It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HR 1503 - Bill to require copy of presidential candidate's birth certificate

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

HR 1503
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization 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.

. . .

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, 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 section 5 of article II of the Constitution.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.


This was referred to committee on March 12th of this year. Looks like Rep Posey and his co-signers are looking to make sure there isn't a repeat of the whole Obama birth certificate debacle. If it's required up front it and verified before candidate's are allowed to run it would certainly prevent any similar situations in the future.

I can't for the life of me understand why this wasn't already required since president's are required to be natural born. You would think that there would have already been a requirement that candidate's had to prove their eligibility, but apparently just someone's word on it has been good enough until now. This, I think, will prevent any more worries in the future about potential presidents not being born in the country. Had this already been a requirement, like it should have been, I don't think the Obama situation would have happened.

I wonder if Obama will be required to submit documentation if this goes through. I would think so since it would be a new requirement, but who knows. Thoughts anyone?




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
my thoughts are

this birth certificate stuff is tiresome.

at least this should prevent it from happening again.

oh by the way...
obama has gone through several rigorous background checks.

and PASSED!


timpanogos.wordpress.com...

the only proof that he isnt american is he wont show his long form, even though the one he showed would hold up in a courtroom. but whatever.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Even if this passed the House and Senate, Obama would be sure to Veto it. Forget Congress! Let's take it to the states!

For this to have any bite it would be up to each state to require proof of citizenship for a Presidential candidate to be on the ballot.

All it would take is a few key states to adopt this and with the electoral college in place Obama would have no chance in 2012! Can you imagine a few states not allowing a sitting President on the ballot. This is what the people need to do to take back our country from this foreigner trying to destroy it.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by RRconservative]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Unbelievable that this is not a requirement!


I made the mistake of assuming that a birth certificate would be a pre-requisite for running for the highest office in the land. I'm stunned.

You have to show a bc for drivers licenses, social security, school enrollment and God knows what else but you don't have to show one when running for President. Good grief!



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


I highly doubt the images on factcheck would stand up in court, but that is a subject for a different thread. There are many on this site that deal with Obama's BC, so let's leave that discussion for the threads they belong in. This particular thread is about the bill in committee right now to require all candidate's to provide proof of the location of their birth. Let's keep it on topic, shall we?



reply to post by RRconservative
 


Even if this passed the House and Senate, Obama would be sure to Veto it. Forget Congress! Let's take it to the states!

For this to have any bite it would be up to each state to require proof of citizenship for a Presidential candidate to be on the ballot.


If this bill makes it through Congress only to be vetoed by Obama then it would certainly speak volumes. I can only imagine what Obama would be bringing upon himself if that were to happen. If it makes it through and is vetoed the only option will be to take it to the states. Once a few of them make it law, the rest of the states will follow.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Jenna I dont see this bill to be anymore than a publicity stunt. Obviously this was merely created to gain attention and I dont think this is going to help the campaign of birthers such as yourself here. The act will not apply to this current president even if it passed and I assure you it will probably be forgotten by the time this president leaves and another election campaign is abound. I really dont see the point other than to gain attention.... which I doubt it will get much of in anycase.

Whats more interesting, if Iv missed something let me know, but the bill doesnt mention any specific birth certificate. Obamas short form has been verified and authenticate, those challangers who claim it to be fake go no further than afew self described "experts" behind computer screens on obvious partisan websites.

All of the allegations from birthers have been debunked and all we have left is the fact "you didnt see his long form" (as if the rest of the 44 presidents have all shown their long forms). If this bill is in its full as I have read, Mr Posey missed one key factor, "long form birth certificate" because even if this bill was passed before The majority of americans use their short forms for identification as nobody in their right minds would carry such person multiple page long birth certificates. The bill is misleading in the fact its assuming Obama hasnt presented anything that has verified, which for the current argument is incorrect.... the argument stems around requirements for the long form. Obamas election win he would still pass and be eligible for the presidency by merely showing his short form birth certificate as he has shown before.


