Jan Brewer vetoes Arizona’s “Birther bill”

posted at 10:02 pm on April 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not the only veto she issued tonight, either. She also rejected a bill that would have allowed people to carry guns on state college campuses on grounds that it was “poorly written.” Not a total surprise given the political climate in the state after Gabby Giffords’s shooting, but a mild surprise given the grassroots conservative cred Brewer built for herself by championing Arizona’s immigration law.

This one’s a genuine surprise, though.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill to require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot…

“I do not support designating one person [i.e. the secretary of state] as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

“In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.”

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing. Any Arizonans willing and able to explain? She just started her new term so electoral politics is immaterial. Is there some core agenda item that she needs Democratic help to pass? Or is she trying to build goodwill with Obama for better cooperation on immigration? Or, just maybe, did she genuinely believe that the bill was stupid and embarrassing to Arizona? All theories welcome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Count it!

/crr6

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM

It required a baptismal certificate or a certificate of circumcision. I don’t think muslims do either.

SouthernGent on April 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM

son. of. a. bitch.

so its official. GOP = no balls

johnnyboy on April 18, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Damn. Does the AZ legislature have enough votes to override the veto? I doubt it, but thought I’d ask…

Have to hope for the other 10 states to come through.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 18, 2011 at 10:06 PM

My theory is that her hill to die on is immigration. That’s what she wants to concentrate on in her fight with the WH.

I think BHO would have used the bill to undercut her creds on immigration.

(Or sent his minions to do it).

INC on April 18, 2011 at 10:07 PM

The payoff must been big! Cha-ching!

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Brewer was Sec of State in 2008. Wouldn’t she have been the one who would have validated Obama’s elegibilty ….? What if there is truly something wrong with that Birth Certificate and she is trying to cover her a$$ ..?

HadaAbeche on April 18, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Did Gov. Brewer just hint that Obama was circumsized?

Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Jan Brewer dong the job conservative men won’t do.

NickDeringer on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Jan Brewer just sold out the United States of America and the Constitution.

All it takes is one state to have the guts, and demand he prove eligibility, and 0bama is done.

ONE state.

One by one they will sell out, it looks like.

Watch for Brewer to now get the border enforcement she wants.

Looks like 0bama is going to get away with the biggest fraud in U.S. history.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

[requires] early baptismal circumcision certificates

And the resident atheist says this?!

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is

It’s not political, it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

Vetoing the gun bill is a little more perplexing to me.

Skywise on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Well sounds like she did the correct thing since both bills were written poorly. Can’t imagine one person being able to remove a candidate from the ballot. Gotta remember that a liberal might be that person someday. And we all know how honest those people are.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Why does there have to be a political angle? Maybe she seriously thought it was dumb.

terryannonline on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

She indicated the votes are there for an over-ride.

SouthernGent on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

She is probably doing this for an Obamacare waiver (look at AZ’s Medicare numbers) or some border help.

This how government works.

You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Why does there have to be a political angle? Maybe she seriously thought it was dumb.

terryannonline on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Yes, politicians often do things non-political. They are known for it in fact. Did you know they serve because they want to give back to the communities too?

Gotta go an get ready for the Easter Bunny. He likes his cookies just so or he won’t leave me a basket.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Want to get on an airplane? Break out that passport and have your genitals ready for inspection.

Want to be the President of the United States; wielder of nuclear weapons? Showing your BC to comply with the Constitution (which you must swear an oath to protect and defend) is just “a bridge too far”.

Brewer is wrong on this. Its Constitutional requirement, Jan. You’re not writing the rule…just requireing it to be enforced.

Credibility moves down today.

BobMbx on April 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM

That’s the end of her political career.

jdun on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I read about the baptismal or circumcision records as alternate to BC thing the other day in local news and thought “WTF?” I figured then it would be rightly vetoed.

Sounds like some sloppy and slightly goofy legislation writing going on here in AZ it pains me to say. It should have been straightforward, it was not.

Cindy Cooper on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Brewer was Sec of State in 2008. Wouldn’t she have been the one who would have validated Obama’s elegibilty ….? What if there is truly something wrong with that Birth Certificate and she is trying to cover her a$$ ..?

