the birther bills (Reagan, Obama, Nebraska, election)

[wrecking ball]

nebraska just became the latest of 10 states proposing "eligibility" bills. the problem with nearly all of them is that they are unconstitutional. most of the bills include one or both of the following:

A): requires an "original long-form birth certificate from near the time of birth".

B): proof that the candidate wasn't a duel citizen at the time of birth.

the problem with A is that it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. not to mention the fact that nearly all of our presidents would have failed at this task ( reagan didn't receive his first birth certificate till he was in his 30's. eisenhower didn't till he was in his 60's ). most presidents didn't have a birth certificate of any kind.

the problem with B is that it adds a requirement to the constitution for presidential eligibility. something a state cant do. again, unconstitutional.

arizona has also taken it a step further and demands proof that the candidate has resided in the country for the past 14 years. the constitution says nothing about the "14 year residency" be the previous 14...... or that they even have to be continuous. so, yet again, unconstitutional.

so my question, especially for the birthers, is....

do you feel these bills are a waste of time and money or do you feel they are important?

[CoastalMaine]

I think they're important and they play to their own state constitution, not the federal constitution.

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by CoastalMaine

I think they're important and they play to their own state constitution, not the federal constitution.

.....they specifically concern a federal election.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by CoastalMaine

I think they're important and they play to their own state constitution, not the federal constitution.

State Constitutions cannot amend the Federal Constitution.

[Calvinist]

I live in Nebraska and I'm very happy they're discussing this bill. I don't see it as an issue.

[wrecking ball]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I don't see it as an issue.

but can you see why it's unconstitutional?

i have no problem with asking for proof of eligibility, as long as it's constitutional.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I live in Nebraska and I'm very happy they're discussing this bill. I don't see it as an issue.

I'm not sure I understand?

If you don't see it as an issue, why are you happy they're discussing it? Exactly?

[hammertime33]

waste of time and money

[CoastalMaine]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

State Constitutions cannot amend the Federal Constitution.

Which is exactly what I said.

[kevinm]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

waste of time and money

So was the unconstitutional Obamacare bill.