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

Listen, if AZ (or anyone else) passes this, so be it.

I’m not trying to get into a p!$$!ng contest with anyone, over this issue in particular.

But people are saying the Constitution says things it does not.

Our founding documents say what they say and the language means what it says. The Left has distorted it for far too long and for nefarious purpose.

When I see anyone do so, particularly someone on the same side of the ideological aisle as I, it needs to be stopped and corrected.

That’s it.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 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

Uh, what if one is a woman?

The rest of your comment, I’ll just ignore./

GrannyDee on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

The FF&C thing simply does not cover everything. For a real example, a COLB won’t get you a US security clearance.

Why I think she vetoed it, my guess the stuff the senate added, like circumcision record/baptismal record etc. made it “too weird” for her. Or she fully expects an override which would put her in the clear for reelection.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Such a stupid sword to die on.

tjexcite on April 18, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Typical GOP. Now is never the time to fight, and this issue (_______) is not the hill to die on. Repeat endlessly as you flee, flee for your lives!

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:08 PM

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Man I wish I was on a different team. I am so sick of the yellow strealk running down the back of the right (which comes from their fear of the Corrupt Media Establishment). The want so badly to be acceptable to the CME they are only willing to nibble at the edges. Their fear drives them to talk big and carry a tiny stick.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 11:11 PM

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I took what you wrote the wrong way. I apologize for that.

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Yeah, things are getting really crazy around here. First, theses birther founders of ours had to go and put this embarrassing requirement in our constitution that Presidents be American born. Now, of all things, some people are actually expecting Presidents to be American born! Is that not crazy?!

JellyToast on April 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM

She said the bill was ambiguous and as written did not specify college campuses. It could have been construed to allow such weapons in K-12 schools. She is just saying that it needs to be clearer and that this particular bill was poorly written.

From what I have read so far, I support her veto.

crosspatch on April 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Requiring candidates to be constitutionally eligible for the office they are running for is verrrry controversial. Amazing.

Every illegal alien down in Arizona should just run for president and no one can ask to see their identification at that point.

Buddahpundit on April 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Their fear drives them to talk big and carry a tiny stick.

TheBigOldDog on April 18, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Its worse than that. They want to act as plantation foremen for the rest of us and attack when any of the other serfs get uppity.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM

When I transferred from a small private college to a public college, my units were subjected to a review before being accepted.

The public college wanted to ensure that the course content met their standards.

Some of my units were rejected, and there was no recourse.

By the logic of those who say that Arizona has to accept 0bama’s COLB as proof that his birth meets its standards, then my alma mater should have been forced to accept my units from the smaller private college, even if the courses consisted of underwater basket-weaving.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:15 PM

I’m more frustrated that she rejected the campus carry law. It is ridiculous that adults who are legally eligible to carry cannot do so on a college campus (places at which several notorious rampages have occurred). This bill didn’t even let people enter the buildings with their firearms, only to traverse the campus.

Hopefully there is an over-ride on this.

Frankly, the idea that this is a result of the Giffords incident is ludicrous.

AZfederalist on April 18, 2011 at 11:17 PM

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.”

DUMB DECISION JAN.

PappyD61 on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:15 PM

You are getting really defensive with people who are generally on your side. The FFandC Clause has nothing to do with college credits transferring, it has to do with legal documents and judgements. I.E. you can’t have a judgement against you then run next door and go to another court for another pitch to swing at.

And no, college credit transfers are not legal documents. And keep in mind, 25 states in the union accept a shortform COLB for proof of citizenship. And to the person that said its not good enough for a security clearance, you’re right. But that is a federal license.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 PM

I also disagree with Brewer on the firearms law. There weren’t too many public massacres in the Old West because usually there were folks around to stop a lunatic.

In my opinion, she is 0-for-2 today.

I will say, though, to my discredit, that I actually have not read the bills. To be fair to Gov. Brewer, I need to read them. Did I miss it, or did anyone post a link to the birth-certificate law? I’d like to read it word for word. I’d like to know if baptismal/circumcision records were an OPTION, or whether they were required.

That makes a big difference in whether the bill was kooky & had poison pills in it, or whether it just named various documents that COULD be presented. If it was optional, then I think Brewer copped out.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:26 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

Another GOP Female Governor covers it for Obama, just like Linda Lingle did in 2008.

PappyD61 on April 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM

If Arizona chooses not accept the COLB, then that is Arizona’s right, though. If 49 states choose to accept it, and one doesn’t, that is that state’s right, too, isn’t it?

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM

The bill does not require a birth certificate. A person can use their baptismal or other records instead. So what is the point? This bill also required a sworn statement as to where the person had lived for the previous 14 years(not sure of the reasoning behind that figure.) And then even if they don’t meet any of the requirements the final decision is left up to the Secretary of State. Now what if that one person who makes that decision is a far Left Dem? Anyone here happy with that? It sounds like a poor bill.

Deanna on April 18, 2011 at 11:28 PM

This is an example of the leftist definition of “civility” i.e. the capitulation and submission of the right. We know they don’t mean the traditional definition of civility, as demonstrated by the abhorrent behavior at the recent tea party counter protests.

Congrats Jan, this should get you some of those much coveted “centrist” bonafides from Chris Matthews and Howard Dean. But don’t rest on your laurels, the illegal immigration battle is still looming, provided you keep fighting the good fight, they will soon demonize you once more.