HadaAbeche on April 18, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Conflict of interest. If 0bama is shown to have been negligibly certified by Brewer as Arizona Secretary of State in 2008, she is on the hook, and guilty of dereliction of duty.

The governor has a conflict of interest….

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Why does there have to be a political angle? Maybe she seriously thought it was dumb.

terryannonline on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Uhhh… because she is a politician.

She needs help on the border issue from the Feds… she isn’t getting any.

She needs an Obamacare waiver.

Why would she piss them off by signing this bill?

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Are they kidding me that these bills would actually require proof of circumcision, and that ONE official gets to determine who gets on the ballot?

Apologetic California on April 18, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Strange times will create strange allies. That may be what we are seeing here.

Its not as if the GOP and the Democrats don’t get along on just about everything, and Obama’s birth certificate is very much one of those things.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Thank you.

blatantblue on April 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Jan Brewer just sold out the United States of America and the Constitution.

All it takes is one state to have the guts, and demand he prove eligibility, and 0bama is done.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

What fantasy world do you live on?

Stop the madness. Focus on things that matter and actually will remove Obama from office, like the deficit.

MikeknaJ on April 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Pretty unexpected, especially considering the rancor over the Soetoro regime taking sides with the Mexican government over a state.

The joy of the left over this will be quite telling. Despite all the mocking – they don’t think Soetoro has a LFBC either, which is why this makes them happy.

Hoping Oklahoma will have more sand in their craw, their vote should be very soon.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Well sounds like she did the correct thing since both bills were written poorly. Can’t imagine one person being able to remove a candidate from the ballot. Gotta remember that a liberal might be that person someday. And we all know how honest those people are.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

In reality, it would impossible to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot who complied with the law b/c it would be appealed immediately by a team of the best lawyers money could buy. The only way to be left off would be to not provide rock-solid proof of eligibility and that would be the crux of the appeal.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:15 PM

If 0bama is shown to have been negligibly certified by Brewer


Negligently
, I meant.

And maybe negligibly, as well??

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 10:16 PM

dang.

sesquipedalian on April 18, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Uhhh… because she is a politician.

She needs help on the border issue from the Feds… she isn’t getting any.

She needs an Obamacare waiver.

Why would she piss them off by signing this bill?

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

And why would such a bill piss him off unless he’s got a problem. A problem she knows he has…

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:16 PM

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing.

Yeah, the angle is she doesn’t want Arizona to look ridiculous.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:17 PM

One of two reasons:

1. Obama has pictures of her
2. Obama promised her something on immigration

angryed on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

One of two reasons:

1. Obama has pictures of her
2. Obama promised her something on immigration

angryed on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Exaclty.

Brewer used this poorly worded bill as leverage to get some help on immigration.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

“I do not support designating one person [i.e. the secretary of state] as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,…”

I wouldn’t be too hard on Gov. Brewer

… I think she is just seeing the forest thru the trees.

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Seven Percent Solution on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Can’t imagine one person being able to remove a candidate from the ballot.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 PM

This is entirely wrong.

The burden is on the candidate to prove their eligibility, not the state to prove they are not. A long form birth certificate is simply not a obstacle to produce, every American of voting age has had to produce it many times over their life, for far more mundane events.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Did Gov. Brewer just hint that Obama was circumsized?
Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 10:08 PM

I’ll skip the Larry Sinclair joke and ask a serious question – Why not just ask for a long form BC? The circumcision stuff does seem absurd….

joejm65 on April 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Yeah, the angle is she doesn’t want Arizona to look ridiculous.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Some people care what the constitution says, and some care about how others might gossip about them.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Arizona Governor Jan Brewers Website
=====================================

http://www.azgovernor.gov/

++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++

Arizona Border Security Information Center
SENATE BILL 1070 & HOUSE BILL 2162:
PRESS RELEASES, SPEECHES & RELATED DOCUMENTS:

http://www.azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp

canopfor on April 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM

To be honest, I’ve not read the bill as passed, and only know the vague “show proof” description. That being said, I’d hazard a guess that there’s something or some things in it that would be difficult to comply with and/or defend Constitutionally. Myself, I’m inclined, given her history, to give Gov Brewer the benefit of the doubt here.

JamesLee on April 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Well, I can see it’s going to be the anti-”birthers’” night.

