Lawmakers in Arizona have become the first legislature in the nation to adopt a law that would require candidates for president to prove their eligibility under the Constitution’s special requirements for that office: being at least 35 years of age, a resident for 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”

House Bill 2177 now has been moved to the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer who can sign it, veto it, or let it become law without her signature.

Confirmation came in a brief message from Rep. Judy Burges, one of the supporters of the plan, in the middle of the night.

“We are the first state to pass a candidate certification bill,” she told WND.

While opponents cast the idea as a direct attack on Barack Obama, whose long-form birth certificate and other documentation that could shed light on his status has remained concealed, proponents say the 2008 election simply revealed a gap in the election processes in the United States presidential elections and this is meant to address that in future elections.

Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!

The Arizona plan would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility with an original birth certificate or alternative documents such as a baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record or a postpartum medical record. Also allowed would be a notarized affidavit from at least two people present at the birth.

Brewer has not taken a formal position on the issue, but she has, in the past, displayed no hesitation in taking on the federal government, through the still-developing battle over enforcement of federal immigration standards.

(Story continues below)

A year ago her legislature approved a law allowing state enforcement of federal standards and she signed it, only to see the Obama administration intervene and challenge the state’s right to protect its own citizens.

That dispute appears to be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court at this point.

The vote late last night in the state House was 40-16 in favor of the plan, following the earlier 20-9 vote in the state Senate, showing overwhelming support.

On websites advocating for such laws, such as BirtherReport.com, people were being encouraged to contact the governor’s office requesting her signature.

“It’s time now to start calling Governor Brewer’s office,” it instructed. “Now come on Oklahoma, Missouri and everyone else. If any of you have contacts in these states let them know right away that Arizona did it.”

In Oklahoma, it’s Senate Bill 91 that has been approved by the Senate and is out of committee in the state House.

Not complicated, it requires that all candidates – not just those for president – shall “provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office.”

It provides that the secretary of state write up rules to specify the documentation that will be required and that such documents will be made available for public inspection.

The questions have arisen over Obama because while he has talked about his birth in Hawaii, he’s offered no documentation but a “Certification of Live Birth” online image of a document that during the time of Obama’s birth was available to any child whose parents would state he or she was born in Hawaii, whether true or not.

The New York Times has contended that Hawaii has “confirmed” that the online document is authentic, however no state official has publicly verified it is Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. They have said they have Obama’s records, but they haven’t detailed what information they include.

WND has reported on the state-level efforts to ensure that candidates for the Oval Office meet the requirements established in the U.S. Constitution.

Such plans appeared this year in New Hampshire, Montana, Iowa, Maine, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas. Some efforts are conclusively out of the running, and in some states plans already are being made for next year, which still would give states time to impose a requirement for the 2012 election. .

New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts suggest, a natural-born citizen was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions regard a natural-born citizen to be a person born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama’s natural-born citizen status never has been documented. The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The challenges to Obama’s eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom’s Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from eligibility. There also are claims when he was adopted by an Indonesia stepfather, if ever he had status as a “natural born Citizen,” it was compromised at that point.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama’s eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts’ interpretation of “standing,” meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn’t have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama’s birth documentation could be brought into court.

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama’s eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution’s demands.

Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.

“We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union … as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further,” she said.

There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey’s bill at the federal level.

Posey’s H.R. 1503 stated:

“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.”

The bill also provided:

“Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House again will move such a plan forward.

Read more: Arizona legislature OKs eligibility proof demand https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=287485#ixzz1JbRj8xsY 

11 Responses to “WND writes about AZ bill. After a glitch re Columbia records they are back on track supporting me and my work and I am the only attorney mentioned and quoted in this latest eligibility article.”

