Tweet
Should presidential candidates prove eligibility?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah can't believe lack of sanity in recent New Hampshire incident
WND
Between the Lines Editorial
Joseph Farah
2/19/2012
Excerpt:
"I have observed a number of times that the irrational nature of the debate over Barack Obama’s eligibility has so dumbed down the constitutional question that we run the risk of losing sight of the founders’ intent for all time.
If you think I overstate the case, consider what happened in New Hampshire last week.
There was a debate in the state legislature about whether presidential candidates should have to prove constitutional eligibility – not this year, mind you, but in future years.
The House Election Committee in the state legislature considered a bill that would simply require presidential candidates, beginning in 2013, to submit certified copies of their birth certificates before they would be awarded ballot position.
Simple bill. Would seem like common sense. Who could possibly be against the vetting of presidential candidates for ballot position in the future – far removed from the controversy over Barack Obama?
Yet, this bill was defeated in committee by a vote of 14-3.
Why? Presumably because 14 members of the committee did not want to be labeled “birthers.” There simply is no other explanation for it – unless they are in favor of constitutionally unqualified candidates actually getting on the ballot in the important first primary state.
What would be so egregious about producing an actual birth certificate? Is that a standard too high for presidential candidates in America in the 21st century?"
.................................................. ..
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/should-pr...e-eligibility/
Exclusive: Joseph Farah can't believe lack of sanity in recent New Hampshire incident
WND
Between the Lines Editorial
Joseph Farah
2/19/2012
Excerpt:
"I have observed a number of times that the irrational nature of the debate over Barack Obama’s eligibility has so dumbed down the constitutional question that we run the risk of losing sight of the founders’ intent for all time.
If you think I overstate the case, consider what happened in New Hampshire last week.
There was a debate in the state legislature about whether presidential candidates should have to prove constitutional eligibility – not this year, mind you, but in future years.
The House Election Committee in the state legislature considered a bill that would simply require presidential candidates, beginning in 2013, to submit certified copies of their birth certificates before they would be awarded ballot position.
Simple bill. Would seem like common sense. Who could possibly be against the vetting of presidential candidates for ballot position in the future – far removed from the controversy over Barack Obama?
Yet, this bill was defeated in committee by a vote of 14-3.
Why? Presumably because 14 members of the committee did not want to be labeled “birthers.” There simply is no other explanation for it – unless they are in favor of constitutionally unqualified candidates actually getting on the ballot in the important first primary state.
What would be so egregious about producing an actual birth certificate? Is that a standard too high for presidential candidates in America in the 21st century?"
.................................................. ..
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/should-pr...e-eligibility/