Have at it. You still can’t change the facts that something is very wrong with Obama’s papers, something that likely makes him afraid he’s ineligible.

But by all means, if you trust 0bama, have at it. Swing away.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Thank god someone decided to be the adult in the room. Rush and Hannity are still riding this loser for ratings but Levin and Beck made the choice to shun it. Bottom line, this issue makes us look like a bunch of wackjob Trig Truther Lefty Nuts…..time to move on, be serious, grow the f&%^ up.

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

The baptismal/circumcision records were only suggested in case a LFBC wasn’t available. But, of course, most LFBCs are so no one would’ve actually been required to provide that.

Praying there’s enough guts in AZ to over-ride this.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 18, 2011 at 10:22 PM

She indicated the votes are there for an over-ride.

SouthernGent on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

If that is true, this might not be a bad political move by Brewer, If she signed the bill, she would be the target of criticism and personal backlash. If it was the legislature that overrode the veto, it would be collective responsibility for the not so well known state legislators.

bayview on April 18, 2011 at 10:22 PM

To be honest, I’ve not read the bill as passed, and only know the vague “show proof” description. That being said, I’d hazard a guess that there’s something or some things in it that would be difficult to comply with and/or defend Constitutionally. Myself, I’m inclined, given her history, to give Gov Brewer the benefit of the doubt here.

JamesLee on April 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM

If that were the case, the smart thing to do would be to sign the bill and see who challenges it and under what grounds. I’m sure you need some kind of standing so that would mean BHO, the POTUS, suing the State of AZ over his birth certificate. That’s a win if I ever heard one.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:23 PM

One of two things is going to happen- Obama’s holding out and will show his birth certificate if he gets behind in late polls and wins, or he steadfastly refuses in the face of every republican candidate who has publicly displayed theirs, and he loses.

It’s either cunning politics or fear. We’ll see.

BKeyser on April 18, 2011 at 10:23 PM

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

If you think politics is for grown ups you haven’t been paying attention.

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I believe this may have a lot to do with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Hawaii has determined that a COLB is good enough for that determination and the other 56 states (snark) have to accept that. They can’t say that it isn’t enough.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

time to move on, be serious

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Passing the bill would have done just that, this veto will simply fan the flames even hotter.

There are, what, 11 states still considering equal bills? One will pass, for a certainty.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Arizona’s immigration law, and the federal interference thereof.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Thank god someone decided to be the adult in the room. Rush and Hannity are still riding this loser for ratings but Levin and Beck made the choice to shun it. Bottom line, this issue makes us look like a bunch of wackjob Trig Truther Lefty Nuts…..time to move on, be serious, grow the f&%^ up.

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Yup. Always crazy to make people comply with the Constitution. It’s downright nuts! Damn Right-wing extremists making us look bad by demanding the law of the land be followed by everybody and not altered for the benefit of one man and one man only.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

I didn’t realize that following the Constitution was childish. I would have never guessed if you hadn’t pointed that out.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Brewer used this poorly worded bill as leverage to get some help on immigration.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:18 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Othuga’s gonna give something on immigration? Why on earth would he do something like that?

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM

I read about the baptismal or circumcision records as alternate to BC thing the other day in local news and thought “WTF?”
Cindy Cooper on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I’ve seen this before. The good guys have opportunity for a slam-dunk, but they can’t resist piling on. Only other reason I can think of for vetoing is what if AZ gets a commie-liar Secy. of State? Still, I think Brewer missed an opportunity to punish-by-process in the courts. OTOH, the legislature can send her a better bill and stop trying to be too clever by half.

Feedie on April 18, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Or, just maybe, did she genuinely believe that the bill was stupid and embarrassing to Arizona?

Wouldn’t that be refreshing.

I’m not really familiar with this bill, but it just sounds stupid. Much more meaningful would be a law requiring proof of citizenship to register and vote in any election.

But since when did common sense and politics ever cross paths?

peski on April 18, 2011 at 10:27 PM

She indicated the votes are there for an over-ride.

SouthernGent on April 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

If that’s true, Jan Brewer is a political genius. The bill becomes law without her fingerprints on it.