Originally posted by Jenna
I can't for the life of me understand why this wasn't already required since president's are required to be natural born.


It is required by the law, and the short form is the legal certification of birth on US soil. If Mr Posey would get a clue he would understand the difference in argument right now regards the "long form" and "the short form" birth certificate. The Man isnt changing anything by merely stating "birth certificate". The definition of birth certificate by most folks often revolves around the short form (long forms can be multiple pages long and consist of personal information). In addition nobody is ever obligated to release their long form birth certificates as that personal information is protected by the constitution, the 14th admendment. What Mr Posey is asking right now is to take away those rights. Regardless of whether your a president or an office worker, your rights are protected by the constitution. If the people of the United states do not accept the birth right of the candidate they have the right to not vote in that individual democratically.

Issues of eligibility are also left specifically to congress, so Mr Posey has no business installing an act when congress in its entirety are given authority by the constitution to deal with such matters, and them only:

The constitution clearly states:
According to the court, the Constitution vests Congress -- no individual voters, or even opposing candidates -- with the final authority re: the qualifications of the Presidency:

Article II prescribes that each state shall appoint, in the manner directed by the state’s legislature, the number of presidential electors to which it is constitutionally entitled. The Twelfth Amendment prescribes the manner in which the electors appointed by the states shall in turn elect the president:


“[t]he electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . . and they shall . . . transmit [their votes] sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

www.law.cornell.edu...

On December 2008 congress official confirmed Obamas eligibility for president as did the electoral college following his democratic win on November 4th 2008. His eligibility has also been accepted by the state of Hawaii and by the Hawaiian health department who personally verified his short form birth certificate.

I suggest that if you really want to do something to get that birth certificate, gather up the solid evidence which proves he was born off US soil then you will have a case.

SG

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


i never said the images would. the certificate he provided would.


and fine. staying on topic. theres already enough background check for the presidency makes this bill redundant and exists solely to appease people.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obviously this was merely created to gain attention and I dont think this is going to help the campaign of birthers such as yourself here.


Or perhaps it's a much needed bill that will prevent any future issues when it comes to presidents.


The act will not apply to this current president even if it passed


Best not to claim things that you don't know and can't prove.


Whats more interesting, if Iv missed something let me know, but the bill doesnt mention any specific birth certificate.


Perhaps because it's not supposed to be specific to Obama, but is instead a proposed bill to apply to all future presidential candidates.


The bill is misleading in the fact its assuming Obama hasnt presented anything that has verified


No, you are misleading in pretending that this is only meant to apply to Obama when it very clearly is not.


It is required by the law, and the short form is the legal certification of birth on US soil.


On the contrary, it is not currently required that candidates show legal certification of birth. Thus all the hoopla for almost a year now. Were it already required, this bill would not be in existence.


What Mr Posey is asking right now is to take away those rights.


Requiring presidential candidates to prove their eligibility just as you or I have to prove our citizenship to gain employment is taking away rights? How does that work? It's ok for me to have to show my birth certificate to get a job flipping burgers, but if a person who wants to be president has to show it it's taking away their rights?


Issues of eligibility are also left specifically to congress, so Mr Posey has no business installing an act when congress in its entirety are given authority by the constitution to deal with such matters, and them only


In case you missed it, Rep. Posey is a Representative in the House of Representatives which is part of Congress. This bill would require documentation to be provided that proves a candidates eligibility by the candidates committee.


On December 2008 congress official confirmed Obamas eligibility for president


Again, this isn't specific to Obama. I only mentioned him in the OP because this bill likely would not have come about had there not been controversy over him. I fail to see how a bill to require all future candidates to provide the same thing we have to provide for employment is a bad thing.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Or perhaps it's a much needed bill that will prevent any future issues when it comes to presidents.


