Skip to comments.Brewer vetoes birther, campus gun bills
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 ...
The Soros thing is a red herring.
As another poster pointed out, the SoS already has the duty to have their elections meet Constitutional requirements.
So we should have no Secretary of States and we should have no enforced Constitutional standards because Soros might a lefty elected as SoS?
Come on now.
Guns can be carried on school grounds now. Maybe someone is trying to let legal guns on campus. What a radical idea.
“Remember Jan Brewer WAS the Arizona Secretary of State for the 2008 Presidential election. SHE validated the usurper on Arizonas ballot. She is implicated in the cover up.”
DING...DING...DING...WE HAVE A WINNER.
Good for her as to the former. I was a little concerned about her veto of the gun bill; although her signing statement does put forward a plausible rationale. I’ll reserve judgement for a while yet; since she indicated that she would support a similar bill with clearer wording we’ll see what she does when and if the legislature satisfies her requirements.
Sounds like threats to her family to me..the federal gangsta may as well be telling us it does not give a crap about us, they will take our country, our assets and do what they want..
Why didn’t she just leave it alone... all we needed was one state to make this a requirement and when Barry doesn’t comply it makes it obvious he is a fraud.....
Hey Jan you know all those trees your looking at, guess what its actually a forest you idiot... You could have approved the bill and then after 2012 election you could have recinded it.....
The reason she gave was to keep a SOS from being able to make a politically-motivated decision to keep somebody off the Presidential ballot. The trouble is, her veto ensures that the decision WILL be made by a SOS and NOT by a judge who is authorized to interpret the Constitution and who has access to the critical records.
IOW, her action makes no sense with what she said.
Very, very disappointing.
Somebody got to her. That leaves Jindal (LA). IF the LA legislature passes their bill and he doesn’t sign it, we know all bets are off and the nation will be gone in 4-10 years.
Brewer did not explain it that way:
"As a former Secretary of State (sic), I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to artibrary or politically-motivated decisions," Brewer wrote in her veto message to House Speaker Kirk Adams.
"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President (sic) of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their "early baptismal or circumcision certificates" among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State. This is a bridge too far," Brewer wrote."
Brewer does not want any standards or if there are any standards under AZ law, she does not want a higher standard to vet presidential candidates. A bridge too far Jan??
Her reason makes no sense. This bill gives anybody the right to challenge in court whatever the SOS decides. That means that the decision will ultimately end up in the court’s hands, where it belongs.
Her reason makes no sense whatsoever. And I know that if she spoke to Seel at all, she knows that.
Something is definitely screwy here.
Are you not aware of the Soros Secretary of State program that got elected several key SOS’s in multiple States such as Minnesota where the Soros chosen SOS pulled off the fraud that got the Al Franken win!?
It’s happening all over the country. Soros is backing the Secretary of State project, and that is the probable reason as to why Brewer is afraid of giving all that unchecked authority to the SOS.
“So what you’re telling us Brewer that an obvious foreigner can get on the state presidential ballot? If not, then the SoS is a gate keeper.”
We almost never agree, but you nailed this one. There was no excuse whatsoever for not signing the bill. What is next, allowing teens to run because we don’t want a gatekeeper? WTF,O?!
I was going to ask if they can override the veto. You say they can?
So we should not have a SoS doing his or her job because Soros might get a lefty SoS elected, and that left SoS would then do the wrong thing?
What exactly is this Soros plan that you are so afraid of?
Another back room deal... another high-priced escort.
Yes she is!
Those records were some of the records that could be used if the long-form was not available.
They were using the same standards are used for other instances where proof of place of birth has to be determined by something besides a birth certificate. The Passport Office talks about “early records” - usually records before the age of five, but they have to be accompanied by an affidavit of an adult familiar with the circumstances of the birth to be used for a passport.
Brewer is acting like this is unheard of. Hasn’t she ever dealt with the Passport Office?
This whole thing doesn’t add up.
That’s what was reported earlier.
Like to add that there’s a technicality in all this “birther” business that may trip up Romney as a candidate. She may be a Mitbot so she would not let a law get enacted that would hurt Mit.
Using your logic we should elimate all SoS's and all elected positions because George Soros might get some lefty SoS's, Governors, Representatives, Senators and Presidents elected.
Correct!! Awful from Jan Brewer. Hope her veto gets overturned
I trust Brewer’s judgement. There is something specific that caused her to veto these bills and it’s not possible, without having the bill(s) in front of us, to know the precise language or what exactly was in them.
This is a woman who was absolutely brutalized but stood firm. I highly doubt that she is doing anything but what is in the best interest of her state.
The critical part is that the bill allows eligibility to be challenged in court, which means that any relevant records could be subpoenaed. What is specifically asked for is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the people have a right to challenge eligibility. Because of the severability clause, that provision would remain in place even if the required documentation was found to be unconstitutional.
Which is why Brewer’s comments make absolutely no sense. What she gave is actually a reason to SIGN the bill, because it gives the people the ability to hold a Secretary of State accountable THROUGH a court - which is the proper avenue for deciding controversies of fact and law.
Yeah if the votes stay the same as before they can override.
The House vote was 40 to 16 I think, and the Senate vote was 20 - 9 with 1 abstention.
Brewer on Greta 5 minutes ago: "...Baptismal or circumcision records...so I went on record and vetoed it."
This is a dishonest statement by her that omits that presidential candidates have other ways to they can get on the election ballot.
Brewer: "This vote was a distraction."
