Posted on 04/18/2011 6:15:48 PM PDT by RBW in PA
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Monday that would have required presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates to appear on the ballot, and another that would have allowed guns to be carried on school grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at tucsonsentinel.com ...
While I’m not sure what to think as to whether she did the right thing or not, at least she apparently READ the bills.
Looks like conservative Arizonans got snookered.
Why would I go read your blog that doesn’t care one wit about the truth?
You dolt, get lost. Your blog is a bunch of lies. Seriously, you need to get your head examined and get a life.
Posted by: Transnational
Apr 18, 05:32 AM
It appears to me that the legislation that is in process in Arizona will do the opposite of what various news reports have characterized the bill to accomplish. Of course, America is only his mother’s country. Barry’s “alleged” biological father’s country was Kenya. I recommend that people read the information about the bill that is available at the Arizona web address as follows:
[www.azleg.gov]
The current wording of that Arizona bill could be interpreted as making a child born to only one American parent a “natural born” United States citizen. Note the bill’s language as follows: “A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.”
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/806394.html
The Bill, if you agree with the comment posted in comments at American Thinker article, appears to be faulty. More reason to veto it?
Seems that you crossed a line there, the one which says “He who first calls attention to oneself by hurling invective and spittle is always the guilty party”.
I won’t even look to your history. Your one post there says more about your state of mind than any imagined mistakes on the part of your target.
JRochelle, short for, ‘Gee, I got up on the wrong side of the bed today’.
Did any of you bother to read why she vetoed the bill? Looking at the responses I’m guessing no you didn’t.
Why I vetoed HB2177 (qualifications for federal, state and local elections)by Governor Jan Brewer on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 1:33pm
I vetoed HB2177 yesterday and I would like to take a moment to explain why I made that decision.
The bill would have granted sole power to the secretary of state, a county recorder or a city clerk to arbitrarily remove any candidate from the ballot in any federal, state or local election. As a former secretary of state, I do not support designating one person, at their own discretion, as the gatekeeper to determine who can and cannot appear on the ballot, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions in future elections.
Also, the bill would require candidates for President - regardless of gender - to submit various records, including baptismal or circumcision records. I hope that it’s obvious why these type of requirements could be problematic.
I believe the bill created significant new problems for our elections and granted too much power to either a state or local election official who could arbitrarily prohibit anyone from appearing on the ballot in any federal, state or local election.
As Governor of Arizona, I do not have line-item veto authority for non-appropriation bills, such as this bill. Although many of you may be disappointed in my decision, it was the right thing to do based on the consequences of the entire bill.
From the Bill:
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate's long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:
(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
(b) Hospital birth record.
(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.
(d) Early census record.
So, she knows Obama doesn't have a Long Form Birth Certificate? Or, she was told revelation of such would be 'embarrassing' to the President. (Was in a previous legal response by Obama's attorneys.)
Constitution and the rule of law mean plenty to me. The SCOTUS hasn’t taken up this situation, correct? Therefore, as far as the law of the land goes, he not only was eligible to be President he remains eligible.
You’re applying YOUR standards to this but the courts obviously view it differently. I’d remind you that there are 5 conservatives on the SCOTUS and I don’t see them taking up this case, meanwhile almost every case in the lower courts has been thrown out.
It just makes us look ridiculously stupid.
“Jan Brewer WAS the Arizona Secretary of State for the 2008 Presidential election. SHE validated the usurper on Arizona’s ballot. She is implicated in the cover up.”
Excellent point.
I can understand her not signing bills she thinks are weak or not strong enough, but it seems she vetoed at least one good bill here.
She just lost her base - no matter what her excuse is. We’re looking for uncompromising, get in their face, leaders. This looks like same old, same old. IMO.
She probably likes to dart to the right before an election and then dart to the left after an election. As I understand it, she was in political trouble partially due to her awful fiscal record before she passed that immigration law.
Perhaps, like Ahnold, she has some Kennedy’s in her family.
It is disappointing to say the least....I just can’t stand watching these political “genuises” cave in on one issue after the other....just a bunch of dadblamed fools!!
Obama’s eligibility has never been legally determined. The 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the VP-elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Based upon what the HDOH has said, in order for Obama to prove his AGE he has to submit his amended BC to a judicial or administrative person or body. Until he does that it is the legal equivalent of Monopoly money.
We know Obama hasn’t qualified. Without a court case he can’t even prove his age.
The fact that the Supreme Court is “evading the issue” has no bearing on Obama’s actual eligibility whatsoever. He either is or isn’t eligible. Without even being able to prove his age neither you nor anybody else including SCOTUS can even say whether he is eligible.
If that’s OK with you then all I can say is that as long as it’s the Supreme Court justices who trample the Constitution you seem to be perfectly fine with it. I’m not.
And I’m also not fine with the laws broken to cover for Obama - the forgeries by government officials, the hiding of rules, the deceptive public statements even while the official communications reveal that they know Obama is guilty of forgery, etc ad nauseum. I’m not fine with every on-air personality being told that if they report on the eligibility issue their career, life, and family are fair game. I’m not fine with the constant lies being told the public. I’m not fine with the passport file being breached 3 times because somebody at the State Dept specifically disabled the security protocols all 3 times. I’m not fine with Obama using a SSN that was never issued to him. I’m not fine with judges blatantly breaking ethics rules. I’m not fine with judges telling us all that it’s none of our business whether our government obeys the laws and the Constitution, as if we lose nothing if we lose the rule of law and this nation.
See, anybody who would be embarrassed because I care about whether my country becomes a lawless, third-world dictatorship is too stupid to even waste time on.
Don’t bother using the word “us”. I don’t know who you’re talking about, but if you don’t give a rip for all the law-breaking, then I’m definitely not part of your “us” and you don’t have to be “embarrassed” by me. I share nothing in common with you.
ACtually the reason she gave for vetoing the eligibility bill leaves me seriously wondering whether she even read the thing. The bill would have added three more “gatekeepers”, yet she acted as if VETOING it would keep there from being just the SOS as gatekeeper.
Her reason made absolutely no sense.
Just as I thought. You won’t answer the questions. All you have to offer is name-calling.
Just like everybody else who calls people like me “ignorant”.
Your slip is showing.
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.