the birther bills (Reagan, Obama, Nebraska, election)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.