I hope she signs the bill, but remember she’s a former SOS???
Regardless, I’m very afraid it will be overruled by the cowardly courts, hmmm!!!
There was a thread that linked to an article at http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/04/16/20110416arizona-birther-bill-legal-challenges.html where some professor at ASU was saying it would be unconstitutional because having to prove eligibility in order to be on the ballot would be making an eligibility requirement above and beyond what the Constitution gives.
If that is the case, then ANY criteria that a state uses for deciding who to put on the ballot is unconstitutional; everybody’s name has to be on the ballot.
There can’t be a filing fee. There can’t be a requirement that somebody be the candidate of their party or that the party file any forms, or that non-party candidates receive so many signatures before being placed on the ballot. Heck, they couldn’t even require any affidavits of people claiming to be eligible. All that administrative stuff would be unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t say a person has to jump through those hoops to be eligible.
It is critical that this bill be signed. Ultimately what it does is to make sure that the legal issue of eligibility is determined in a legal venue - the courts, which is the proper place for legal controversies involving fact and law are to be resolved. The only part of this bill that really matters is the granting of standing for legal residents and state lawmakers to challenge SOS eligibility decisions.
Whoever in that article said this bill is unconstitutional because we can’t have 50 different SOS’s making up rules for who is eligible is totally disingenuous, because that is the situation we have now and this bill would remedy that problem by placing the issue in the courts.
Furthermore, the bill has a severability clause so even if somebody argued that the documentation requirements were unconstitutional, the parts not challenged would still be in effect. Unless somebody wants to argue in court that a state can’t allow individuals to hold their government legally accountable for obeying a law or the Constitution, standing would be granted. And that is the critical piece. That is the part that would allow the transaction logs to be subpoenaed and show any tampering with his birth and citizenship records, and that is the part that would allow the “natural born citizen” issue to be decided in the courts. That part is why anybody who has questions about Obama’s eligibility can/should support this bill.
Brewer needs to understand that.
I’m trying to figure out how to get that message to Brewer. I’m afraid her “experts” may be steering her wrong. I’m racking my brain trying to remember who is from Arizona, or how we can let her know that even if she thinks the documentation requirements are extra-Constitutional, she should sign the bill because though the documentation parts will be challenged and probably put on hold, the part granting legal standing is the critical part, is Constitutional, and would go into effect even if other parts are challenged.
I’m going to be in and out today, but we need to let Brewer know how important this is, before Thursday. ASAP would be best. But to get her attention will take some kind of connection. When I called Seel’s office just trying to find out if they got my e-mail, it took too long to bring up the e-mails for them to even be able to tell me. They said he had 6000 e-mails and there was no way he’d ever be able to read them. I’m sure it’s even worse trying to contact Brewer. We need to brainstorm a way to get this information to her. I’m pinging a bunch of people. If they can ping everybody they know who cares about this issue maybe we can find somebody with insight on how to get this message to Brewer.