10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands- represent 107 Electoral College votes

[lynnf]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255965

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – now are considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the demands of the U.S. Constitution.

...

[lynnf]

bump

[nobody's_hero]

Not a bad idea to beef these background checks up, but they'd better apply it to every candidate equally or they'll find it very hard for this to stand.

[fisharmor]

Nice to know that Arizona has gone the extra mile and made their bill unconstitutional.


It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

This sets it up to get ruled on by SCOTUS. There's no multiple citizenship restriction, and no allegiance test.
Of course, we can't trust SCOTUS to rule correctly, and they may have the "conservative" votes to let it stand, but the correct action would be to swat it down for adding extraconstitutional requirements for POTUS.

[qh4dotcom]

Great news...now get that legislation passed.

[Bruno]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Off to pop some popcorn.

[Noob]

Nice to know that Arizona has gone the extra mile and made their bill unconstitutional.



This sets it up to get ruled on by SCOTUS. There's no multiple citizenship restriction, and no allegiance test.
Of course, we can't trust SCOTUS to rule correctly, and they may have the "conservative" votes to let it stand, but the correct action would be to swat it down for adding extraconstitutional requirements for POTUS.
How can some one with multiple citizenship be a natural born citizen?

[LedHed]

How can some one with multiple citizenship be a natural born citizen?

Child of foreign diplomat or military attache' born in a US hospital are examples.

[fisharmor]

How can some one with multiple citizenship be a natural born citizen?

I have a nephew who was born in Maryland, and his mother is a Canadian citizen who, IIRC, has not naturalized in the US.
So he and his sister have dual citizenship, because their father is a US citizen.
She can't be POTUS under the rules because she was born in Canada, but he could, even though he has dual citizenship.

They also lived in Canada for 6 years or so as kids, and went to Canadian compulsory schools, so when we introduce the idea of "allegiance", he'd get the hairy eyeball there, too, since he got a pretty full dose of Canadian statist bullshit and propaganda at a young age, instead of the now-requisite US statist bullshit and propaganda.

[Krugerrand]

Nice to know that Arizona has gone the extra mile and made their bill unconstitutional.



This sets it up to get ruled on by SCOTUS. There's no multiple citizenship restriction, and no allegiance test.
Of course, we can't trust SCOTUS to rule correctly, and they may have the "conservative" votes to let it stand, but the correct action would be to swat it down for adding extraconstitutional requirements for POTUS.

Also curious to see if they would strike down the entire law or just certain sections.

[mczerone]

Nice to know that Arizona has gone the extra mile and made their bill unconstitutional.



This sets it up to get ruled on by SCOTUS. There's no multiple citizenship restriction, and no allegiance test.
Of course, we can't trust SCOTUS to rule correctly, and they may have the "conservative" votes to let it stand, but the correct action would be to swat it down for adding extraconstitutional requirements for POTUS.

Even without the extra substantive requirements, the SCOTUS may be in a position to rule the law unconstitutional due to preemption: It is the exclusive Federal jurisdiction to set certain procedural rules (such as who has the burden of proof on the Constitutional requirements) for federal office elections. But it would be a tough fight, as states and districts get to control most of the procedural for ballot access and voting procedure already.