Replies

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.