DeathB4Tyranny on April 18, 2011 at 11:29 PM

I will say, though, to my discredit, that I actually have not read the bills. To be fair to Gov. Brewer, I need to read them. Did I miss it, or did anyone post a link to the birth-certificate law? I’d like to read it word for word. I’d like to know if baptismal/circumcision records were an OPTION, or whether they were required.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I think this is it…

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:31 PM

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Best question you asked all night. I have no idea. It would wind up in the courts for sure, and eventually the attention would turn to why Obama won’t just release the damn thing.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM

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

ButterflyDragon on April 18, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Yeah, I think that’s it. SB 1070 has already made it a punch-line. Letting this thing pass would indeed be “a bridge too far.”

crr6 on April 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Poor decision by Brewer.

She will never win another statewide election in AZ.

Norwegian on April 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

“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 could refuse to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other any records to the Arizona secretary of state,” American people, she said. “This is a bridge too far.”

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:26 PM

The bill required a long form birth certificate. But, if the candidate couldn’t get one for some unfathomable reason, there was a list of alternate documents any two of which could be substituted.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM

By the logic of those who say that Arizona has to accept 0bama’s COLB as proof that his birth meets its standards, then my alma mater should have been forced to accept my units from the smaller private college, even if the courses consisted of underwater basket-weaving.

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Article IV, Section 1:

Section 1 – Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Note: No State may refuse to accept the public records of another state, aside from such exemptions which Congress may enact. The birth certificate issue is a national one.

Brewer is right.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM

TendStl,

Thanks for the feedback.
I am irate and also have stuck in a chair for over a month recovering from two surgeries and so even more irate every time I see 0bama on the screen. Anyway we can get him off of there is fine with me!

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:39 PM

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:39 PM

I agree bro, but we must approach it rationally. Make the 12 campaign about anti-Obama and we win. He is a liar, and the worst president of all time and needs to be retired so he can squeeze fruit.

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Note: No State may refuse to accept the public records of another state,

And Arizona can go ahead and accept the COLB!

But does the FF&C argument PREVENT Arizona from setting its own bar as high as it likes for electoral eligibility? Does the FF&C argument really BAR Arizona from requesting a long-form birth certificate?

It is not a great imposition on the candidate, as even Little-Leaguers are asked to produce the long form birth certificate to prove they are the proper age – and so, I don’t buy it!

Are people really going to argue that the president may not even be held to the standard of a 10-year-old boy?!?

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Róger Calero ran for president and he was a Nicaraguan national, not an American citizen.

If the constitution doesn’t imply we can ask for documentation to prove if Obama is what he claims, then what stops Justin Beiber from running? The kids would just love it!

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM

The bill does not make the long form or any form of birth certificate the only accepted proof. So it really doesn’t do much at all.

AND ATTACHMENT OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHALL BE From the bill…SWORN TO UNDER
22 PENALTY OF PERJURY:
23 1. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S LONG FORM BIRTH
24 CERTIFICATE THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, THE NAMES OF
25 THE HOSPITAL AND THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, IF APPLICABLE, AND SIGNATURES OF
26 ANY WITNESSES IN ATTENDANCE. IF THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT POSSESS A LONG FORM
27 BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH, THE CANDIDATE MAY ATTACH TWO
28 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE LONG FORM
29 BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE CANDIDATE SWEARS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY
30 AND THE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
31 DETERMINE IF THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II,
32 SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
33 (a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.
34 (b) HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.
35 (c) POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD SIGNED BY THE
36 DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER
37 BIRTH.
38 (d) EARLY CENSUS RECORD.
39 2. A SWORN STATEMENT OR FORM THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESIDENTIAL
40 CANDIDATE’S PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.
41 C. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION B, THE PRESIDENTIAL
42 CANDIDATE MAY ALSO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT FROM TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO
43 WITNESSED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE’S BIRTH.http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

Deanna on April 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM

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.

Not all that surprising. It’s because of that grassroots cred that she can afford to veto the birther bill without getting too much flak (I hope) for it.

She has some political capital to spend, and stopping a potentially problematic bill (is it even Constitutional for states to pile on requirements on presidential candidates, even when the additional requirement is consistent with one listed in the Constitution?) from becoming law is as good as any place to spend it.

novakyu on April 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Brewer is right.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Brewer is wrong.

Hawaii does in fact hold Soetoro’s, and every other Hawaiian born citizens, long form birth certificate. Since Hawaii does in fact issue certified copies of this document, why would Arizona have to accept a lesser, abstract, version of same?

And even if Hawaii refused to release copies, that’s an issue between the Hawaiian born and them, Arizona doesn’t have to accept a document without the necessary information on it. Candidates have the burden of proof for eligibility.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Why I think she vetoed it, my guess the stuff the senate added, like circumcision record/baptismal record etc. made it “too weird” for her. Or she fully expects an override which would put her in the clear for reelection.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

She is one smart lady.

katy the mean old lady on April 19, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I have not read all the posts so I hope I am not redundant. I watched her tonight on Greta however. My take is: Jan, even if the law is not too well written, Ogabe has kicked you and the rest of the nation repeatedly in the c#@t/nuts and you and the rest of the republican sissies take it.
I’m just a middle class taxpayer in CA who has no real say. Yet time and time again those of our party who DO have a forum and could/should use it fold.

arnold ziffel on April 19, 2011 at 12:00 AM

The bill does not require a birth certificate. A person can use their baptismal or other records instead. So what is the point? This bill also required a sworn statement as to where the person had lived for the previous 14 years(not sure of the reasoning behind that figure.) And then even if they don’t meet any of the requirements the final decision is left up to the Secretary of State. Now what if that one person who makes that decision is a far Left Dem? Anyone here happy with that? It sounds like a poor bill.

