It could be a game-changer.

A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove  their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even  though it has just been introduced.

The proposal from state  Rep. Judy Burges, who carried a similar plan that  fell short last year only because of political maneuvering, was introduced  yesterday with 16 members of the state Senate as co-sponsors.

It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.

In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only  31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber  members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply  didn’t wish to be listed as co-sponsors.

Order your copy of Jerome Corsi’s upcoming blockbuster, “Where’s the  Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President,”  autographed from the WND Superstore and be among the first get this historic  book when it is released this spring.

The proposal, which also is being taken up in a  number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions  that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. It says: 

(Story continues below)

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the  candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which  the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall  append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural  born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the  residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in  article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.The critical phrases are  “natural born citizen” and the requirements of “article II, section 1,  Constitution of the United States,” which imposes on the president a requirement  not demanded of other state and federal officeholders.

Get  the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to  Obama’s presidency

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, 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 have called for a “natural born citizen” to be  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  “Certification of Live Birth” his campaign posted online is a document that  Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

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 terroritory when he was born and the framers of the  Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

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 officer, 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.

Burges told WND she’s asked the proposal to be assigned to the  Government Committee.

“I think every American should consider it of prime importance  to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation  meet all constitutional requirements,” she told WND. “We do not accept the  federal government’s unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their  extended branches.”

The Arizona bill also requires attachments, “which shall be  sworn to under penalty of perjury,” including “an original long form birth  certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital  and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.” 

It also requires testimony that the candidate “has not held dual  or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the  United States of America.”

“If both the candidate and the national political party  committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents  prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that  presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state,” the state plan  explains.

The governor’s office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who  has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as a  year ago when lawmakers adopted provisions that allowed state law enforcement  officers to enforce federal immigration law. The state’s move prompted an  immediate court challenge by Washington.

WND also has reported that similar efforts are  under way in Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas:

Montana

Under Montana’s plan by Rep. Bob Wagner,  candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for  protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for  “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election  officials’ to do their duty.

“There should be no question after the fact as to the  qualifications [of a president],” Wagner told WND. “The state of Montana needs  to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation.” 

Wagner’s legislation cites  the Constitution’s requirement that the president hold “natural born  citizenship” and the fact that the “military sons and daughters of the people of  Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to  defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against  enemies foreign and domestic.”

But there are estimates of up to $2 million being spent on  Obama’s defense against eligibility lawsuits. There have been dozens of them and  some have been running for more than two years. So Wagner goes a step beyond. 

“Whereas, it would seem only right and just to positively  certify eligibility for presidential and congressional office at the federal  level; and whereas, it is apparent that the federal authority is negligent in  the matter; therefore, the responsibility falls upon the state; and whereas,  this act would safeguard the people of Montana from unnecessary expense and  litigation and the possibility that federal election officials fail in their  duty and would ensure that the State of Montana remains true to the  Constitution,” says his proposed legislation.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, there was excitement over the GOP majority of  both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office. 

Assemblyman Daryl  Metcalfe told WND he is working on a proposal that would  demand documentation of constitutional eligibility.

He described it as a “problem” that there has been no  established procedure for making sure that presidential candidates meet the  Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born  citizen.”

“We hope we would be able to pass this legislation and put it  into law before the next session,” he said.

He said any one of the states imposing such a requirement would  be effective in solving his concerns.

“I think the public relations nightmare that would ensue if any candidate would thumb their  noses at a single state would torpedo their campaign,” he told WND.

Georgia

Rep. Mark  Hatfield has confirmed to WND that he will have a  similar proposal pending.

He had introduced the legislation at the end of last year’s  session to put fellow lawmakers on alert that the issue was coming.

“I do plan to reintroduce the bill,” he told WND. “We’ll move  forward with trying to get it before a committee.”

In Georgia, Republicans hold majorities in both houses of the  legislature as well as “every constitutional statewide office,” he noted. 

“I would be optimistic that we can [adopt the legislation],” he  said.

Hatfield said if only one or two states adopt such requirements,  it readily will be apparent whether a candidate has issues with eligibility  documentation or not. And while he noted a president could win a race without  support from a specific state, a failure to qualify on the ballot “would give  voters in other states pause, about whether or not a candidate is in fact  qualified,” he said.

“My goal is to make sure any person that aspires to be president  meets the constitutional requirements,” he said. “This is a first step in that  direction.”

Texas

WND reported on a bill prefiled for the Texas  Legislature by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would require such  documentation.

Berman’s legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple: 

It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for  president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s  original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United  States citizen.”

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012  presidential campaigning.

                           
State Rep. Leo Berman               

Berman told WND he’s seen neither evidence nor indication that  Obama qualifies under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a  “natural-born citizen.”

“If the federal government is not going to vet these people,  like they vetted John McCain, we’ll do it in our state,” he said.

He noted the Senate’s investigation into McCain because of the  Republican senator’s birth in Panama to military parents.

Berman also said there will be pressure on any lawmaker who  opposes the bill, since voters would wonder why they wouldn’t want such basic  data about a president revealed. And he said even if one state adopts the  requirement, there will be national implications, because other states would be  alerted to a possible problem.

“If Obama is going to run for re-election in 2012, he’ll have to  show our secretary of state his birth certificate and prove he’s a natural-born  citizen,” he said. “This is going to be significant.”

Berman said he’s convinced there are problems with Obama’s  eligibility, or else his handlers would not be so persistent in keeping the  information concealed.

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. 

Other state plans also might be in the works but unannounced  yet. Officials with the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures  said they were not tracking bills in development.

But Orly  Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number  of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, said efforts are under way now  in Missouri and Oklahoma, too.

She said the bill is expected to be successful in Missouri where  there is a GOP majority in the legislature, and in Oklahoma, where last year a  similar plan failed by only one vote in the state Senate.

She encouraged residents of Tennessee, New Hampshire, South  Dakota, California, Maine, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and  Iowa to contact their lawmakers, as there has been some interest expressed. 

“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.

Last year, several other states listened to proposals that could  have had an impact on eligibility documentation. In New Hampshire, officials  wanted to require candidates to meet the “qualifications contained in the U.S.  Constitution.” In Oklahoma, lawmakers heard a plan to let voters decide the  issue, and in South Carolina, the plan was to prevent candidates from being on  the ballot unless “that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal  citizen of the United States.”

Further, several other states discussed requirements for  candidates, but they did not specifically address the Article 2, Section 1  constitutional compliance, so it’s unclear whether they would have addressed  Obama’s situation.

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 this year  will move such a plan forward.

There also  is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking  them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the  Constitution’s eligibility requirements.

“What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing  this strategy on the petition encouraging more action by state officials  before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures  before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or  forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win  without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don’t think so,” said Joseph Farah,  CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal  authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans,  and it attracted more than half a million names. 

For 18 months, Farah has been one of the few national figures  who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule,  name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in  addition to the earlier petition, he has:

      erected billboards around the country demanding, “Where’s the birth  certificate?”:

    produced a 40-page special report on the subject;

    produced a 60-minute documentary video primer on the  issue;

    manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the  topic;

    pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere  else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to  raise the amount;

    created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president  to raise visibility of the issue;

    created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of  investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over  the last two years;

    launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue  alive;

    distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, “Where’s the birth  certificate?” Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

“Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the  Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated  his willingness to do in his first year in office,” he wrote in a column.  “However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with  a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or  re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly  impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn’t take all 50 states complying  with the law to be effective.”