Which as I told you before Jenna, and which I will repeat, the bill is a moot because regardless of whether your the president or a teacher you are protected by the 14th admendemnt of the constitution where you are not legally obligated to release your long form birth certificate.

Mr Posey cannot change that, all he has done in this bill is to reaffirm the fact that there needs to be verified documents to prove eligibility, to which the short form birth certificate is under law legal already enough to confirm eligibility (the majority of the other 44 only presented their short forms). So the bill doesnt change anything. Had Mr Posey made it specifically clear that he was refering to the long form then maybe then it would change the laws (provided it even gains the support), but even then its a moot of a bill in the case of birthers because those documents that birthers demanded are protected under the constitution, 14th admendment. They cannot demand it without Obamas consent.

Whatever suspicions you have over Obama the bill essentially challanges the 14th admendment and although Mr Posey has every right to question, this bill of his to change that side of the constitution will not get a "blink" in DC.


Best not to claim things that you don't know and can't prove.


Its not something I have to prove, Obamas eligibility was confirmed on December 15th 2008 during his presidential confirmation. That is that his eligibility was confirmed by congress. Congress cannot now legally request those private documents that are protected by the 14th admendment of the constitution unless evidence is provided that Obama was born off soil, which we are waiting for birthers to show us.



Perhaps because it's not supposed to be specific to Obama, but is instead a proposed bill to apply to all future presidential candidates.


I apologize for confusing you, I meant the bill doesnt distinguish the difference between the long form and the short form. Mr Posey in his bill merely make it clear that the birth certificate must be presented by all candidates for the presidency. Obama has already presented his short form birth certificate which has been verified by the state Hawaii and the Hawaiian health department. The short for birth certificate is by US law the legal certification of birth.

So this bill from Posey changes nothing really, it just reaffirms what Obama just did. This is why Im saying this is a stunt by Mr Posey and Birthers, because the bill itself changes little to nothing, its only cause for attention.



No, you are misleading in pretending that this is only meant to apply to Obama when it very clearly is not.


Right:


All the lawsuits in the world are not going to change that. But if what some folks are worried about – that presidential candidates don’t have to submit to the same documentation that average folks have to submit to – well, then we can change that for the next election.

washingtonindependent.com...

Let me guess, I took him out of context here? Well I guess the reader can decide. By the way, most americans dont carry their long form birth certificates around, we dont see folks with multiple paged documents with their personal birth information on it getting their drivers licence, they use their short form birth certificates.



On the contrary, it is not currently required that candidates show legal certification of birth.


Well then, looks like Obama already jumped that hoop for your folks well in advance. He presented his short form which was verified by the health department.



Requiring presidential candidates to prove their eligibility just as you or I have to prove our citizenship to gain employment is taking away rights?


Here let me refraise that for you. Demanding personal documents of your birth are protected by the constitution. The short form birth certificate should be sufficient enough to prove under US law your eligibility for the presidency. Nobody has the right to demand any vaulted documents of yours that is personal.

Oh yes and the way, if an individual is willing not to present his private documents while in a job, if its not in his or her contract, they are not required to legally under the law.


In case you missed it, Rep. Posey is a Representative in the House of Representatives which is part of Congress.


He is huh? Looks like he missed that presidential confirmation 8 months ago... maybe then he might have had a chance to gather enough minions to "demand" that long form. The confirmation already passed, he is and has been the president of these United states now for 7 months. The only way you can get those documents is by bringing up solid evidence where he will then be required to show his long form if he intends to discredit them.

SG



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I had a big long post typed out, but it simply isn't worth the waste of space on the page to reply to each of your asinine comments so I'll put it in short simple terms.

1. This is not about specifically Obama, had you read the bill you would see he is not even mentioned. If you were able to get off your high horse for five minutes you might be able to see that.

2. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says you don't have to show proof of citizenship to be president.

3. The bill does not require the vaulted long form, it says "copy of the candidate's birth certificate. How exactly you figure only the vaulted long-form will be accepted I have no clue.

