Posted on 04/19/2011 6:01:13 PM PDT by Red Steel
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday credited Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) for making "the right decision" with her veto of the so-called "birther bill," which would have required presidential candidates to submit their birth certificates in order to qualify for the ballot.
-snip-
Legislation like this has been offered in a number of state legislatures across the country, driven by persistent speculation in some quarters that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. No similar law had gotten as far as a governor's desk, however.
McCain, Obama's 2008 Republican rival, said in a message posted to Twitter Tuesday afternoon that he was "proud" of Brewer "for her veto of the 'birther bill' - it was the right decision."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If McStain thinks it was a good idea then you know she screwed up.
Well said!
Arnold Schwarzenegger
That’s 2 for Arnold 2012.
If we’re going to have a single issue candidate on this issue, I’ll take Arnold over Trump.
Seriously. I would be far more entertained by Arnold 2012 than Trump 2012, who is pretending to be conservative.
And seriously, what exactly would stop Arnold from getting on the ballot, at least in the primaries? We really don’t know. And if Arnold runs, he is certain to get votes, if we’re allowed to just throw away any proof of citizenship, and it appears we are. We don’t want him to win, because he’s not a Conservative, but if he ran, he could just say “there is no state law stopping me from appearing on the ballot.” And the Dems would consider the state laws we want to stop Obama to stop Arnold.
It would certainly make things much easier. And it’s funny, because citizenship aside, he’d win easy, even though we’d prefer. 2 term Governor of the biggest state. That’s top experience. And as famous as any.
Run Arnold Run.
This is crazy but I think the next election cycle or two will go our way. We’ll make a conscious national decision to default on our debt to countries we’ve saved from domination (basically everyone we owe, and as if we have a choice) and then we’ll get creamed by everyone at once.
We’ll then learn that immorality doesn’t match up very well against ammorality, in a fight. As if we haven’t learned that lesson very quickly. The speed of their advance is overwhelming our shallow defenses. We live in intersting times.
The negative reaction to Brewer’s veto of this bill is a bit surprising, to the extent it truly represents FR sentiments.
The AZ bill as an eligibility bill is laughable and the supporting Republican legislators should be embarrassed. For whatever reason, Brewer’s veto is in AZ’s interest. To the extent other states would have been inclined to use the bill as a model, the veto serves a much larger interest.
The bill purports to establish NBC and then says nothing at all about the parents or their citizenship. That is to say, that upon presentation of a long form BC, any anchor baby could demand to be placed on the ballot. But if the anchor baby does not have a long form, that is not a problem as the bill accepts several easily fabricated documents in lieu thereof. (”We would not want to offend anyone, would we.”)
Those who criticize the veto should think about that – an anchor baby could present such alternative documents, demand a place on the ballot and almost certainly the AZ judiciary would agree that candidate had complied with the requirements of the statute. There would be no opportunity for discovery that leads to a smoking gun document, as suggested by others. Talk about screwing up the election process!
Any anchor baby who plans to register for the AZ primary is applauding this bill; and some of us do expect an anchor baby to try and register in 2012. As you said on another thread, “Obama doesn’t have a BC generated from any Hawaiian hospital. That won’t be produced.” No problem, if this bill becomes law.
The fix: AZ Republicans should take some testosterone injections and craft a bill that does the job, and that includes prevailing before the USSC. And, delete the backup documents nonsense, candidates will have been born in the U.S. most likely on or after 1950, in a hospital with sophisticated record keeping; there will be little chance of a home birth, especially one with no doctor.
This can’t be. Sarah Palin told us John McCain is a conservative hero.
John, John.. take your medication and get back in your bed. We’ll call you when it’s time for dinner.
Sounds better, but how long does the court have to reach a decision until the ballots are printed, and can there be an appeal?
“This bill would have allowed any legal resident to challenge the eligibility decision”
STE=Q
IF THE CANDIDATE
11 AND NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR THAT COMMITTEE SUBMIT AND SWEAR TO
12 THE DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, BUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE ****BELIEVES****
13 THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET
14 THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL
15 NOT PLACE THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S NAME ON THE BALLOT IN THIS STATE
The SOS can keep a candidate off based on whether he/she “believes” (see line 14&15)
So what if the SOS decides NOT to put someone on the ballot because he/ she “believes” etc.
