6 Responses to “Demand that Kirk Adams, AZ speaker of the House forward eligibility bill to the committee asap or resign his position immediately. If he does not forward, please lobby for the vote of non-confidence in the house to remove him from the position. He does not have a right to hold a bill hostage. There is a concern of possible public corruption, when the speaker maliciously refuses to forward the bill. Call him the the rest of the rpes on the daily basis until the bill is forwarded to the committee”

1. tina
   February 14th, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

   He shouldn’t have taken this position if he’s going to get scared about doing his job.

2. Monex
   February 14th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

   I personally obtained from his birth hospital and now have in my possession a certified copy of his original birth record from the British Protectorate of Kenya…Smith plainly states Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America. President Obama was born in Mombasa British Protectorate of Kenya at the Coast Province General Hospital in 1961 adding I have proof of this…Smith told The Post Email he personally entered Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa Kenya on Feb.

3. John
   February 15th, 2011 @ 9:44 am

   Actually, the rules of most state legislatures allow certain officials (such as the Speaker of the House) great discretion in the floor management of bills. He’s probably well within his rights to hold the bill.

4. Starla
   February 15th, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

   “BIRTHER DEBATE ALIVE ACROSS U.S.”

   By ANDY BARR
   Updated: 2/14/11 11:22 AM EST

   “Lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced bills relating to the ‘birther’ movement.

   The opening of 2011 state legislative sessions has been accompanied by a spate of birther-related bills, the clearest indication yet that the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s place of birth will continue to simmer throughout his re-election campaign.
   (snip).

   At the state level, however, the issue continues to fester. This year’s bills, if passed, would create a requirement for presidential campaigns to prove candidates’ place of birth, a proviso that sponsors say would finally clear up the matter.

   Election law attorneys say that if the bills are passed, states may be able to kick presidential candidates off the ballot for not complying — though a legal challenge would be very likely.

   “The Constitution gives state legislatures plenary power to set the rules for choosing presidential electors. A state legislature, in theory, as Bush v. Gore acknowledges, could even take away the popular vote for the president and decide on the choice itself,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor and author of the respected Election Law blog.”

   Read More Here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49444.html#ixzz1E4lmABv2

   “OBAMA WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE LEGISLATION TO GET HIS NAME ON THE 2012 STATE BALLOTS – MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011” – Posted by Erica at:
   http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/

   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5. MichaelN
   February 15th, 2011 @ 11:53 pm

   Orly,

   Pass this on to the committees.

   Most of the proponents of jus soli use the Wong Kim Ark court’s holding, (as opposed to the decision) based on Lord Coke in Calvin’s case, where they concluded that a child of an alien, visiting, temporarily is an English ‘natural born subject’ so therefore a US Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is one who is born of an alien, as long as they are born in USA.

   But if you read Calvin’s case, where Calvin was deemed a ‘natural born subject’ of England, you will find that Lord Coke actually said:
   “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by PROCREATION and birth right”

   “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

   This was NEVER mentioned in the WKA court.

   A reading of Calvin’s case proves that sanguinis was ONE of the TWO essential elements to qualify a ‘natural born’.

   Quite the opposite to what the WKA court held.

   It proves an error in the holding WKA court and this error has festered and grown ever since.

   Bottom-line is that sanguinis IS essential in English common law & not only soli for ‘natural born’.

   The very legally educated framers with their very learned and comprehensive knowledge of English common law, must have seen this holding of sanguinis and soli in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, and the principle of sanguinis and soli was applied in the USC Art. II for a US ‘natural born Citizen’.

   Given the clear intention of the framers to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim, the TWO element qualification principle was a perfect fit.

   Maybe a writ of error is in order to be filed with SCOTUS, particularly to correct the Indiana decision in Ankeny case and maybe to correct WKA holding (not decision).

   Striking at the heart of the festered error, like the WKA case would be a step toward stripping back the error from its origins.

6. John
   February 16th, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

   “lawyer”, sorry.

Leave a Reply