4. It is not currently required by law for candidates to prove their eligibility to anyone, yet neither of us could even go to elementary school without proving our citizenship. This bill will fix that.

Now, can you please get off the Obama-defense podium long enough to discuss the bill itself? There are plenty of Obama threads you can defend him in, it's not necessary in this one as the only one pretending this is strictly about Obama is you.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
2. There is nothing in the 14th amendment that says you don't have to show proof of citizenship to be president.


Yes there isnt, however there is nothing in the constitution that states the long form birth certificate is the "only proof" either. The certification of live birth, that is the short form, still is legal enough to be confirmation of birth right in the United states, to which Obama has presented and verified. The bill doesnt change that fact and this is what I am trying to get to you here Jenna. The individuals demanding his long form will still see no changes in their demands under this bill because it doesnt distringuish the difference between the long form birth certificate and the short form. It just mentions "birth certificate" to which both the long form and short form are legal documents under the court of law.


How exactl do you figure only the vaulted long-form will be accepted I have no clue.


Well thats the thing aint it? Most birthers are demanding the long form? Most didnt accept his short form as credible enough, sure there are some who claimed it to be fake (without the credentials and ignoring the verification from the state of Hawaii Hawaii) however the core argument behind the birther conspiracy is the need for the vaulted long form.

You say this bill was created to prevent another birther outcry as the one we are seeing now, I dont see how this specific bill changes anything. At the end of the day Obama can still do the exact same thing, show his verified short form as he prior and he will still be following this bill if it were to become law. This is why I argue that either Mr Posey is incredibly ignorant of the birther argument in the first place or that he is just looking for attention. Seeing as Mr Posey was smart enough to get into government I would believe the latter.


It is not currently required by law for candidates to prove their eligibility to anyone, yet neither of us could even go to elementary school without proving our citizenship. This bill will fix that.


The bill still doesnt change much. You are right, vai the constitution and by law there are no straightforward guidelines regarding verification of birth right. However backround checks are done and there are forces moved to get that individual verified as a citizen whether it is directly under law or not. Every presidential candidate has atleast shown their short form birth certificates one way or another. This bill doesnt fix anything really because at then end of the day the short form will still be legal under the bill and proof enough of birth right, and because of this the advocates of the birther conspiracy will still be huffing and puffing about ther "long form" and college documents. The bill does little to water out the fire within the conspiracy community.

SG

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The bill still doesnt change much. You are right, vai the constitution and by law there are no straightforward guidelines regarding verification of birth right. However backround checks are done and there are forces moved to get that individual verified as a citizen whether it is directly under law or not.


It sure would be nice if they were done wouldn't it?

Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7-2-08 Hour 2 Audio
Have a listen a little over half way through. Just move the slider to about the middle and play it from there to skip the irrelevant first half Mike had local FBI agents on as guests and was taking callers when this question was asked:


CALLER – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

FBI – The short answer is no. No we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

HOST – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?

FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

HOST – Even people running for president of the United States of America?

FBI – That’s correct.


So having listened to that little tidbit of information from someone who works in the FBI, would you still say that this bill is unnecessary?


This bill doesnt fix anything really because at then end of the day the short form will still be legal under the bill and proof enough of birth right


Oh but it does, background checks are not routinely done on elected officials and the president is not currently required to prove eligibility. I'd say changing that fixes a lot.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I haven't yet studied the details of this bill but the part quoted in the OP sounds good, it would be nice to verify eligibility of candidates running for public office, especially president.

One issue that would also be nice to clarify, which is apparently not crystal clear right now, is what is meant by a "natural born citizen" which is clearly more restrictive then just "citizen" but I've seen both sides of the debate on exactly what that means.

So if we require 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", then we need a clear definition of what a natural born citizen is so the appropriate documentation can be required if it's not all in a standard birth certificate which may establish citizenship though not necessarily "natural born citizenship".