Deanna on April 18, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Funny how the facts of the story kind of mess up the Brewer Is A RINO narrative.

MikeknaJ on April 19, 2011 at 12:01 AM

This how government works.

You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.

tetriskid on April 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM

That’s how life works. If you help a friend move his sofa couch down three flights of stairs into the moving van and then out of the moving van up another flight of stairs to his new, cool game room in his new house…when it comes time for you to move, aren’t you going to expect him to help you out?

And, I can’t wait for this birther issue to die. Rome is burning and we are fiddling with birth certificate nonsense.

ramrants on April 19, 2011 at 12:01 AM

TendStl on April 18, 2011 at 11:41 PM

I hear what you’re saying… but I don’t know if I can swallow it and ignore all the evidence – or, lack thereof.

There’s obviously something very wrong with 0bama’s paperwork – something very possibly wrong enough to make him an illegal president. How can we put all the money on fighting him on the issues, when there’s every indication, due to the complicit media and dumbed-down electorate, that this slippery, lying, s.o.b will win a second term, and finish off his destruction of this country?

In normal times, 0bama has been an awful enough president to go down in a 49-state landslide. But in 2012? Second term.

Who says we can’t hit him on the issues whileproving him a fraud?

Can I sit by and be led ruled by this shadowy, past-less, record-less mystery?

I don’t know if I can do that. I have lost all faith in the electorate, due to the pervasive, damnable treason on the part of the mainstream media. We have to hit 0bama from all sides, as hard as we can.

And his documentation stinks, and a lot of people know it.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Brewer’s argument makes no sense. Votes are certified. Voting is certified. Drivers licenses are certified. Most everything is certified if you have business with the state. If she thinks it’s only one person who does the certifying, why not a bi-partisan panel? This action of hers is so bone headed I can only conclude that, like so many Conservatives, she fears being called a birther or wants to avoid another controversy lest Arizona get a reputation as the sanctuary of what the media describes as nut cases.

NNtrancer on April 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Why I think she vetoed it, my guess the stuff the senate added, like circumcision record/baptismal record etc. made it “too weird” Why I think she vetoed it, my guess the stuff the senate added, like circumcision record/baptismal record etc. made it “too weird” And she is right. A: IA baptisimal certificate is not an ID outside of the Church.
B: Certificate of circumcision? Huh? A visual. Do crect me if I am wrong.

katy the mean old lady on April 19, 2011 at 12:10 AM

I think this is it…

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.pdf

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Thanks, sharrukin, for the above link to the birth-certificate bill. I read it. As deanna noted above, there was just a list of acceptable documents that candidates could choose from. Baptismal/circumcision records were OPTIONAL, not mandatory.

The bill was NOT kooky…, as Brewer said on TV.

Now that I’ve read the bill, yes, Brewer chickened out. She could have done us all a favor and begun the downfall of this wretched president. Instead, she chickened out.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:13 AM

I was inclined to give Brewer the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think she realizes how dire the nation’s problems are. The left twists words and meanings, and uses the courts against the sane. Brewer could’ve signed it to tangle the left’s resources up fighting it. Punishment by process.

Brewer and others still aren’t fighting the way the left fights — to win against enemies.

Michael Savage points to a great article that lays it on the line. Non-leftists fight as if the left is a well-meaning opponent. Leftists are not honest, nor are they well-meaning opponents. They are enemies.

Feedie on April 19, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Now that I’ve read the bill, yes, Brewer chickened out. She could have done us all a favor and begun the downfall of this wretched president. Instead, she chickened out.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Yeah, she did.

They won’t fight against the left and thats something we need to realize. I guess that is why Trump and Palin have such an appeal. They don’t run.

sharrukin on April 19, 2011 at 12:18 AM

I’m unconcerned.

I think the Arizona legislature will override. I know that Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas will pass their bills into law – at least.

It will happen for a certainty, this is just a very minor setback.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Looks like somebody’s establishing some centrist cred to become the VP candidate for Romney or Huntsman!

Fabozz on April 19, 2011 at 12:27 AM

And even if Hawaii refused to release copies, that’s an issue between the Hawaiian born and them, Arizona doesn’t have to accept a document without the necessary information on it. Candidates have the burden of proof for eligibility.

Rebar on April 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

In that scenario a state could be asked to produce 50 different versions of official documents.

Or if convenience isn’t enough to convenience you..we have that pesky constitution.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM

In that scenario a state could be asked to produce 50 different versions of official documents.

No, just one – the most complete one – the long-form birth certificate.

Is that too heavy a burden for the President of the United States, with his finger on the nuclear button, with the power to blow up the world?

Millions of parents across America produce it every year for their sons and daughters to play Little League.

Are you actually defending 0bama’s secrecy?

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Article IV Section 1 is why if you are married in one state, you are married in all. It is why you can drive all over the country with the license from your home state.

Imagine moving from Maryland to PA and learning you were no longer marries because they had different requirements…

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Are you actually defending 0bama’s secrecy?

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

No, I am defending the constitution, why you are defending ignoring it to advance a political preference.