Only if you don't want the SoS to do the job, then it is a "distraction."
Oh, how I would LOVE to know for sure that she was threatened by Obama minions for this threat.
That simple fact, if true, if well known, could ALONE start a hot, shooting civil war.
Oh, how I would LOVE to know for sure that she was threatened by Obama minions to veto the birth certificate bill.
That simple fact, if true, if well known, could ALONE start a hot, shooting civil war.
Typical Republican... Gotta establish that liberal street cred.
No, no, no. I cannot say “no” emphatically enough.
The only part of this bill that mattered was the part that allowed legal residents or members of AZ’s House or Senate to challenge an eligibility decision in court. That is the very thing that would allow the transaction logs to be subpoenaed so that forgeries could be detected, and that would allow NBC to be defined in the courts.
This bill would do everything we need it to do. And it would make sure that a SOS could NOT make a decision based purely on politics. Brewer’s comment is the very reason why she should have SIGNED the bill.
"As stated in our previous pleadings herein, former California Secretaries of State have taken legal action to remove individuals from the ballot for failure to comply with the eligibility requirements to serve as President of the United States, although, in those cases, the issue had to do with the 'age' requirement, not the 'natural born citizen,'" the USJF said.
The filing continued with the warning, "If MR. OBAMA is not constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for President in the future, is eligible to serve in that office."
The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president, and then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president."
USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."
The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.
Even in the 2008 campaign, foreign-born third-party candidate Roger Calero was removed from ballots in some states, according to elections reports.
Isn’t there about at least 12 states with legislation?
Yes, you’re correct all bets will be off. Because if the same tyrannical forces remain all politics and discussion are frankly mute with what’s coming. It will be about the raw use of power, and we are slaves to no one. Civil war.
This bill specifically made it so that any legal resident could challenge the SOS’s decision in court. This bill takes power AWAY from the SOS and puts it in the hands of the judiciary, who alone is authorized to interpret the Constitution in matters of both law and fact.
To veto this bill is a move to insure that a SOS CAN act as a political hack, unchecked by either the people or by the rule of law.
I read the bill. It was vague and ambigous.
I’m thinking the COLB would have sufficed.
But. That’s not why she vetoed it. She vetoed it based on the power to the Sec. of State.
Or - maybe that’s what she wants to have the dumocrats believe.
This didn’t make it out of committee last year, even though it had the votes. The Pubbie decided the State had enough “ridicule” over SB 1070.
Oh, how I remember emailing and phoning her office to find out what criteria she used to be sure B0 was eligible to be on the AZ ballot. Never did get an answer. And yes, she will be overridden.
Apparently, letting the good guys carry is too scary for the hoplophobes. They are entirely comfortable letting another Virginia Tech massacre happen, though. They just wet their pants, then go on another rant against guns.
I am so sick of politicians trying to weasel their way past the Constitution.
Let the chips fall where they will. The Founding Fathers were a darn sight smarter than any of the morons who have gotten us into this mess, and if we are a nation of laws then by golly let’s follow the laws already!
So how do we contact the AZ legislators and let them know that Brewer argued against her own action? If she doesn’t want one person able to make a politically-motivated decision, then we NEED a law that allows the SOS decision to be challenged in court. That’s the only part of this bill that matters whatsoever.
And I would like anybody who would vote against this bill to tell me to my face that eligibility is not the voters’ business. I’d like them to tell that straight out to the faces of every voter in this nation. And then try winning an election.
Because of that I'm going to hold my fire a bit. If she had the history of someone like Boehner, I'd immediately be POed.
It's strange that she vetoed the bill.
If that’s the case there are more than enough votes to overide her veto.
Hmmm. Something sounds fishy.
This wouldn’t have anything to do about a lawsuit against the Arizona immigration enforcement law by Obama, Holder and the UN?
One hand washes the other?
Strange and scary world we live in.
Gee, what a surprise. I’ll bet right now not a single state will force Obama to show his birth certificate for 2012.
I think AZ House member Seel(?) is a key legislator who headed up the Bill. He should have a good idea in the next day or two if this veto would be overridden.
I am with her on FB as well, although maybe not for long. This is one of the rare occasions when she has not posted one word there about an action of hers.
OK People....let’s get ALL the info before we get into sticking pins into the Jan Brewer doll....
It should be noted that the long knives are also out for many important Republican legislators here in Arizona based on the whole Fiesta Bowl fiasco. They are after Russell Pearce, and if he goes down, the whole legislature collapses. The focus for each is probably their own political lives right now.
Looks like RINOS rode the the rescue and made sure she vetoed the birther bill.
You should continue to be her "fan" if you're reason to "unlike" her it only to punish her. I learned that a while back. There was a time when I would hesitate to be Bill O'Reilly's "fan" but now I see it differently. Unless you are a fan you cannot post criticisms or suggestions or links to stories he ignores on his wall.
Believe me the most far left people are out there are "fans" of Sarah Palin and the others only for the purpose of bashing them on their own Facebook page. If we "unlike" republicans, the left have free reign and could actually cause the candidate to get a false sense of support on an issue that in reality conservatives would be very against.
By the way, on my fake FB accounts I'm a fan of Barack Obama and I'm always posting comments comparing his words then to his actions now. I even posted a chart (I found here on FR) showing the unemployment rate going up since Reid and Pelosi had taken over back in 2006.
But if you want to "unlike" her because her messages showing up on your wall are annoying, well that's a different story.