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
My thoughts are that if this bill is successfully passed, Obama will not run in 2012 for reelection.

I'm also willing to bet that no democrat votes for it because they know such a law would bar their illegal president from being able to run again in 2012.

King Obama could put all this birther nonsense to rest by simply releasing his long form birth certificate which would prove his citizenship.

He hasn't done that because of these possible reasons:

1. he's not natural born and was really born in Kenya as the Mayor claimed.

2. the birth certificate would reveal he was born in HI but his real name is Barry Sorento and his parents citizenship status at the time would not qualify him to be president.

3. the birth certificate would reveal he was constitutionally qualified, but his real name is Barry Sorento, and knowledge of that real name would lead to a massive invesitagtion of his real background, revealing the fact that he is a CIA plant.


For whatever reason, the fact that King Obama has not released his birther certificate is proof enough to me that he's hiding something bad.

Whatever it is, it needs to have the daylight shined on it.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
One issue that would also be nice to clarify, which is apparently not crystal clear right now, is what is meant by a "natural born citizen" which is clearly more restrictive then just "citizen" but I've seen both sides of the debate on exactly what that means.


It would be nice to have a crystal clear definition. I always thought that being born on US soil to parents who were citizens gave you natural born status by default, so I was a bit surprised to find that it's not actually defined in our laws.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


It looks like HR 1503 has been lost somewhere.

H.R.1503
Title: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization 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.
Sponsor:
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] (introduced 3/12/2009) Cosponsors (10)
Latest Major Action: 3/12/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

thomas.loc.gov...:h.r.01503:



Committee on House Administration
Search results for: hr1503
No results found.


cha.house.gov...



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Ok, just so people know (even if they choose to ignore it) ...

You don't need your original birth certificate. Over time, some fraction of people inevitably loose their originals, and consequently have to get new "certified" copies. Increasingly, these are referred to as "certifications" rather than "certificates", and they are increasingly computer-generated and do NOT have the doctor's information, etc. on them.

I know because I lost my original birth certificate some time ago. However, every state has some method for getting a replacement. Most of these are out-sourced to 3rd party computer database services.

In my case, I have a computer generated certification from the State of Pennsylvania (I think it may actually say "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on it - I'm not looking at it right this second, since I'm at work at the moment). But legally, as far as the State (or any Government body) is concerned - it is the same thing as the original birth certificate!

Again, I'm not looking at mine right this second, but I don't think it has much information on it. Just my place of birth, maybe the hospital, the date, my name, my parent's names and some numeric coding. Of course it's printed on some official stock of some kind. But, that's really all that's on it. No baby foot-prints, finger-prints, I don't think there's any doctor information on it, etc.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
 


Now I am more confused than ever.
I decided to go to the House of representatives site to see if HR 1503 was there somewhere.
This is what I found.
Congressman Bill Posey :: Representing the 15th District of Florida
May 27, 2009 ... Washington, May 15 - On March 12, 2009 Congressman Posey introduced H.R. 1503, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to require ...
posey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=130248

Committee on Natural Resources
Jun 12, 2007 ... Event: 'Subcommittee On Water And Power: Markup Of H.R. 31, H.R. 716, H.R. 1462, H.R. 1503, H.R. 1526 And H.R. 1725' ...

H.R. 1503 (Grijalva): To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project. (Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project)

resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro...

Is there such a thing as two separate HR bills with the same number?????



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
I wonder if Obama will be required to submit documentation if this goes through. I would think so since it would be a new requirement, but who knows. Thoughts anyone?


It says the effective date is 2012. So if he runs in 2012, it would apply to him.

I hope it passes. I think the president should have to prove that he's a natural-born citizen. And I think Obama already has.

In 2012, if he runs, he can submit a hard copy of what we've all seen and it would be proof. And the birthers would go wild because he didn't submit the long form.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator
 


I know that in order to get my passport I had to send an Origional Birth Certificate with the embossed state seal with the application.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join