One of us is on strong constitutional ground…the other?

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Does this bill require candidates for Congress and Senate to show proof of qualifying for office?

ButterflyDragon on April 19, 2011 at 12:41 AM

If you don’t like the law, get the constitution amended, until then I will go with what’s right.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Are you actually defending 0bama’s secrecy?

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Yes. He’s a troll.

Working the night shift I would guess.

sharrukin on April 19, 2011 at 12:42 AM

In that scenario a state could be asked to produce 50 different versions of official documents

All states now produce long form birth certificates which captures the same information, since at least 1900.

If one state decides to put out a “birth certificate” that states “yup, Joe Shmoe was born” and that’s it, no other state would accept that, and for good reason. Same as if a state decided to just give drivers licenses to anyone just asking for one, without any tests or confirmation of identification.

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Arizona can and should give full faith and credit to any Hawaiian document that 0bama provides, to the full extent of its validity. Arizona can accept 0bama’s Certificate of Live Birth (short-form) as a fully valid short-form birth certificate.

Arizona also has every right to set its electoral bar as high or as low as the citizens, through their elected representatives, wish, as long as the requirements apply to all candidates, and are not an unconstitutional burden.

While acknowledging 0bama’s short-form COLB as a legitimate COLB, Arizona has the right to set a higher standard than the short form, which will not even get you a driver’s license. Arizona may request that Obama provide his long-form birth certificate, in order to be on the ballot.

0bama has every right to refuse to provide it, but that does not mean that Arizona has to change its ballot requirements to please him. The onus is on 0bama to prove why he is allowed to ignore the law, or why it is an intolerable imposition upon him to show his birth certificate, just as Little Leaguers do, to prove his bona fides.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Are people really going to argue that the president may not even be held to the standard of a 10-year-old boy?!?

cane_loader on April 18, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Yes. The Little League is a private organization, and is not bound by the quoted Constitutional clause. They may request any proof of age which suits them.

Arizona is a State, and is bound by that clause. They must accept as valid any Record of another State, subject only to those laws passed by Congress which might allow otherwise. The obvious “otherwise” solution is that Arizona’s own short form birth certificates also become worthless paper:

However, in Arizona, “long-form birth certificate” refers to a specific document: the paper version of the birth record of a person born before 1997. People born in 1997 and subsequent years do not have long-form certificates; their records are available as electronic certified copies, also known as “short form.”

I think Arizona needs to get the beam out of its own eye before it goes after the tree in another State’s. It would be a pity if other States began treating 5 year old Arizonans as illegal aliens.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Article IV Section 1 is why if you are married in one state, you are married in all. It is why you can drive all over the country with the license from your home state.

Imagine moving from Maryland to PA and learning you were no longer marries because they had different requirements…

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Not true. DOMA. Congress is free to specify exactly what documents are considered valid, and in the case of DOMA, chose to disqualify homosexual marriages. This is perfectly Constitutional, and shows that a State’s own laws may end at the borders of that State. Contrast that position with the treatment of mixed-race marriages, in which individual States denied the validity of said marriages, but the Federal Government had remained silent; the silence was broken when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, which required that one State recognize inter-racial marriages performed in another State — even when the married were citizens of the State not recognizing said marriages.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I think some of us are confusing the full faith and credit argument clause with the state’s ability to regulate activities that take place within its borders, and can only take place within its borders.

Obama can only be on the Arizona ballot in Arizona, not in Hawaii.

Obama can be in a state of marriage in many places. This is why his marriage license would be respected, as a matter of practicality, across state lines.

However, if the proper signatures are not on the matrimonial documents, the marriage is not legal within the state. I know this, as I once officiated a wedding and we had a paperwork snafu that delayed the legality of the wedding. The state in which marriage takes place, and which certifies the marriage, sets the number and type of documents which must be presented to record the marriage.

In the same way, when it comes to an election, each state sets the number and type of document that qualify a candidate for an election of electors, which election occurs entirely within that state.

The state does not question the validity of each specific document, but the state certainly does choose which documents to accept, before placing a candidate on the ballot. And each state is different. That’s why Nancy Pelosi signed FIFTY different state certifications to certify 0bama’s nomination, with FIFTY notarized signatures. (Actually, there were 51 signatures, as she signed two different versions of the Hawaii certification, another piece of the ongoing fraud surrounding 0bama’s election.)

You cannot compare the validity of marriage across state lines, with the right of each state to select its electors in the manner in which it sees fit! Apples and oranges, unless one is to assert that that part of the constitution is void….

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

When it comes down to it, a fair court, when faced with conflicting constitutional directives, will look at how compelling the interest of the plaintiff is, compared to the harm suffered.

Which interest is greater: the interest of a state to thoroughly ensure that a presidential candidate is qualified to its satisfaction, or the interest of a potential plaintiff (Barack H. Obama II) to avoid showing a document that millions of Americans regularly show, without hurt or trauma, in a variety of transactions that traverse the various magnitudes of purposes as momentous as securing a job as a janitor in a government warehouse, or as light-hearted as playing right field for a children’s baseball team; a document which, presumably, he has showed throughout his life for such purposes as applying for a passport or for college or for a driver’s license.

Should the laws, confidence, and civic customs of an entire nation be set aside for one man – one special, mysterious, singular man – unbeholden to any law, high or low, and wholly lacking in basic respect for, recognition of, or deference to, the legitimacy of the questions regarding his shrouded past, asked in good faith by a significant proportion of the citizenry whom he purports to represent: Barack Hussein Obama the Second?

