Nebraska Legislative Bill 654

Butterfly Bilderberg · #26

Nebreska's Vattelist birther bill is scheduled for a committee hearing on March 10th.Whadya wanna bet that Bummerabillion will be there? She claims to have co-authored the bill.

Loren · #27

Whadya wanna bet that Bummerabillion will be there? She claims to have co-authored the bill.For quick reference:[/break1]com/focus/f-bloggers/2635107/posts]Butterdezillion's draft eligibility bill

Loren · #28

[/break1]dailynebraskan.com/news/state-birther-bill-talks-fuel-controversy-surround-birthplace-of-president-1.2477923]The Daily Nebraskan: State ‘birther’ bill talks fuel controversy surround birthplace of presidentNebraska, along with several other states including Texas, Arizona and Georgia, is considering a bill requiring any presidential or vice presidential candidate to prove his or her citizenship to state officials. Nebraska's bill, introduced by state senator Mark Christensen, of District 44, goes one step beyond all other bills by requiring proof of citizenship of the candidate's parents as well.By doing so, Christensen is making additions to the requirements of the Constitution. There is no mention in the nation's founding document of presidents' parents and their citizenship. Christensen was unavailable to provide comment at press time after repeated attempts yesterday and the day before...

Toro · #29

From the article linked aboveThe 14-page bill, sponsored by District 44 State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, would prohibit placing presidential and vice presidential candidates on the state's ballot unless they provide a certified, long-form version of their birth certificate to Nebraska's secretary of state.Christensen's bill would also require candidates to provide their parents' certified long-form birth certificates. If a person's birth father is unknown, Christensen said a candidate would have to file an affidavit with the state, stating that they have no reason to believe their father is not a U.S. citizen.The Nebraska Vital Records website contains no option to request a long form birth certificate. Christensen said he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff, but modeled the bill's language after what has been used in other states.[/break1]mccookgazette.com/story/1700284.html]http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1700284.htmlSo I guess, at this very moment, no one from Nebraska could run for President. Am I right?

June bug · #30

The Nebraska Vital Records website contains no option to request a long form birth certificate. [highlight]Christensen said he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff[/highlight], but modeled the bill's language after what has been used in other states.

I swear to doG, I can't take this anymore. Just how mind-bendingly stoopid do you have to be to introduce a bill without even checking to see whether your own state agencies' practices would accommodate its requirements?

SueDB · #31

The Nebraska Vital Records website contains no option to request a long form birth certificate. [highlight]Christensen said he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff[/highlight], but modeled the bill's language after what has been used in other states.

I swear to doG, I can't take this anymore. Just how mind-bendingly stoopid do you have to be to introduce a bill without even checking to see whether your own state agencies' practices would accommodate its requirements?Time and time again, these fools are totally clueless. I wonder if he even read the damn thing. (Sen Mae (Didn't read my own bill) Beavers R TN Senate...)

Toro · #32

So I guess, at this very moment, no one from Nebraska could run for President. Am I right?No. The bill is not law. It's only in committee. Even if it passes, the law is unconstitutional for a variety of reason besides requiring a long form birth certificate. By specifying "natural born citizen" as someone with two citizen parents, it tries to change Article II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution. It also violates Article IV Sec 1, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Edit: The bill will probably be tabled because the legislative counsel to the committee will advise them of the problems with the bill. The bill that had a chance of being constitutional was the Montana bill and it was tabled.

Thanks.

I guess what I meant to ask was that if the bill was passed into law, does that mean because a Nebraskan currently cannot request a long-form birth certificate, a Nebraskan could not run for President?

SueDB · #33

The two parent thing is absurd. What if a woman who has never even left the USA is raped and impregnated by someone who is not legally in the country. So, her child would not be considered a natural born citizen? That's ridiculous.They're all ridiculous. Only children of nice, white, married, descended-from-Pilgrims-on-both-sides families can be considered eligible to lead this great nation! [/snark]You forgot "that own land".

Toro · #34

The two parent thing is absurd. What if a woman who has never even left the USA is raped and impregnated by someone who is not legally in the country. So, her child would not be considered a natural born citizen? That's ridiculous.They're all ridiculous. Only children of nice, white, married, descended-from-Pilgrims-on-both-sides families can be considered eligible to lead this great nation! [/snark]You forgot "that own land".I've had people argue that with me.In the 21st century...

verbalobe · #35

...he had not talked to Nebraska Vital Records staff, but modeled the bill's language after what has been used in proposed and abandoned, failed, or died in committee in other states.Fixed it for him.

Edit: Fixing myself now:

...modeled the bill's language after what got thrown over the transom by some random nutjob.