Keep in mind the word is “ENFORCE”(the section) — not “challenge” — his/her decision!
STE=Q
These documents are parsed in legalese and if one isn’t a lawyer (I am not)it’s easy to have a misunderstanding.
I still think it’s a pretty good bill but I would prefer your word “challenge” to the word “enforce.”
You could “challenge” a “belief” of the SOS but I don’t see how you could reverse his/her/ decision to remove based on “enforcement” of the section.
STE=Q
pond scum has more integrity than McCain
******
How about Palin for President, Trump for Vice-President? Just a thought.
And if they don't possess one, then why insist on Obama producing one? This bill will change nothing - Obama is already producing other than the long form.
Aim higher.
All the RINO’s need voted out. But is it going to be too late before Obama destroys America?
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/156745-inouye-take-trump-seriously-
*******
One tv reporter asked Trump if he was saying that Hawaii officials were lying when they said that they had seen Obama's long form birth certificate. Trump didn't really answer the question. He just said that Obama should show us his long form birth certificate.
I was thinking this: If I were Trump I would go ahead and call former Hawaii official Fukino a liar because she said that she had seen Obama's long form birth certificate.
1. Why would I call Fukino a liar if I were Trump?
2. I would do it for this reason: I would want Fukino to SUE me in court.
3. If Fukino dared to SUE Trump for slander in court, I think that she would have to produce Obama's long form birth certificate in court, and she would have to take the stand and be subject to vigorous cross-examination.
4. Myself, I don't believe that Fukino would ever sue Trump in court no matter how often Trump called her a liar, because Fukino would be scared that she would have to (1) present a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate in court for all the world to see in order to defend herself, (2)she would be subject to vigorous cross-examination, and (3) the world-wide publicity of the trial could possibly embarrass Obama to the point that he could lose the 2012 presidential election.
5. So I say this to Trump: Call Fukino a liar and bait her to sue you in court for slander, because, in the process, Fukino will have to produce Obama's long form birth certificate in court in order to prove that she was NOT lying when she said that she had personally seen Obama's long form birth certificate in the Hawaii government files. And that is what we want: We want to finally get our hands on Obama's long form birth certificate to find out why Obama does not want us to see it.
6. However, in my opinion, there is no way Fukino would ever sue Trump for slander even if an Obama long form birth certificate existed.
7. Fukino will simply stay silent no matter how hard it is for her to remain silent, because she doesn't want to have to produce Obama's long form birth certificate in court in order to prove that she was NOT lying about personally examining Obama's long form birth certificate, and because she could cost Obama the 2012 presidential election if she SUED Trump and the judge ordered her to produce Obama's long form birth certificate.
When we were working on the Nebraska eligibility bill we tried getting an amendment that would have specifically stated that the challenge had to be filed in expedited state court within a certain timeframe so that the ballots would still be printed on time.
The candidate him/herself knows whether they are eligible, and if the political parties were half as earnest as they should be they would make darn sure that the person they offer up for their members to be able to vote on is eligible. Berg absolutely had a case, absolutely had standing, because if he invested in the DNC and then the DNC only offered him an ineligible candidate, his money was totally wasted and his chance to have his vote count was stolen from him. This is serious doo-doo and Nancy Pelosi and her ilk need to get that through their thick skulls. You don’t screw an entire nation and laugh it off.
So anyway, by the time the national party conventions are held the leadership BETTER know that all the people who could get the nomination are eligible. It is the DNC and RNC that should be BEGGING for a ruling on NBC. They’ve got one chance to get their candidate right, and they sure as shootin’ better be sure they’ve got it right.
I think we need to tell the political parties that WHETHER OR NOT a state requires the documentation, we will not give them one red cent unless they promise, in writing, to make public the documentation for their primary candidates and that they promise to file a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of any candidate from any party whose birth and citizenship records have not been made public, available for public inspection in person.
We may not have a choice whether to pay taxes, but we have a choice whether we contribute to a political party, and by golly they better take our concerns seriously.
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.