That is the issue at hand – and the issue that Gov. Brewer so faint-heartedly ducked today, to the detriment of her nation.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Note: No State may refuse to accept the public records of another state, aside from such exemptions which Congress may enact. The birth certificate issue is a national one.

Brewer is right.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Nobody is suggesting that Arizona would “refuse to accept the public records of another state,” just that it would specify which records are required for the particular privilege within itself. In fact, the bill gave alternative scenarios in which records would be accepted to accomplish the same task if the state records were unavailable.

Remember, this has nothing to do with the state governments and has everything to do with the individuals who are supposed to be Constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. It is their responsibility — not the states in which they were born — to produce the documentation to qualify for the ballot.

Please explain how your logic is not flawed.

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Poorly written bill.

Simple as that.

profitsbeard on April 19, 2011 at 1:44 AM

The Little League is a private organization, and is not bound by the quoted Constitutional clause. They may request any proof of age which suits them.

Arizona is a State, and is bound by that clause. They must accept as valid any Record of another State, subject only to those laws passed by Congress which might allow otherwise. The obvious “otherwise” solution is that Arizona’s own short form birth certificates also become worthless paper:

However, in Arizona, “long-form birth certificate” refers to a specific document: the paper version of the birth record of a person born before 1997. People born in 1997 and subsequent years do not have long-form certificates; their records are available as electronic certified copies, also known as “short form.”

In the words of Hawk Harrelson, “You gotta be … bleepin‘ me!”

I don’t know if you’re a lawyer, but I would honestly pay to see you or someone else go into a courtroom before an appeals court and make the argument that the bill discriminated against FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLDS from Hawaii who wanted to be put on the 2012 Arizona ballot twenty years before they could fulfill the other part of eligibility — you know, the being thirty-five part!

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 1:49 AM

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Just pointing out the logical nexus of a law regarding illegal aliens and another law regarding long form birth certificates. That poor 5 year old — sent back to a Mexico he never came from….

I think you got the message, given the ad-hominem nature of your response.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 1:54 AM

How many bills that these lawyers come up with can anybody understand? Just part of the screwing of America that’s been going on for ages. They will always give themselves wiggle room one way or another.

The current party in control can say, “See, we did it…we wrote a bill that makes you (fill in the blank: Liberals, minorities, Tea Partiers, Republicans, Communists, moderates, women, etc.) _________ happy. Well, we tried!”

Fundamentally, Brewer’s sticking her wet little finger in the political wind and sees there’s a backlash to the whole Conservative movement going on and wants no part of it-unless it turns out to be going the other way, of course.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Arizona, and each state, in placing candidates on the ballot for president, are compelled by the constitution to determine if the candidates constitutionally qualify.

Let’s take this down to basics.

A short-form COLB states a city of birth and the mother’s name.

It does NOT however, list the father. This omission, due to the dual-citizenship issues it ignites, and especially because of the issue of 0bama’s suspected or actual adoption by an Indonesian man, and its potential effect on his citizenship status, is sufficient to make the short-form useless to Arizona in determining 0bama eligible, and makes the long-form birth certificate indispensible.

The fact that there have been ongoing questions about the father, including a statement in 0bama’s own book that his mother did not have paperwork to prove that Obama, Sr. was his father, gives Arizona, and the 49 other states, an even greater duty to exercise all due diligence in ascertaining 0bama’s citizenship before the 2012 election.

0bama’s refusal to produce a basic document is now compounded by Gov. Brewer’s refusal to strengthen a constitutional vetting process which appears to have been lax in the past, and did not satisfactorily address the multitude of questions and red flags raised, during the campaign, about 0bama’s eligibility.

It is such a breathtaking and dangerous civic failure that our government, through the 50 Secretary of States, did such a perfunctory job of vetting 0bama in 2008 that a large percentage of Americans believe him to be an illegitimate president.

This is a recipe for disunity and disaster.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Please explain how your logic is not flawed.

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM

My logic says that the Constitution dictates that Congress is the body which promulgates laws regarding what documents from one State are or are not admissible to another State. I point out one particular document (the marriage certificate) in which Congress has mandated the circumstances under which a state is either obligated or not obligated to accept said certificate from another State. I also point out a circumstance in which a State chose not to accept said certificate from another State absent any direction otherwise from Congress, and the result when that case wound up before the Supreme Court.

Arizona may choose residency laws or birthright laws for its own State and local offices, but the Constitution is clear as to the fact that Congress holds the reins for Federal office. Again, that’s why term limits for Federal office are a non-starter, and why any attempt to limit valid documents from another State in determining validity for Federal office would also quickly be quashed by the Court.

You are certainly welcome to bet otherwise. We shall see when the first state actually passes one of these ill-thought-out laws and tries to make it stick.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Do any of you know what badminton is?

The shuttlecock floats around.

freedomplow on April 19, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Lets be honest, if it was not for the Arizona Assembly passing the Immigration law back in 2009, she would of lost either in the Primary or the Elections. She was lost, mumbled and bumbled, but then she found her calling, defending the immigration bill. Conservatives rallied around her because she defended them.

WoosterOh on April 19, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Thank goodness there are some sane republicans out there who won’t go along with this birther crap.

Scrappy on April 19, 2011 at 2:07 AM

Just pointing out the logical nexus of a law regarding illegal aliens and another law regarding long form birth certificates. That poor 5 year old — sent back to a Mexico he never came from….