Knucklehead on April 18, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Jan Brewer Promises To Do “the Right Thing” at Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Event, Chamber’s CEO Asks Her To Veto SB 1070
Sun Apr.18 2010 @ 2:30PM
****************************
*****************************

Speaking to attendees of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s Black and White Ball Saturday night at the downtown Phoenix Sheraton, Governor Jan Brewer refused to say whether or not she would sign state Senator Russell Pearce’s police state/anti-immigrant bill SB 1070. But she assured the crowd that she understood its opposition to the measure.

“In regards to Senate Bill 1070,” she stated, “I will tell you that I never make comment, like most governors throughout our country, before a bill reaches my desk. But I hear you, and I will assure you that I will do what I believe is the right thing so that everyone is treated fairly.”

Her statement prompted a quip from the following speaker, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
who asked the mostly Latino crowd, “I think what I just heard was a commitment to veto that bill, whatdya think?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(More……………..)

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/jan_brewer_promises_to_do_the.php

canopfor on April 18, 2011 at 10:28 PM

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Besides the fact that Hawaii does indeed still issues certified copies of long form birth certificates, the idea that Soetoro doesn’t have one in his possession already is ludicrous.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Art 2, Sec 1 doesn’t say anything or make any requirement for anyone to ‘show’ a birth cirtificate:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Don’t see any mention there of having to show ‘proof’ to comply with the Constitution. And if anyone were making that argument, Obama’s acolytes have answered it.

I can’t believe some of you. THIS is the line you are making such a strong stance on? Really? Of all the other stuff to hit Obama with, THIS is your thing?

And cane_loader, you’re a little off. You really need a vacation or something. Up the meds maybe? I don’t know…

Jan Brewer? Jan Brewer sold out the US and the Constitution? Are you effing insane? JAN BREWER?!!

I can understand peoples passions on this but some of you are just a bit over the top with your, ummm, enthusiasm?

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

You might recall that the Democratic party has for the past several years been engaged in a “Secretary of State” project where their goal is to get a Democrat in the position of Secretary of State in every state in the union. The idea is to get the office that decides elections to be filled with a Democrat regardless of the party holding the governor and legislature.

This bill would give that office the say which might be filled with a person of the opposite party of the governor/legislature.

crosspatch on April 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing.

How about it just makes sense?

AshleyTKing on April 18, 2011 at 10:33 PM

It’s kind of silly to have fifty different standards. If they expand the current requirement of proof, done at the electoral college stage, it should be done in federal law.

RBMN on April 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Sounds like she’s giving the legislature direction. They wrote a bad bill.

I bet she’d sign a better written bill.

katy on April 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM

An Arizona Blog,with alot of Immigration what-nots,
and a sh*t-load of Immigration info related linkys!
==================================================

http://oneoldvet.com/

canopfor on April 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Again, at least one state WILL pass this law.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I doubt it… Every Republican Gov. is afraid of answering a Chris Matthews type question on TV. They will just veto.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Some people care what the constitution says, and some care about how others might gossip about them.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:19 PM

You know, the Constitution doesn’t really explain “who” would be the decider on who is eligible and who isn’t eligible.

Just as the Constitution doesn’t say who swears the President to the oath of office.

Currently Arizona’s ballot access law is like most other states, due to party registration. If the Democrats have decided that Joe Blow is their presidential candidate, they’re put on the ballot.

So, it goes back to who determines who is eligible?

So far every single instance of determining eligibility has been determined in the courts. That seems appropriate to me. Let the Judicial Branch hash out eligibility of Executive and Legislative candidates if there appears to be a problem.

(Who do Congressmen and Senate candidates show their birth certificates to? Because I surely don’t know.)

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Don’t see any mention there of having to show ‘proof’ to comply with the Constitution.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

The constitution implies the means to exercise the rights and duties in it.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I was just making a stament of fact not arguing the merits of him not releasing his B/C. Hawaii accepts short form COLB as proof of citizenship. The Constitution says the other states must accept it as well.

Kind of like if you you drove into Nevada from California, got pulled over and taken to jail because Nevada doesn’t accept a California License as eligibility to drive.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Are you kidding? You think requirements exists that don’t need to be confirmed by some method left to statutes? You’re joking right? Do you want to go through the amendments next and show us the processed laid out for how the government proves it’s complying with them?

