United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Brewer vetoes presidential 'birther' bill
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/elect ... -birther-bill-brewer-veto.html
Published: Apr 18, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-04-18 22:59:33 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 45482
Comments: 104
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill to require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state's ballot. The bill vetoed by Brewer on Monday would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. The Arizona bill included proof-of-qualification for all candidates appearing on Arizona ballots, with those varying by the office sought. Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state, but so-called "birthers" have demanded more proof. Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office. "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009. "In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far." The certificates are among the documents a candidate could submit in place of a birth certificate.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)
Heads must be exploding over at the cuckoo's nest.
Can you imagine if all 50 states required that the same long form BC HAD to be on file?
That the Constitution was being enforced by more than lip service?
Cite the clause to which you are referring. Thanks...
Article II Section I, U.S. Constitution: 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. You can find it yourself. Last time I'll do your homework.
Let's look at Arizona's law for a candidate wanting ballot access: 16-301. Nomination of candidates for printing on official ballot of general or special election At a primary election, each political party entitled and intending to make nominations for the ensuing general or special election shall, if it desires to have the names of its candidates printed on the official ballot at such general or special election, nominate its candidates for all elective, senatorial, congressional, state, judicial, county and precinct offices to be filled at such election except as provided in section 16-344. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arizona doesn't nominate and thus qualify the candidates, the political party does. Further complicating it is the fact that in some states' primaries, you vote for a slate of delagates, rather than the candidate. Then, there is the general election. Again, the political parties nominate the candidate but the vote isn't for that candidate but for electors who would, presumably, vote for that candidate. So, while the USCON states that only a natural born citizen may be POTUS, given how there is no dirct election of POTUS, .it is strangely silent as to how that provision would be enforced.
I wold imagine you enforce it by having prospective candidates for the office provide the paperwork needed to prove compliance with Article II Section I. If they cannot or will not do so, they should be disqualified. And rightly so.
The Party Leadership are required to sign off on this. In this case both Pelosi and Harry Reed signed statements affirming he was legally qualified to hold the office of President. This whole argument is like a dog chasing his tail. The professional criminal class we call politicians are going to circle their wagons on this or any other charge in order to show solidarity and professional courtesy. They HAVE to because they rely on a system of mutual assured destruction over each other,and there is no way either side of the ruling party is about to have the party questioned or the party leadership brought up on charges. Bill Clinton proved this when he was impeached and the US Senate refused to even look at the evidence they were OBLIGATED to review,and let him off the hook despite having proof of abuse of office,forcible rape,intimidation,perjury,etc,etc,etc. No US president is going to be removed from office,and Pelosi,Reed,and others are NOT going to be charged with or tried for fraud. Period. It ain't going to happen.
I never said there would be repercussions or anyone courageous enough to stand for the rule of law. I don't have any faith in the system as it now stands and those people in office are there because they corrupt and recognize it as the ultimate get rich quick scheme. They didn't go to Washington to drain the swamp. They are of the swamp and revel in it.
They didn't go to Washington to drain the swamp. They are of the swamp and revel in it. Because it needs to be repeated.
-- Schnittshow.com: Crazy birther woman hijacks Delaware town hall meeting The Birfer game will be as effective in hurting President barack Obama about as much as the impeachment gambit got President Clinton out of office. Privacy law protest long form birth certificates in Hawaii, and if there is an issue in the information on the long form that say would reveal a different father than Barack Obama Sr., it is his business. It has nothing to do with satisfying the issue of birfers, which is a red herring they cynically use as an issue to a means to an end rather than this allegedly pure devotion to expose the truth to serve justice in America. I like a country that gives a bit of wiggle room for privacy and does not give in to a mob with torches and pitchforks demanding this man's privacy rights be stripped. Obama is not going to lose the 2012 election on this. The Clintons and others have shared their wisdom gained from dealing with gambits like this one, and if anything, it will wind up helping to re-elect him. Which will incidentally be the first time we have re-elected a president since Bill Clinton. If a bald theft of a presidential election does not keep a boy jorge out of the White House, the house of card of the birfer issue is hardly going to matter in the next election.
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#64)
I agree. Total waste of time because it is a fixed game. The professional political criminal class WILL protect each other,regardless of who or what else is put at risk. FWIW,I PERSONALLY think he was born in Hawaii,and the reason he is hiding his birth certificate is because the father named on it is Frank Marshall Davis,not Barack Obama. There is NOTHING about this guys legend that is true. Nothing. I just want the birth certificate to be a serious issue because the Dims tried to use this issue themselves to have McLunatic (I would have voted for the acting President before I would have voted for McLunatic) declared ineligible,so turn about is fair play. Besides,if WE are required to obey the laws on the land,the same should apply to the politicians. He may have slipped under the radar this time,but it is important that neither he nor anyone else slip under the radar in the future. It is time to close any possible loopholes in the law and hold the political class accountable. if there is an issue in the information on the long form that say would reveal a different father than Barack Obama Sr., it is his business. It would be his business if he were a private citizen. He's not. He is the president of the United States,he swore his oath under an assumed name,and all this is the business of the public. In fact,it would be accurate to say he DID NOT EVEN SWEAR AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION because he didn't swear it under his legal name. He is an imposter. It has nothing to do with satisfying the issue of birfers, which is a red herring they cynically use as an issue to a means to an end .... That may be true for a tiny minority,but I think the majority of them are sincere. They really do believe this,and the fact that he refuses to address it when it would be such a simple thing to prove or disprove only reinforces their suspicions I like a country that gives a bit of wiggle room for privacy and does not give in to a mob with torches and pitchforks demanding this man's privacy rights be stripped. Public figures don't have the same privacy rights as private figures. Never have,never will. By virtue of their positions and power they MUST be held open to public scrutiny. If he had wanted to keep the circumstances of his birth and early life private,he should have remained a private citizen. AND......,if he had been white he would have never gotten away with it. Obama is not going to lose the 2012 election on this. If he or a RINO win the WH in 2012,this country enters it's death throes. We are already so far down that slippery slope thanks to the Bush Crime Family and the Clintons that there will be no recovering if we take one more step. If a bald theft of a presidential election does not keep a boy jorge out of the White House,... You still don't get it,do you? We ALREADY have a Boy Jorge type in the WH right this very moment. Barry Soetoro is nothing more than Bush 4.0. Like the other Bushes,including Bubba Bush,he is a whore being pimped out by the international bankers,and he puts his own personal well-being ahead of the well-being of the nation.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Bartcoprules (#3)
#5. To: war (#4)
#6. To: Rudgear (#5)
That the Constitution was being enforced by more than lip service?
#7. To: war (#6)
#8. To: Rudgear (#7)
#11. To: war (#8)
#24. To: Rudgear (#11)
I wold imagine you enforce it by having prospective candidates for the office provide the paperwork needed to prove compliance with Article II Section I.
#39. To: sneakypete (#24)
No US president is going to be removed from office,and Pelosi,Reed,and others are NOT going to be charged with or tried for fraud. Period. It ain't going to happen.
#58. To: Rudgear (#39)
I don't have any faith in the system as it now stands and those people in office are there because they corrupt and recognize it as the ultimate get rich quick scheme.
#64. To: sneakypete (#58)
Replies to Comment # 64. The Birfer game will be as effective in hurting President barack Obama about as much as the impeachment gambit got President Clinton out of office.
Barack Obama 
Barry Soetoro 
Frank Marshall Davis
End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]