I think you got the message, given the ad-hominem nature of your response.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 1:54 AM

There’s nothing “logical” about arguing that the bill nullifies Hawaii short forms that nobody could possibly use as evidence of eligibility in Arizona any earlier than 2032, thus running afoul of the full faith & credit clause.

“Ad hominem”? Nonsense. Your “message” is only clearer than mud within your own mind. Once it gets out of there, the rest of us have to mop it up.

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 2:09 AM

“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.”

LMAO! I can’t believe that is real.

fastestslug on April 19, 2011 at 2:14 AM

April 29th 2010

According to a new Rasmussen Report, just two weeks ago Brewer’s approval ratings were hovering around the 40 percent marker. After signing the immigration law last week, her approval rating shot to 56 percent.

Despite her past troubles with Republicans in the state of Arizona, her approval ratings amongst them sit at 81 percent, which is up from 52 percent before signing the immigration law – those include 31 percent who strongly approve, up from a meager 7 percent.

She would of lost if it was not for the bill.

WoosterOh on April 19, 2011 at 2:19 AM

You cannot compare the validity of marriage across state lines, with the right of each state to select its electors in the manner in which it sees fit! Apples and oranges, unless one is to assert that that part of the constitution is void….

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Had Arizona chosen to make the new law describe a manner of choosing electors, you would be absolutely right. But that’s not what Arizona did. The method of choosing electors is still based on slates offered up by political parties. When you vote for the person on the ballot, you are actually voting for a slate of electors committed to voting for that candidate.

States have attempted to limit how an elector can vote via state law, and such laws have not yet been challenged in the Court, primarily because few electors choose to vote in opposition to the reason their slate was chosen. So, if I were Democrats facing a Republican law of this type, I’d run a proxy candidate whose electors knew if they won they would be committed to voting for the national Democratic candidate — not the proxy candidate run in that state. Then, although the legislature may have chosen the manner in which electors are appointed, we once again come to the question of whether the legislature can compel such an elector to not vote his or her conscience. I’m betting that becomes a Federal election matter and I’d place the bet on the “no compulsion allowed” spots on the wheel.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 2:21 AM

“Ad hominem”? Nonsense. Your “message” is only clearer than mud within your own mind. Once it gets out of there, the rest of us have to mop it up.

L.N. Smithee on April 19, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Your view. You aren’t mopping up anything for your mop is totally imaginary. As for muddy minds, cast the beam from your own eye before trying to see whether I have a tree in mine.

It doesn’t matter when the issue finally arises in Arizona — that’s a red herring. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a State offering only short form birth certificates for their younger citizens yet expecting that a law requiring long form certificates won’t, in the end, come back to bite them. What will happen in 2032? If the law had passed, would Arizona disqualify its own citizens from running if they weren’t religious enough to have been baptized or were a female Jew? Would Gifford have to have undergone a bris in order to run for office? Imagine a scenario in which every State passes this type of law and an Arizonan born in 1990 tries to run for public office.

The schadenfreude is almost palpable.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Well, I appreciate your direct address of my opinions. I don’t have the same mind as you in that you’re offering very detailed rationales to offer your point of view.

I tend to have a broader, generalist, “spirit of the law” approach, in that if something stinks, it stinks, even if I can’t quite legally articulate my opinions as effectively as you do.

I still think that Arizona – and other states are justified in vetting presidential candidates, AND, I believe in profiling, in that if a lot of questions seem to surround a particular candidate, it is not unfair – indeed it is the state’s duty – to vet that candidate more closely. Because the whole point is to certify the candidate as eligible. And I do believe that in this, the end justifies the means.

But I know I couldn’t make this stick because I don’t have the debating skills of some.

What a national heartburn if 0bama goes all Clintonian and parsing and Lanny Davis on us. The worst thing is that this president gives every indication of being a total snake in the grass and that he’s counting on everyone to let him slide for a SECOND illegitimate term because of the ruckus it would cause to bust him.

Man, “fool me once” is one thing, but are Americans like me supposed to allow him to sign up for a SECOND term without any vetting, now that we KNOW there’s a problem?!?!? How far are we supposed to bend over?

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 3:23 AM

A short-form COLB states a city of birth and the mother’s name.

It does NOT however, list the father. This omission, due to the dual-citizenship issues it ignites,
cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Darn, I just caught my mistake in my comment above, and need to correct it. I hadn’t looked at the supposed short-form COLB in awhile and forgot that it DOES list the father. I used to know this but in keeping up with all the details, I just plain got it mixed up with the adoptive father issue. So that knocks out about half of the argument in my 2:01 a.m. comment. The other half is still a valid concern, and I stand by it.

I apologize, and did not intend to mislead.

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 3:36 AM

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

I think this is the most likely explanation.

Siddhartha Vicious on April 19, 2011 at 5:33 AM

And then even if they don’t meet any of the requirements the final decision is left up to the Secretary of State. Now what if that one person who makes that decision is a far Left Dem? Anyone here happy with that? It sounds like a poor bill.

Deanna on April 18, 2011 at 11:28 PM

I heard that implication in Brewer’s interview with Greta last night. So I will not pile onto her here. I think some of the other states will get the bill written in an appropriate way and perhaps accomplish the same thing. Texas could be that state and they have more electoral votes. What other states are considering showing proof of eligibility?

karenhasfreedom on April 19, 2011 at 6:41 AM

The large number of ill informed comments on this thread make filtering through the detritus less than edifying. Vetting Presidential candidates is a reasonable proposition, but how can you draw such strong and pointed conclusions about Governor Brewer’s veto without having read the bill?