Actually I don;t believe some of you who don;t realize (or care) that every Presidential candidate has been required to make all of their documents available for scrutiny as part of the vetting process until now. That’s the issue. That for one man the rules were changed and we know more about Palin than we do Obama. In fact, we know enough that an idiot Dem kid was able to provide the security questions to gain control of her Yahoo email account. You can’t even guess Obama’s grades.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:38 PM

You know, the Constitution doesn’t really explain “who” would be the decider on who is eligible and who isn’t eligible.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM

The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn’t give us the right to purchase ammo, or firearms so the government can ban such sales?

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

The constitution implies the means to exercise the rights and duties in it.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Implies it to who?

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

I doubt it… Every Republican Gov. is afraid of answering a Chris Matthews type question on TV. They will just veto.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Jindal just stated he would sign it.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn’t give us the right to purchase ammo, or firearms so the government can ban such sales?

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

That strawman is very poorly constructed.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM

‘early baptismal circumcision certificates

Uh.. what if one isn’t circumcised?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Kind of like if you you drove into Nevada from California, got pulled over and taken to jail because Nevada doesn’t accept a California License as eligibility to drive.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

So, if I take my Texas Concealed handgun license and handgun to New York City, they can’t arrest me?

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM

I didn’t realize that following the Constitution was childish. I would have never guessed if you hadn’t pointed that out.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on April 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Who said he hasn’t? Doesn’t matter, you’re just regurgitating something Joe Farah wrote or some talk host said. It’s sad to see so many fellow Conservatives fight so hard to try and make Joe Biden the President. There is literally no daylight between Birthers and Kos Kidz. Equally nuts.

AYNBLAND on April 18, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Actually I don;t believe some of you who don;t realize (or care) that every Presidential candidate has been required to make all of their documents available for scrutiny as part of the vetting process until now.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Available to who? The Constitution doesn’t say who is supposed to see this information and put a stamp of approval on it.

So, if every other presidential candidate before Obama showed this information to be “vetted”, who did they show it to? The SoS of every state?

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this, but I can’t figure out what it is and some furious googling reveals nothing.

She said on Greta that the congress has the numbers to override her and that she doesn’t know if they would, or not. She was hoping that they wouldn’t.

Schadenfreude on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Jindal just stated he would sign it.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Where? Is there a source for this?

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

That strawman is very poorly constructed.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Why?

It doesn’t imply that anyone in particular should enforce the right to keep and bear arms and therefore… no one does.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:45 PM

By signing this bill, at this time, it’s implying that her State seeks, in some way, to imply that someone like President Obama doesn’t sneak by them again.

Like there aren’t enough other reasons not to elect someone like Pres. Obama again. These are easy political points for the good Governor; she should thank her State for the softball.

She’ll spend that capitol tenfold fighting illegal immigration.

Sgt Steve on April 18, 2011 at 10:45 PM

The constitution implies the means to exercise the rights and duties in it.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

The Constitution says what it says in pretty plain language. As Butterflydragon said above, all other determinations of eligibility are usually handled by the courts.

Some have said, improperly, that the Constitution requires a proof. A reading of the language shows it does not. It sets the citizenship requirements. Thats it.

And as I stated, if we on the Right are going to make this stand Obama’s acolytes have already supplied a proof. Not the one people want. Not the one people expect. But a ‘proof’ – issues by a State and certified by that states government – nonetheless.

This doesn’t benefit us.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:45 PM

That strawman is very poorly constructed.

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Really, because it’s been around for decades. In fact, it’s been used as a legal argument to ban certain types of ammo in certain states like MA, iirc.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Available to who? The Constitution doesn’t say who is supposed to see this information and put a stamp of approval on it.

So, if every other presidential candidate before Obama showed this information to be “vetted”, who did they show it to? The SoS of every state?

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Nor does it need to. It’s left to determination by statutes. Each state has their process which must ultimately comply with it’s Constitution and the Federal Constitution. There’s little “process” in the constitution.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:50 PM

The Constitution says what it says in pretty plain language. As Butterflydragon said above, all other determinations of eligibility are usually handled by the courts.

This doesn’t benefit us.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Wrong. It’s handled by the SoS of each of the States. Again, each state has it’s statutes laying out the process and requirement which must ultimately comply with 2 Constitutions.

As to who you mean by “us” you may be right.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Of course not.

I think I’m being pretty clear here.

