Posted on 04/19/2011 8:56:44 AM PDT by ColdOne
The vote it passed will over ride a Veto.
I’ve not read the specific bill, but surely there is some mechanism by which, if the Arizona Secretary of State denies eligibility, his decision can be appealed?? I’m sure he is not the absolute final arbiter.
She should have signed the bill and changes could have been made later with a new bill if there were any problems. Now she is part of the problem instead of the solution.
Exactly. What happens twenty years down the road when it isn’t a Republican who is the gov of AZ. That’s a lot of power to wield. Congress should be the certifying authority for eligibility.
A useless law is no better than no law at all. If you don't have to prove NBC (defined as born on U.S. soil, by 2 citizen parents) then what good is it?
The long form actual birth certificate has this information. In most cases this would be the only document required.
If it shows foreign born parents, for instance, you would have to provide other documentation such as naturalization records.
This is not hard. Not complicated. Anything less should be vetoed.
If you do not have documentation that PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a “Natural Born Citizen” the you can't be on the ballot. SORRY. Not everyone can be president. We don't have any standards, (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter) but we do have requirements. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
If you were born in the woods and no one saw it, did it really happen? Legally, no it didn't. The problem here is that you can't PROVE it. No we can't take your mommy's or granny's word for it. You are just out of luck.
Let's not lower the standard to include baptism certificates, circumcision papers, or NRA membership cards. If you don't have a bona fide long form birth certificate, you can sue, to try to get on the ballot.
How often would that come up? NOT VERY OFTEN. Why even try to cover every conceivable possibility. It is not possible, and only weakens the spirit of the law.
An American Indians you say. Eskimos you say. Cajun bayou births you say. FLDS Church farm births you say, Randy Weaver Idaho separatist types you say.
SORRY. Maybe you should take steps to legally register your children's’ births if you aren't doing so already. Living a separatist type lifestyle has some consequences. You are the exception. Why should we water down or ruin a good law to accommodate every situation that likely will never come up. If it does, it's up to those people to deal with it at that time.
Bobby Jindal has already pledged to sign a similar bill that's working its way through the LA legislature, and expected to pass shortly.
Virtually every state secretary of the state in this country exercises similar statutory authority when certifying people eligible for ballot access and when they certify election results. All this AZ statute does, is give some specific guidance to its SOS with respect to this issue. So, Brewer is either uninformed, or is being intentionally deceitful - the SOS already wields this power.
Moreover, there is PLENTY of established case law where a state secretary of state disallowed ballot access on the basis of a constitutional infirmity to hold (or run) for a particular national office. There is an appeals process - it's called litigation. If someone is disallowed from from the ballot, they can sue the SOS in civil court. It happens, almost every election cycle. Again, Brewer is being wholly disingenuous.
Your points agree with what my perception of things were. I just wondered if there was any "special" enumerated difference in the bill that might make it different from "standard operating procedure".
It looks like someone or some group got to her.
Not from what I remember when I read the statute. It's pretty short. But, jurisprudentially, virtually any decision or administrative ruling by a state officer would be subject to judicial review except in instances specifically addressed in the state Constitution or in a statute that included a judicial stripping provision. This statute didn't, and it's certainly not mentioned in the state Constitution
You make some very good points. Good for you for not being shortsighted.
Read section of the bill concerning presidential candidates....Obama would still qualify. No long form birth certificate...no problem.
16-507.01. Presidential candidates; affidavit of
7 qualifications; enforcement
8 A. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR
9 PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE
10 BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT
11 POLITICAL PARTY’S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND
12 VICE-PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE
13 CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT
14 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE
15 CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS
16 THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE
17 CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
18 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1,
19 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
20 B. THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A SHALL INCLUDE REFERENCES
21 TO AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE SWORN TO UNDER
22 PENALTY OF PERJURY:
23 1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S LONG FORM BIRTH
24 CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF
25 THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF
26 ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE. IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM
27 BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO
28 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM
29 BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY
30 AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
31 DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II,
32 SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
33 (a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.
34 (b) HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.
35 (c) POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD SIGNED BY THE
36 DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER
37 BIRTH.
38 (d) EARLY CENSUS RECORD.
39 2. A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESIDENTIAL
40 CANDIDATE’S PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.
41 C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL
42 CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO
43 WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S BIRTH.
Jan Brewer proved herself a worthless RINO turd.
Arizonans...start the recall drive against her immediately!
The veto with specific reasons commits her to working for an improved bill, yes?
Is there still time to pass a bill for the 2012 elections?
The veto might also serve to give Brewer cover that could be cited by Brewer in the future to demonstrate that she is not just a Tea Party / Birther “tool.” This would be useful to Brewer if she wanted to be re-elected or to run for president someday (just saying)...
“why?”
Listen to today’s 9:00 hour of Barry’s show for a good Expalnation.
see - http://www.kfyi.com/pages/podcasts.php
How come other states want AZ to take the heat for such legislation. Why not have YOUR state pass it.
“Arizonans...start the recall drive against her immediately!”
And, of course, you will force YOUR gov. to enact that legislation. Suuuuurrrrrrrreeeeeee!
Listen to the 9:00 Barry Young show.
http://www.kfyi.com/pages/podcasts.php
Talk is cheap. Let your state do it.
Absolutely! She was asked that very question last evening and answered that the legislature had sufficient Republican members to override if they decided to do so. She added that she hoped that the wouldn’t.
Personally, she went into the dumper on the matter. She didn’t even have a good answer as to why she did it. Later for her.
I suspect Corbett WOULD sign it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.