Your honesty and intellectual rigor is no better than that of the fools who voted for Obamacare without first having read the bill. I suspect many of these same knee jerkers are the ones who also quickly recommend every unproven shiny new face as a promising “must have” presidential candidate – Scott Brown of Mass., for example

talking stick on April 19, 2011 at 6:47 AM

I’m guessing there’s some local political angle that explains this… All theories welcome.

My guess is that the Øbama people found a stealth way to “get to” her, and she folded to the pressure. Maybe it was some local political issue. Maybe it was part of a horse trade. Or maybe it was brute bullying, Chicago-style.

In any event, it’s disappointing and discouraging.

petefrt on April 19, 2011 at 6:49 AM

there are alot of unhappy folks here this am…we have a supermajority in both houses but it appears they will not override the veto…

and the gun law, cripe

there are quite a few happy dems in the paper praising gov brewer

cmsinaz on April 19, 2011 at 7:25 AM

The bills need to be redone. Jan is right about the wording. Tennessee has several of the same carry bills in the hopper now.
The birth bill did have some flaws, the Governor simply wants clean bills,unlike bumma who using signing orders to ignore the law.
This set of vetoes will cause the bills to be reworked so that they can meet challenges.
Sample bills that are well drafted.
HB2014
by Holt Firearms and Ammunition – As introduced, authorizes full-time faculty and staff at public colleges and universities in Tennessee to carry handguns if not otherwise prohibited by law.
HB2016
by Holt Firearms and Ammunition – As introduced, authorizes full-time faculty at a public college to carry a firearm on such campus if they have a handgun carry permit.
HB2021
by Evans Handgun Permits – As introduced, permits employees with valid handgun carry permits to store firearm in employer parking lot provided it is in a locked vehicle and in a glove box or compartment not visible from outside the vehicle.

Col.John Wm. Reed on April 19, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Col.John Wm. Reed on April 19, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Makes me feel a little better. A little. Our people cave and cower so much that it’s hard to be optimistic.

petefrt on April 19, 2011 at 7:38 AM

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.

Motivation? You could invite, and get, ridiculous speculation. Or you could read what she said.

“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.”

AP prefers to guess rather than just take Brewer at her word.

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.

Why don’t you just read what she said? It makes perfect sense that she doesn’t want to sign legislation for which she will be ridiculed. Maybe she takes the eligibility issue seriously. Maybe if you took it seriously, you wouldn’t be so confused.

Basilsbest on April 19, 2011 at 7:47 AM

son. of. a. bitch.

so its official. GOP = no balls

johnnyboy on April 18, 2011 at 10:06 PM

That’s all you need to know folks right there. This is absolutely insane. Why the *#$%&* would anyone in their right mind without some hidden agenda not support this? Wouldn’t you think all states would implement this, if for no other reason to prevent the controversy from happening again?

dave_ross on April 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Maybe if you took it seriously, you wouldn’t be so confused.

Basilsbest on April 19, 2011 at 7:47 AM

You are the one confused if you don’t see there is a political downside to vetoing a bill PASSED by other Republicans in the state. SO what is her reasoning? Vetoes aren’t trivial and AP is pointing out that (and this might be a shock to you Basilsbest) Politicians don’t always give the complete answer So YES!! speculation is warranted ESPECIALLY on a DISCUSSION BOARD. DON’T WANT TO SPECUALTE ON THE NEWS OF THE DAY? GET OFF THE COMMENTS BOARD!

Conan on April 19, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Not true. DOMA. Congress is free to specify exactly what documents are considered valid, and in the case of DOMA, chose to disqualify homosexual marriages. This is perfectly Constitutional, and shows that a State’s own laws may end at the borders of that State. Contrast that position with the treatment of mixed-race marriages, in which individual States denied the validity of said marriages, but the Federal Government had remained silent; the silence was broken when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, which required that one State recognize inter-racial marriages performed in another State — even when the married were citizens of the State not recognizing said marriages.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2011 at 1:19 AM

It’s true, it is, Article IV, Section 1 was why marriages were recognized across state lines. Congress simply defined conditions in where there was an exception to Article IV, Section 1. (that said, your arguments on the continuing discussion have been the most succinct in this tread)

Rebar on April 19, 2011 at 12:44 AM

You are making two diffrent arguments. First the standard for short and long term BC’s second is not liking the information HI requires to get one. I’ll answer the second first, too bad, full faith and credit does not require you like my standards. Perhaps anyone in my state can get a Drivers lic if they pass a written test, perhaps in your state you need written test, road test, safety class, so what my standards are none of your business. Now to the first part, yes it could lead to 50 versions of the BC as each state could define differently what should be included in their version of a long form BC.

As noted by others, this isn’t about anything but politics as Arizona uses the same type of short form BC for their own citizens they say is not valid or enough.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Wording matters.

Her criticism is that the bill places all responsibility unduly upon Arizona’s Secretary of State.

Who else’s job description would feasibly be responsible to verify official documents in AZ, Gov. Brewer? I doubt that the bill required Arizona’s Sec/State to go search for the potential potus bio-documentation.

So Jan blinked.