Many commenters are po’d and saying this is a violation of the Constitution. That showing a bc is a Constitutional requirement. I read the applicable section and posted it.

Again:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

If people are going to make this argument – THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, EXPLICITLY, hyperbole and irrational appeals aren’t the way to do it.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

C’mon. Now I’m a closet Lefty under cover in the HA comments section since the beginning?

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Where? Is there a source for this?

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM

The problem with using the courts, as I understand it, has been one of standing. Evidently, the courts have determined the only person/people with standing are those directly injured by a legally unqualified candidate and that’s the other candidate(s) in the race.

Ironic that McCain was required to jump through hoops to prove he was Constitutionally qualified to run and let Obama off the hook.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM

this may have a lot to do with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Hawaii has determined that a COLB is good enough for that determination

If another state says a COLB isn’t good enough, then Hawaii must obey the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Emperor Norton on April 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

If people are going to make this argument – THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, EXPLICITLY, hyperbole and irrational appeals aren’t the way to do it.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

By that logic every Italian citizen can vote because the constitution doesn’t specify any particular document to prove citizenship.

By that logic Justin Beiber could run for President.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

She also rejected a bill that would have allowed people to carry guns on state college campuses on grounds that it was “poorly written.”

Fine. Then I hope she explains this clearly and will consider a “properly written” bill allowing the same right.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Any Arizonans willing and able to explain?

The bill was an embarrassment to our state. Arizona still gets pilloried over the MLK fiasco. The last thing we need — especially for a state that relies on tourism for a large part of its economy — is to put a spurious roadblock in front of the first black president. I appreciated Brewer not backing down on the immigration bill, loving her even more for rebuking the state senate over this birther nonsense.

RightOFLeft on April 18, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Getting a drivers license is the same across all states. Getting a Conceal Carry carries different requirements in a lot of states. Congress in the past has attempted to force states, through legislation, to accept the lower standards of other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause but the legislation eventually failed.

Look, again, you keep coming up hypotheticals, I am just giving Allah a reason as to why she did this. Only thing I can think of, I can’t see her behind close doors making deals with this administration. Especially after Obama sent his DOJ after her on her Immigration Law.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

C’mon. Now I’m a closet Lefty under cover in the HA comments section since the beginning?

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Why would you say that? there are plenty of “us-es” of the Right who don’t care that Obama got to play by different rules and think requiring a AM to live up to the same standards even VP candidates have had to live up to (e.g., you know where Plain bought her clothes and who paid for them) hurts the GOP chances of winning. I think that’s laughable but there out there.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Louisiana was one of the last states that would let one buy alcohol at age 18. 19-year-old relatives would come down to visit and be ecstatic that they could legally drink (their parents weren’t too happy!)

Because they were visiting Louisiana, and wanted to conduct a transaction, they were subject to its laws. They were not refused purchase because their IDs were from a state with a 21-and-over law. I also know that when visiting other states at age 18, I was not allowed to buy beer, though my license was issued in an 18-and-over state.

If Obama wants to be on the Arizona ballot, thereby conducting a regulated transaction (getting on the ballot), he is subject to the laws of Arizona – NOT those of Hawaii!

And, if Arizona is forced to accept Hawaii’s birth-certificate laws, then I will remember to exercise my right to pack heat next time I visit Hawaii, based upon my Louisiana concealed-carry permit.

I’m glad that my rights have been cleared up for me here!

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 12:54 AM

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Such a stupid sword to die on. Are we really going to lose the greatest country in the world because the only opposition is questioning the greatest threats qualifications to be president over what he has done and will do.

tjexcite on April 18, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I guess she already feels “on the fringe” so she doesn’t want to add to it….Too bad…I thought she had a lot of guts…

theaddora on April 18, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Emperor Norton on April 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Thats not how this works. Man, people need to relax. Again, I am just giving Allah a reason, as he asked us to, as to why she vetoed this. That is all.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Getting a drivers license is the same across all states.

And so…. are election laws?

So I have straw polls I don’t know about here in Louisiana?

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

The law itself didn’t require that. It, as discussed above and used as her excuse for vetoing the bill, had alternate documentation that would meet the requirements. I’m pretty sure the people discussing the issue understand the a BC is not mentioned in a document that dates from the 1787.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4