H.R.1503 - Presidential Eligibility Act

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. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: 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. as introduced.
  • Popular: Presidential Eligibility Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

vminch 03/17/2009 6:19am

This is an important bill and must be supported. The Constitution requires that a candidate for President must be a natural born citizen. I was under the impression that showing one’s birth certificate was all ready necessary for running for the presidency. This bill will stop any further future controversy over the eligibility of presidential candidates.

ladagency 03/18/2009 4:56am

History, Common Law, Law of Nations, and commentary by our founding fathers and authors of the 14th Amendment agree that a natural born citizen is a child born of two U.S. citizens, but the ‘liberalization’ of law has diluted the term to such extremes, that some conclude that any child born on U.S. soil is natural born.

Questions of Obama’s natural born eligibility have been clouded by a confused electorate and their representatives. Also, the Hawaiian birth registration may be more probative of a non-Hawaiian birth.

A very simple solution would be for a handful of Republican congressmen forming a caucus to access Hawaiian vital records under Haw. Stat. 338-18, and 338-14.3. A congressional caucus would have the authority to make a successful application.

Please see http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/ for a detailed explanation.

intervalia 03/24/2009 7:17am

This bill needs to pass. It should be ammended to include anyone running for ANY public office in the Federal Govenrment. It should also be made retroactive to anyone service in the Congress, the Senate or Presidency.

It should also include a loyalty test for anyone in public office. And include anyone that is to be assigned, appointed, employed or called by someone in the federal government.

miternjrt 03/19/2009 12:48pm

This is a VERY important bill. Obama, I understand refuses to produce his original Birth certificate.
Which makes me ask WHY? If he is an honest person as he “claims” to be, then produce it.
What is so hard about producing the original for all of us to see as PROOF he has the right to hold the highest office in this country.

jdelaney3 03/24/2009 11:06am

Better late than never, I suppose. Despite the attacks on Rep. Posey for introducing this alleged “tin hat” legislation, it is a bill which is clearly needed. While it won’t be retroactive IF passed, it’s reassuring to see that it goes into effect 2012 at which time BHO will need to finally prove his eligibility. Won’t that be a hoot. For this reason, I have my doubts it will get out of committee for a floor vote much less passed into law. I pray I’m dead wrong.

ZAPEM 05/14/2009 3:24pm

You would think that a bill enforcing the Constitution would be supported by more than ONE co-sponsor. What does that tell you about the people who don’t? Look at the people in Congress who are following this bill and aren’t following it and ask them WHY NOT!

WeimMom 04/21/2009 2:43pm

The need of this bill shows how little we can trust our officials. It’s sad more Americans do not mind being thought of as stupid, united we could make a difference before it’s too late.

recon 07/03/2009 2:14pm

I’m sorry – why won’t our ‘elected President’ provide this proof withOUT the legislation, again? If it were not a problem, he would.

toray99 07/04/2009 5:40am

Let me also add this. Our government is getting too big and with that the checks and balances that we have in place are not being followed through.
That being said there are groups of ruthless, evil people that know this and are taking full advantage of a broken system. Sleeping giant I believe is the term. Now add in the fact the last 70 years they keep adding more of these evil people in power. Really look at what you have now for the house and senate. Do they listen to the people ? NO. The first bailout over 90% called their rep’s to vote NO, we know the rest. How could any logical person explain it. The people that use this web site, you read some of these bills, do some of these bill seem treasonous to you ? They do to me. Reading some of these bills I ask myself are the people that wrote them and co sponsor them on drugs, or have evil intentions for the US. You can’t say they are just stupid, there is intention there.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 5:43pm

The kindest thing I can say about this bill is that it “needs work”.

If you look at the section of the statue (2 USC 433(a)) that Posey proposes to amend, it refers to “authorized campaign committees” and that means any political committee, association or club authorized by the candidate that collects or spends $1,000 in a year. This bill would require the submission of a birth certificate by every one of those hundreds if not thousands of local clubs.

This is but one example of at least half a dozen issues that this naive proposal fails to address.

jr_189 07/22/2009 4:54am

Do not get me wrong, I support this law, but why do we need to pass a law to enforce a Constitutional requirement. People take the Constitution as law when it comes to freedom of speech and gun rights. Why not this?

ladagency 03/19/2009 3:03pm

When Obama published his Hawaiian C.O.L.B., the electorate and congress was satisfied he was ‘native’ born. Unfortunately, ‘native’ born does not equal ‘natural’ born. In addition, Hawaii allows compulsory registration of unwitnessed births, under Haw. Stat. Rev. ยง338-5.

This means that the lack of witnesses to the Hawaiian vital data supplied by Stanley Ann Dunham voids the prima facie value of the C.O.L.B., and is probative of his Kenyan birth.

That is why Obama will not release vital data or certified copies of his 1961 Hawaiian registration.

ladagency 03/26/2009 3:21am

Posey’s bill sponsors (no-one so far) should initiate a committee or caucus to study the issue, which would then lead to the discovery of Obama’s fraud. Such a group would have legal access to the vital data from Obama’s 1961 Hawaiian birth registration under HRS 338-18, and 338-14.3. The lack of witnesses, delivering doctor, or hospital of birth in Obama’s Hawaiian registration gives credence to affidavits and testimony of his Kenyan birth.

Also, the definition of Natural Born (born of two citizens solely under one nationality’s jurisdiction) is not in the bill, and that is a major stumbling block to current enforcement.