SueDB · #36

The two parent thing is absurd. What if a woman who has never even left the USA is raped and impregnated by someone who is not legally in the country. So, her child would not be considered a natural born citizen? That's ridiculous.They're all ridiculous. Only children of nice, white, married, descended-from-Pilgrims-on-both-sides families can be considered eligible to lead this great nation! [/snark]You forgot "that own land".I've had people argue that with me.In the 21st century...Damn, forgot Protestant Christian...It doesn't say much for the people that argue with you...just say'in

#

#37

The two parent thing is absurd. What if a woman who has never even left the USA is raped and impregnated by someone who is not legally in the country. So, her child would not be considered a natural born citizen? That's ridiculous.They're all ridiculous. Only children of nice, white, married, descended-from-Pilgrims-on-both-sides families can be considered eligible to lead this great nation! [/snark]Who have never moved from the town they were born in so they still have their original documents in the family safe and their births lovingly recorded in the family bible. 8>

Welsh Dragon · #38

I just stumbled on this delightful blog post on LB654 which the blogger has christened "Ridiculous Nonsense":Here’s the part where Ridiculous Nonsense becomes ridiculous and nonsensical. It also says that in order to be on the ballot in the State of Nebraska, you have to prove that not only are YOU a citizen, but that both of your parents were American citizens when you were born. This is the part that means there will never be a President Rachael Osborn, which is a shame because I already printed the bumper stickers. The problem is this lady: (Picture snipped) That’s my mom, who hails from the oppressive terrorist nation of Wales. As you can see, she’s an obvious threat to our national security. See, my parents met when my dad was in the Air Force and stationed in the UK. They met, fell in love, got married and were transferred to Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. My mom got bored of being the only woman living in Base housing without a kid, so in May of 1982, I was born. The next week, they got their orders to move back to the UK for a while and my mom, not being an American yet, decided she’d better get her citizenship so the whole thing would be less of a hassle. In June of 1982, my mom sat in a room in El Paso with a French woman and 30 Mexicans and swore allegiance to the United States of America. (Her citizenship test, by the way, consisted of one question: “How many stripes are there on the American flag?” The interviewer had a flag on his desk, so she just counted them. Welcome to the United States.) So, because my mother waited a couple weeks after I was born to count a bunch of stripes in Texas, Senator Christensen doesn’t think I can be President. I’ve been here since I was four! I willingly gave up the delightful English accent with which I learned to speak so that I could sit in Papillion and dream of being elected President one day. My hopes and dreams are dashed, and moreover, I think he’s a little bit racist.http://www.rachaelosborn.com/2011/02/ma ... slature/We Welsh get everywhere! :D

SueDB · #39

I just stumbled on this delightful blog post on LB654 which the blogger has christened "Ridiculous Nonsense":Here’s the part where Ridiculous Nonsense becomes ridiculous and nonsensical. It also says that in order to be on the ballot in the State of Nebraska, you have to prove that not only are YOU a citizen, but that both of your parents were American citizens when you were born. This is the part that means there will never be a President Rachael Osborn, which is a shame because I already printed the bumper stickers. The problem is this lady: (Picture snipped) That’s my mom, who hails from the oppressive terrorist nation of Wales. As you can see, she’s an obvious threat to our national security. See, my parents met when my dad was in the Air Force and stationed in the UK. They met, fell in love, got married and were transferred to Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. My mom got bored of being the only woman living in Base housing without a kid, so in May of 1982, I was born. The next week, they got their orders to move back to the UK for a while and my mom, not being an American yet, decided she’d better get her citizenship so the whole thing would be less of a hassle. In June of 1982, my mom sat in a room in El Paso with a French woman and 30 Mexicans and swore allegiance to the United States of America. (Her citizenship test, by the way, consisted of one question: “How many stripes are there on the American flag?” The interviewer had a flag on his desk, so she just counted them. Welcome to the United States.) So, because my mother waited a couple weeks after I was born to count a bunch of stripes in Texas, Senator Christensen doesn’t think I can be President. I’ve been here since I was four! I willingly gave up the delightful English accent with which I learned to speak so that I could sit in Papillion and dream of being elected President one day. My hopes and dreams are dashed, and moreover, I think he’s a little bit racist.http://www.rachaelosborn.com/2011/02/ma ... slature/We Welsh get everywhere! :D Darn near as bad as them blasted Scotsmen or Scotsfolk... aye...

#40

The interviewer had a flag on his desk, so she just counted them.That's cheatin'! [-X

SueDB · #41

The interviewer had a flag on his desk, so she just counted them.That's cheatin'! [-XWhile "That's cheatin'! isn't unique to America...But she is just the kind of person we need as a citizen. One that is resourceful, smart, and quite able to think "outside the old box" ya'know... =D> =D> =D> 3 Cheers for MoM! :hug: :hug: :hug:We have all the Imported Real Estate cum Lawyer cum Dental Danger folks we can stand. =))

#42

Cross-posting from another thread.

Bummer is bummed about this [link]editorial,http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/edi ... e6fa5.html[/link] in Sunday's issue:

'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe

The "birthers" who insist that President Barack Obama does not meet the citizenship requirement to be president represent a fringe of public opinion.

Then there are some whose views represent only a fringe of the fringe.

That's where the bill proposed by Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial comes from.

[snip]

Christensen has told reporters that he "absolutely" believes Obama is a U.S. citizen, but it's worth noting that a faction of "birthers" believes that to be a "natural born citizen" a person must be the child of two U.S. citizens. Christensen already had a reputation for introducing peculiar bills. His unsuccessful effort two years ago to regulate sexually oriented businesses provoked more jokes than serious discussion. His proposal this year to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons drew a chorus of opposition from Nebraska educators.

But this time, Christensen has outdone himself. His "birther" bill is one of the most outlandish pieces of legislation that has been introduced this year.

The bill has been scheduled for a public hearing Thursday. It promises to be entertaining. It possibly might attract kooks from all across the country.

But entertainment is the only possible value anyone could find in this 14-page bill. It's a joke. The less time the Legislature wastes on it, the better.

Welsh Dragon · #43

Nebraska operates a system of what it calls "Priority Bills". By the end of today each senator gets to nominate one bill as priority, each committee gets to nominate 2 and the Speaker gets to nominate another 25.

Senator Christensen is not nominating his birther bill as a priority. Indeed in recent weeks he's mentioned 3 or 4 bills that he was considering and didn't mention the birther bill once! Crisis, what constitutional crisis?

Unless the Speaker nominates it(which is unlikely) this dramatically reduces it's chances of getting passed and it's chances were not great in the first place. And it's still over an hour to its public hearing. \ :D /

Welsh Dragon · #44

The public hearing on LB 654 has just finished. The first thing of note was that the sponsor of the bill, Senator Christensen, was not there! In fairness to him he had 4 hearings on this afternoon in 3 different committees and left his legislative aide, Dan Wiles to read his opening statement. As for the statment itself, well backtracking was the word that crossed my mind. It claimed that Senator Christensen was less concerned about the exact form of the bill than that some sort of process was put in place, "it wasn't about President Obama", and he would be quite happy if the bill didn't come into force until after 2012. However, it did mention that the bill was intended to provoke a challenge that could resolve the "doubt" over whether an NBC was simply born in the US or needed 2 citizen parents.There were some falsehoods about the progress of other birther bills - GA and AZ especially.It's the tradition not to ask aides questions in these situations. After a very brief and insubstantial supporting testimony we came to the main attraction - maestro, drum roll please - Butterdezillion! Obviously she was appearing under her own name which I didn't fully catch so I don't have to decide whether to reveal it or not. However it was her, looking a bit better than the photo Loren posted a while back but a piece of her testimony confirmed it to me. BDZ actually handled it well, we know what she was saying is crap, some of it we would recognize as willful lies but she was restrained eloquent and unflustered.It was the best performance I've seen so far including from bill sponsors.She put quite a bit of early emphasis on Leo's NJ case, referring to McCain, Obama and Calero. Much emphasis on courts denying standing - "courts saying it's no-one's business". Only a law specifying which documents should be provided and granting people standing would work.Everyone saying it was someone else's job to vet.Vattel, Minor , Senate resolution about McCain's eligibility etc - you get the picture.She claimed that it wasn't about Obama (I said there were wilfull lies) she just wanted some resolution and a process in place. But more than the senator's Aide she emphasied the purpose was to provoke a challenge by the DoJ.Lakin got a sizable mention (she said something about it costing him $800k of his life savings in addition to his pension benefits - what on earth is that about?) and reminded committee members of their oaths. If you've vistited BDZ blog you know that she's produced a 14 page booklet for the committee and ended making some vague comments about criminality by bueaucrats and lawmakers.She struggled a bit when asked by Sen. Shoemacher (Who IIRC is a Georgetown JD) on how a state law could give federal standing and fell back on 'provoking a challenge". She was better when defending spending state tax dollars on provoking a legal challenge - if it was a cause we supported I'm sure many of us argue the same way.A couple of short pieces of opposing testimony followed before the aide finished by re-emphasising that it would be OK with the sponsor if it didn't come into force until after 2012.(Oh, that's such a transparent tactic!)

#45

After a very brief and insubstantial supporting testimony we came to the main attraction - maestro, drum roll please - Butterdezillion!We DEMAND a YouTube.

#46

FWIW the Nebraska Unicameral is non-partisan. If you don't believe them, just ask them.

Butterfly Bilderberg · #47

As for the statment itself, well backtracking was the word that crossed my mind. It claimed that Senator Christensen was less concerned about the exact form of the bill than that some sort of process was put in place, "it wasn't about President Obama", and he would be quite happy if the bill didn't come into force until after 2012.

However, it did mention that the bill was intended to provoke a challenge that could resolve the "doubt" over whether an NBC was simply born in the US or needed 2 citizen parents.

* * *

But more than the senator's Aide [Buttedezillion] emphasied the purpose was to provoke a challenge by the DoJ.

* * *

She struggled a bit when asked by Sen. Shoemacher (Who IIRC is a Georgetown JD) on how a state law could give federal standing and fell back on 'provoking a challenge".That is a spectacular strategy -- enact a law that the Nebraska Legislature knows will -- and in fact is designed to -- provoke a legal challenge. 'Cuz that worked so well for Arizona.

Has Christensen introduced a corresponding appropriations bill to cover the costs of having the law struck down in order to resolve "doubt" over a well-settled legal definition?

Off Topic

Sen. Shoemaker -- Go Hoyas!