Montana HB 205 (2011 Birther Bill

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:03 pm

Committee consideration of the Montana Birther Bill has been defered until Monday February 14th. Apparently some amendments were not ready in time for today's meeting.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:25 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Committee consideration of the Montana Birther Bill has been deferred until Monday February 14th. Apparently some amendments were not ready in time for today's meeting.

"born within a state or territory of the United States" - IRR needs to read UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF the United States. This way - any citizens of a US Commonwealth and children of the US Military born overseas to service folks stationed outside the US proper - while being native born, wouldn't be eligible.

This clause would have kept John McCain from being elected as he was not born on an official territory of the US. He was born on an overseas military base. Anyone born while both mommy and daddy is stationed overseas serving a with dependents tour is shit out of luck. Sorry McCain - no can do.

Oh yes, children of ambassadors and their staff would also not be eligible. It is a little much to ask US citizens to give up the future rights of their children for a diplomatic post.

This just goes to show how truly out of their depth the Montana Legislature continues to be. They are going to open a huge can of worms just by being birthers.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:02 pm

OK hot of the intertoobz!

Montana Bill is tabled!

Rep Skees brought forward a Vattelist amendment and in the course of the debate realised that he'd made a mess of drafting it . His version required both parents to be US citizens at birth a proposition that even he didn't agree with! It was then inevitable that the amendment would be tabled.

Moving to the bill itself debate focused on the requirement that candidates be born in a state or territory of the US. Several members (including one born in Australia to two US citizens) argued that this was not so and it was 'settled law' those born abroad to US citizens were NBCs.(this also featured in the debate on the amendment)

On a motion of "do pass" the roll call vote tied at 9 all. This was quickly followed by a motion to table and on the initial voice vote only one voice said 'No'. However, the chair called a roll call vote and the motion to table was carried 10-8, so I suspect several members covering their backs with their local crazies.

A few asides:

1) the debate was short( 10 - 15 minutes ) and compared to the sort of debates we see on this board and others rather lightweight and unsophisticated;
2)during an earlier recess, the microphones were left on and I distinctly heard on representative refer to 'the crazy birthers';
3) two of the votes in favour and against tabling were done by proxy - I wonder if they would have still done so if they'd heard the debate?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

Thanks for the great report, WD.

And thanks for monitoring these debates for us.

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:30 pm

Thanks WD!

Welsh Dragon wrote:

His version required both parents to be US citizens at birth a proposition that even he didn't agree with!

Geeze Louise, the birthers are so rabid to exclude President Obama that they can't even think straight! :roll:

Adelante · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:26 pm

Flathead Memo

Quote:

Birther bill supporters are the fire-eaters of the 21st Century ...

No one should have illusions about this bill’s true purpose. If enacted into law HB-205 would settle nothing. The people behind these laws are not interested in establishing a bright line standard of proof for settling questions of a candidate’s citizenship. Were documentation meeting the letter of the law presented, it never would be accepted. HB-205 has but one objective: to help delegitimize President Obama’s claim to citizenship and American values by presenting him as a pretender, as a foreign-born black Islamic extremist, as the Manchurian Candidate from Nairobi.

The zealotry and recklessness underlying this legislation and campaign are breathtaking. We have not seen the like for 150 years. In conviction, fecklessness, tenor, and all other manner, they resemble the southern fire-eaters who were hellbent on destroying the union so they could preserve slavery. Today’s fire-eaters are not trying to re-impose human slavery, but they are trying to destroy the legacy of the New Deal and Great Society — Social Security, fair wages, government regulation of critical economic sectors, Medicare, Medicaid — so that America’s poor and middle classes can be economically re-enslaved to the genre of crooks and greedy scoundrels who brought us the Great Depression. They’re willing to accept great economic damage to the country to get their way, for they believe they will rise from the wreckage richer than ever. HB-205 is part of that scheme.

rajah · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:38 pm

So am I correct in thinking that this bill was not passed on to the next stage but just sits there until somebody does something about it.
If that is the case and no action is taken then the bill just fades away. Please correct me if I am wrong!
Regards .........Dick

Adelante · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:11 pm

Correct, Raj. It can be reconsidered at a later time, but probably won't.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:43 am

realist wrote:

Thanks for the great report, WD.

And thanks for monitoring these debates for us.

Ditto!

Thanks.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6635

Is a Birther Legislation ScoreCard in order?

BFB · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:21 pm

kimba wrote:

Is a Birther Legislation ScoreCard in order?

I second that!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23582

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5407&p=209642#p209293

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:52 pm

realist wrote:

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5407&p=209642#p209293

It needs updating - I'll try and do it later today. I'll also be posting a bit summary of how I'm seeing the big picture on the eligibility bills later

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:15 pm

You're the best, WD - and you must be sooooooo excited - your stuff has even been singled out by O RLY??

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:24 am

Anderson Cooper did a hit piece on the Montana birther bill tonight. The bill's sponsor came off looking as stoopid as he is, and then Jeffrey Toobin dimissed the Vattel nonsense. $\:D/$

twinx · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:47 am

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Jeffrey Toobin dimissed the Vattel nonsense. $\:D/$

But even he got the (majority) of the Vattel Birther(s) stance slightly wrong, saying Vattel said not only do you have to be born in the US, but both your parents have to be born in the US.

Edit: This has also been picked up by the people at the P&E. Coopers 360 show staff can now expect many angry emails from full metal de Vattelites.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Montana HB 205 (2011 Birther Bill

Who is online