Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 1:48 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Looks as if there's case dead on point on the question of whether a state can require a candidate for Federal office to be registered voter and the anserer is no!

Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 . (10 th. Cir. 2000)

On top of everything - it's a decision of the 10th circuit, which includes OK

BTW - I've confirmed that the OK legislature is trying to adjourn tomorrow.

No wonder Orly Taitz is frantically imploring her half dozen followers to harass Oklahoma legislators.

bob · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 2:44 pm

I was able put up the May 19, 2011 Senate Conference Committee Substitute version of this bill. Not very birthery at all.

1. There's nothing specific required for the president or vice president. (Strike one!)

2. All candidates have to affirm that they "possess" proof of identity and qualification to hold office. (No big deal there.)

3. There is the voter registration bit. (But as noted, there's no way that's going to be applied to a federal candidate.)

4. The State of Election Boad is to determine and publish the qualifications of each election office. (But I would suspect for POTUS it'll just recite the requirements in the U.S. Constitution, and not suddenly go all Vattel.)

5. State law already allows an election board to reject any candidate whose declaration shows the candidate is not eligible. (This, I believe, addresses Roger Calero/Eldridge Cleaver issue.)

6. In an election contest, an election board may compel a candidate to produce proof of identity and qualification. (So could a court of law; no big deal.)

7. False eligibility-declaration swearing is a felony. (Any day now!)

lyssandri · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 5:23 pm

SuEdB wrote:

So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23523

Quote:

Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

Which is swearing under oath.

I would assume the words "or affirm" would also work, as that's the oath I give on an almost daily basis.

I think in my almost 40 years I've had maybe a half dozen people say "I so affirm" rather than swearing.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:15 pm

realist wrote:

Quote:

Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

Which is swearing under oath.

I would assume the words "or affirm" would also work, as that's the oath I give on an almost daily basis.

I think in my almost 40 years I've had maybe a half dozen people say "I so affirm" rather than swearing.

There are some sects that have a strict ban on oath-swearing and some take it even farther.

As in this case:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-0 ... arter-oath

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:17 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Looks as if there's case dead on point on the question of whether a state can require a candidate for Federal office to be registered voter and the anserer is no!

Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 . (10 th. Cir. 2000)

On top of everything - it's a decision of the 10th circuit, which includes OK

BTW - I've confirmed that the OK legislature is trying to adjourn tomorrow.

Excellent job...thank you for tying up the loose end. I was pretty sure, but didn't know where to find it.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:20 pm

thorswitch wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.

Curious Blue · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:27 pm

SuEdB wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.

What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?

Plutodog · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 6:51 pm

We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 8:32 pm

Curious Blue wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

So, since your religion (this IS Oklahoma) prevents you from swearing, as a good Christian - where does that leave you?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that good Christians aren't supposed to make oaths, or are you asking what I, as a non-Christian, would do? My faith has no prohibition on oath-swearing. In fact, we take it *extremely* seriously. Oathbreakers are considered to be nearly as dishonourable as violent criminals.

Of course, oaths attesting that information being provided is true are sworn every day in the Oklahoma courts by Christians and non-Christians alike, and from my understanding of what the bill is proposing, that's the kind of oath to which they're referring. Maybe a better choice of phrasing what they're wanting would have been to say that each candidate must, as part of their application, include an affidavit stating that they are qualified for the office they're seeking and can provide evidence of such if required, because it sounds to me like that's all they're really asking for.

They could have said so. As you can see, they elected to continue the stupid.

What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?

Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23523

Quote:

What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath [highlight]or affirm[/highlight] that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?

Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".

But it sez "or affirm."

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 8:36 pm

realist wrote:

Quote:

What are you talking about? The proposed statute specifically requires, "The candidates shall be required to swear an oath [highlight]or affirm[/highlight] that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public" What part of "swear an oath or affirm" is confusing or objectionable to you?

Swearing an oath when there isn't the option to "affirm".

But it sez "or affirm."

k dad

poutine · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 8:51 pm

We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

bob · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 8:58 pm

poutine wrote:

We are a quarrelsome bunch, ain't we?

No, we're not.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 11:10 pm

Plagiarists!

#$%^&*()_$#$^^%&)+

Plutodog · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 12:48 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Plagiarists!

#$%^&*()_$#$^^%&)+

We are a quarrelsome, grumpy bunch, ain't we? :lol:

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 9:15 pm

Ding Dong!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

$\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$

After a final session, which had a distinct “last day of school” tone, the OK House adjourned without even considering the Conference Committee Report.

Now there is a theoretical way for it to be resurrected but it’s so unlikely that I won’t mention it for fear of getting Orly’s little helper over-excited.

bob · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 9:16 pm

WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23523

bob wrote:

WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>

Indeed. Bravo WD.

Thanks for all your hard work on all these bills. =D>

Orly is gonna haz a madz. :lol:

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 9:46 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Ding Dong!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

The Bill is dead!

$\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$

After a final session, which had a distinct “last day of school” tone, the OK House adjourned without even considering the Conference Committee Report.

Now there is a theoretical way for it to be resurrected but it’s so unlikely that I won’t mention it for fear of getting Orly’s little helper over-excited.

No no no - put a damn stake through the heart of this evil abomination and let it rot in hell (or Oklahoma your choice).

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 9:49 pm

realist wrote:

bob wrote:

WD h/t on ballot-access.org!

=D>

Indeed. Bravo WD.

Thanks for all your hard work on all these bills. =D>

Orly is gonna haz a madz. :lol:

Kewl...'nother Orly EPIC FAIL!

Arizona, Oklahoma, My my my...the The Kiss-O-Death Queen Strikes Again!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 10:39 pm

Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

bob · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 10:58 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri May 20, 2011 11:01 pm

bob wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

Thanks. That 'splains it.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sat May 21, 2011 4:08 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

bob wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Did every bill fail? Or only those that Taitz endorsed?

Every bill failed. But, IIRC, Taitz endorsed them all. (Some more than others, of course.)

Thanks. That 'splains it.

It was the ones that Orly really went to bat for that were the true EPIC FAIL.
Every or Any Thing Orly endorses dies and goes away...She really is the True Kiss-O-Death.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Oklahoma S.B. 91 (2011)

Who is online