A philosopher opined; We make many laws defining criminals, but few that punish them. So far, Rep. Posey’s bill is flacid and meaningless.

http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

SallyVose4 07/21/2009 7:04am

It seems to me that we, the people, need to wake up, smell the coffee, and proceed to throw these people out of office. The current congress and administration do not listen to the people who voted them into office and the strongest option we have is to vote them out of office, asap!!! This bill should not be necessary as our Constitution covers this in Article 2, Section 1. The problems are getting enough people to push the issue, getting judges to hear cases brought before their courts, and getting our representatives in Congress representing we the people.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 6:13pm
in reply to quid Sep 19, 2009 10:46am

Puh-lease! WorldNetDaily is nothing but a political advocacy site who is making money fanning Obama Conspiracies including one about him worshiping a gold monkey god.

The original story circulated on the Internet saying: “The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President.” The claim was that Pelosi refused to sign the version used in prior years because she knew Obama was ineligible and didn’t want to commit perjury.

Of course that all blew apart when affidavits signed by Pelosi to some of the states (Hawaii is one) indeed had the “according to the Constitution” language, making the perjury idea look silly.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 5:48pm
in reply to jr_189 Jul 22, 2009 4:54am

I think that broadly speaking we do enforce this Constitutional requirement already. Here in South Carolina, the political parties have to swear under oath that their candidates are eligible.

Barack Obama has certainly exhibited leadership in this area by being the first (and so far only) presidential candidate in history to publicly post his birth certificate on the Internet.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 6:00pm
in reply to ladagency Mar 18, 2009 4:56am

It is strange that the 535 members of Congress who confirmed the election and eligibility of Barack Obama were somehow unaware of this “two citizen parent” requirement. In fact, there is not, nor has there ever been any such requirement.

ladagency says that the law has been “diluted” but I would point out that William Rawle, appointed by George Washington himself as US District Attorney of Pennsylvania, wrote the book titled “A View of the Constitution”, a book formerly used as a textbook at West Point Military Academy, in which he wrote: “… every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution…”.

You see, that’s how it has been from the start.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 6:27pm
in reply to recon Jul 03, 2009 2:14pm

I hate to spoil the party with a little reality check, but Barack Obama was the first and only presidential candidate in history to post his birth certificate on the Internet in June of 2008.

While detractors have spent almost two years trying to push ideas such as: “a certification is not a certificate”, “an official state document labeled ‘prima facie’ evidence is not ‘prima facie’ evidence” or that the entire State of Hawaii, the US Congress, the Supreme Court, all 50 US state secretaries of state, the mainstream media and the majority of US voters are all part of a massive cover up, or massive stupidity, or massive fear (pick one), they still sound as unconvincing as they did when they started.

There’s no way I can address the mountain of foolery posing as facts on this issue in 1000 characters (I’ve written nearly 700 articles over at ObamaConspiracy.org on it), but foolery it is.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 6:49pm
in reply to toray99 Jul 04, 2009 5:15am

Birth certificates titles vary by state. “Certificate of Live Birth” is by far the most common, used for births registered at or near the birth. There are “Delayed Certificates” for those registered late (a month to a year depending on the state) and certificates for foundlings, foreign adoptions and so on. Texas has a “native born Texan” birth certificate.

In 1961, Hawaiian hospitals typed up forms with a manual typewriter and sent them to a local registrar who signed and forwarded them to the State for final registration. These had attendant signatures and registrar signatures, and the signature of the person providing the baby’s name, etc. (usually the mother). Hawaii went paperless in 2001 and now only issues the abstract format.

Most birth certificates today are, like Obama’s, abstracts of data from original records printed from computer files.

There is no constitutional requirement that the President be born in a hospital or be delivered by a physician.

DrConspiracy 04/21/2010 6:54pm
in reply to DrConspiracy Apr 21, 2010 6:13pm

A link to the Hawaii Pelosi eligibility affidavit is:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/pelosiaffidavit.pdf

TxsgLoya 07/21/2009 6:50am

Its so clear in the constitution, how could obama get away with never showing proof. This bill needs to pass so no more anti-American Marxist get into the oval office.

chicks8439 02/20/2011 4:34pm
in reply to vminch Mar 17, 2009 6:19am

Thanks for your effort to finally bring Obama’s true heritage out in the open.
I would have gone a step farther by requiring him to present his long form birth
certificate, the one signed by the doctor that delivered him as this is the way it is always done.

Why hasn’t someone already demanded his removal from office based on the one single fact Obama has verified many times already,his father was from Kenya.
This alone made him void as a candidate, As the beloved Constitution demands that all candidates must be natural born of two natural born parents.

Either way, I just wanted to say thinks for being one of the good guys here.

toray99 07/04/2009 5:15am
Link Reply
+ -1

I have to say something is wrong there. I never heard of a live birth certificate. I have my birth certificate it is a green card with a raised seal, reg. #, name, birth date, sex, place of birth, date filed, department of health for that state filed, by the commissioner of the state. I also have from the hospital that I was born a certificate with my footprints left and right and my mothers thumb prints. Has a seal with the doctor’s name on it that was the attending physician also signed by the superintendent from that hospital. This is from 1961 the year I was born. Was Hawaii so primitive back in 1961 ?

snowdogs 09/10/2009 12:30pm
Link Reply
+ -1

because the dictator we have in office now refuses to cooperate with the American public and come clean about his birth certificate and his place of birth.

jcm 06/11/2009 6:04pm
Link Reply
+ -1

Or, ask yourself whether the right-wing whackjobs pushing for this are instead pursuing a harassment agenda against our elected President.

quid 09/19/2009 10:46am
Link Reply
+ -1

This is a very important bill. I am afraid Obama has lead us into a constitutional crises along with those in the democrat party who verified his eligibility. WND has a recent article “what did Polsei know” showing the democrat party made two different versions of Obama certification of eligibility, one of which excluded the phrase “according to the constitution”.

There is absolutely no reason to not fix this oversight in the federal election laws, i encourage everyone to make it a high priority in your political goals.


Vote on This Bill

85% Users Support Bill

106 in favor / 18 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments