 7402
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Birther Bills Summary

#97

Post by Estiveo » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:03 am

Boy, that new avatar of Estiveo's looks really ... grumpy. :mrgreen:Grumpy? Damn, I was going for snide faux ennui. :yawn: wait, what? 8-)


Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Birther Bills Summary

#98

Post by mimi » Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:33 am

Have a nice trip, WD!



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birther Bills Summary

#99

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:08 am

Yes, have a safe and enjoyable trip, and thanks for all your hard work on this.Boy, that new avatar of Estiveo's looks really ... grumpy. :mrgreen: [-X Too crowded already.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”