1. Acer 4100 Battery
   April 15th, 2011 @ 8:20 am

   i love prom, but its overrated. 1 girl who wants queen passin’ out candy and the other is puttin’ flyers on cars! itsNOTthatserious

2. Redd
   April 15th, 2011 @ 8:28 am

   new poll… many repub primary voters will only support a birther candidate!!..
   https://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/04/15/trump_now_leads_gop_presidential_field.html

3. stormyweather
   April 15th, 2011 @ 9:34 am

   You go get em! They certainly cannot say you lack standing in this one!

4. Involved
   April 15th, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

   Is there any doubt as to why obama has all his records sealed? ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’

5. Alec
   April 15th, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

   Remember that Rev. Manning said that he was given inside information that the way to expose Obama fraud is through Columbia University. Perhaps speak to Dr. Manning.

6. Marge
   April 15th, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

   All of your chickens are going to come home to roost and you will be left holding the bag you made.

   You will lose your law license, your dental business your husband and children. You will rot in jail.

   You deserve everything you will soon reap.

7. margo
   April 15th, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

   Congratulations! They are all starting to move over your way, may the momentum continue! We welcome the big players to the fight!

8. goodlucktoyou
   April 15th, 2011 @ 5:20 pm

   the original info sent could have had a date typo, you didn’t get the info from Columbia U directly, but from a commercial clearinghouse.

   Interestingly, I once called Columbia Registrar to inquire about whether a person claiming publicly to be a graduate, and was told that information could only be divulged with a signed release-authorization from the person. Many universities gave out basic information (college or school, usually major, and date) to anyone, in the past, but that was before the federal privacy act (that even prevents parents from checking their own children’s enrollment and grades!) was passed.

   The thing too is, it would be virtually unheard of for a prestigious university to grant a bachelor’s degree based on only two semesters of senior-year work, and nothing else. Typically, they don’t accept many transfer students, and when they do, they only accept freshman or freshman&sophomore courses done elsewhere, but not a full junior-year of courses. They just don’t grant degrees for a mere two semesters spent at their campuses. You might be able to do this if transferring from Cal State Fullerton to Cal State Long Beach, but that would be the same parent university, only different campuses.

   The final problem would be 2 yrs at Occidental + 1 yr at Columbia = 3 years, that would mean completing a bachelor’s at an extremely accelerated pace.

   So, I’d posit a typo here.

9. turnright
   April 15th, 2011 @ 9:16 pm

   Earth To Marge:

   “All of your chickens are going to come home to roost and you will be left holding the bag you made.
   You will lose your law license, your dental business your husband and children. You will rot in jail.
   You deserve everything you will soon reap.”

   But Margie, in your hatred of truth your dullness comes to the fore.

   “Come, let us reason together”.

   Why would Orly lose her law license over exposing a criminal who has used up to 39 Social Security Numbers, at least 4 of which have been definitely connected to Opostor? Is it because his wife has only used 2 or 3? How many do You get to use?

   Please explain how it is impossible for President Transparency to have been born anywhere else than Hawaii. Start with the newspaper notices. Explain how they couldn’t have been rigged by a criminal grandmother who used other people’s names and SSNs on illegal real estate deals.

   Go for it. You’re so sure of yourself. Park some of your great ability at reasoning on us.

10. Brian
    April 15th, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

    Put this article in “Blog Posts” (found at BOTTOM of Home Page)

    https://msteaparty.ning.com/

    info only, not intended for post.

11. James Bond
    April 16th, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

    Turnright:…I agreee! This poster called marge (that seems nice enough), turns into some mouthy “femin-nazi” and just can’t control herself!

    One of the rare “hatred posts” towards Orly in here! Hey, marge, believe it or not, Orly doesn’t deserve this! A lot of us like this Patriotic Lady…so why not conduct yourself with some niceness?

    So marge, be nice and pleasant! For some day soon, all the left-wing “bricks(etts)” may “wake up” and finally see what you’ve done to America?! Just take another prozac and get further into “fantasyland!” Into your own, little world!

    Orly now has your post saved! That was a “hate crime!”

Leave a Reply