The question is what deal Jan Brewer is attempting to make with the Obama administration regarding their current legality impasse.

Finally, anyone who actually trusts the Obama administration is a fool to expect authoritarians to fulfill their contractual agreements or under-the-table-deals made with political “enemies”. Obama’s first matter of business as POTUS was to break contract law in his GM/Chrysler bail-out aka executive ordered government purchase using taxpayers’ money without any taxpayer vote/choice. And the cherry on that deal is GM not paying any taxes now.

Historical Precedence:
Taxation without Representation = Tea Party Revolt/War

maverick muse on April 19, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Note: No State may refuse to accept the public records of another state, aside from such exemptions which Congress may enact. The birth certificate issue is a national one.

Brewer is right.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Arizona is not refusing to Accept Hawaii’s long form birth certificate.

Make sure you put the blame on the right foot.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:31 AM

In that scenario a state could be asked to produce 50 different versions of official documents.

Or if convenience isn’t enough to convenience you..we have that pesky constitution.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Arizona WILL accept Hawaii’s original birth certificates. Not a problem accepting Hawaiian documents. They just have to be the CORRECT documents. Get it?

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Probably thought the bill was poorly written just like the original illegal driver bill that had to be fixed. Remember, George Soros has the Sec of State project in full swing across the country. That’s just too much power in one officials’ hands. Brewer is right on this.

Kissmygrits on April 19, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Article IV Section 1 is why if you are married in one state, you are married in all. It is why you can drive all over the country with the license from your home state.

Imagine moving from Maryland to PA and learning you were no longer marries because they had different requirements…

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM

And suppose someone produces a Marriage license that says “Ted and Tammy got married!” with no further information?

No, we’ll have to see the Long form Marriage license.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM

No, I am defending the constitution, why you are defending ignoring it to advance a political preference.

One of us is on strong constitutional ground…the other?

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:40 AM

No you’re not. Your trying to argue that a state should be forced to accept an inadequate document when a REAL one exists that the candidate refuses to show them.

HE DOESN’T GET TO MAKE THAT CALL! NEITHER DOES HAWAII!

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:42 AM

If you don’t like the law, get the constitution amended, until then I will go with what’s right.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 12:42 AM

How can you do that? You’ve shown that you obviously don’t know what that is.

Arizona is NOT refusing to accept Hawaii’s original document. They are refusing to accept the fake one.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:44 AM

And suppose someone produces a Marriage license that says “Ted and Tammy got married!” with no further information?

No, we’ll have to see the Long form Marriage license.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Full Faith and Credit…. if that’s what a state provides and is considered proof of marriage, it’s what counts.

Arizona WILL accept Hawaii’s original birth certificates. Not a problem accepting Hawaiian documents. They just have to be the CORRECT documents. Get it?

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Again you miss the point, Full Faith….. if HI says the COLB is the appropriate document by law, then it’s the proper document.

You can have a fair political argument re: the POTUS being open and showing more than the law requires but that does not change Article IV, Sections 1

This is ignoring of course the hypocrisy of AZ as they also provide and respect a short form to their own citizens.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Thank goodness there are some sane republicans out there who won’t go along with this birther crap.

Scrappy on April 19, 2011 at 2:07 AM

They are called “Losers.”

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:49 AM

So, one state Legislature will pass a law, and a governor will sign it.

And then a Sumi-like wacko lefty judge will invalidate the law.

Game over.

fossten on April 19, 2011 at 8:54 AM

“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.”

Sounds like she’s vetoing it over what she sees as a religious test. The birth certificate would be fine, but religious documents should be well off limits.

Count to 10 on April 19, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Again you miss the point, Full Faith….. if HI says the COLB is the appropriate document by law, then it’s the proper document.

You can have a fair political argument re: the POTUS being open and showing more than the law requires but that does not change Article IV, Sections 1

This is ignoring of course the hypocrisy of AZ as they also provide and respect a short form to their own citizens.

NextGen on April 19, 2011 at 8:47 AM

Arizona WILL accept the CORRECT document from Hawaii. One that HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED.

An Amended document is proof of nothing.

The ONLY possible way to know that a document HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED is to see the original, with the signature of the witness to the birth.

Hawaii HAS such a document. The Candidate can present it, or he can refuse to present it.

There is no full faith and credit violation, there is only an instance of one little @sshole playing everyone for chumps by producing a document that cannot prove anything.

If Arizona HAD passed the bill, and IF the little man-child @sshole decided to fight it, I bet the defense could get the judge to order the original be brought forth.

Obama would lose this fight no matter how it went down.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 8:59 AM

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

Maybe she doesn’t want Obama reelected. Besides being able to point at the GOP birthers and saying you don’t want those paranoid idiots to control the government, what else can Obama run on? His economy and foreign policy are disasters. What remains to him is demonizing the GOP. I’m appalled at the idiots who are handing him his re-election.

thuja on April 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM

So, one state Legislature will pass a law, and a governor will sign it.

And then a Sumi-like wacko lefty judge will invalidate the law.

Game over.

fossten on April 19, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Not so fast. If “standing” works to prevent anyone from challenging man-child’s eligibility, standing will also work to limit who can challenge the law. Since that would be Obama, he would have to face the political danger of challenging it, (Making people wonder why he refuses to show the document to the secretary of the state who’s discretion could be counted on if it is a question of “embarrassing” information on it) and the legal danger that the Judge would demand to see his original.

All the Governor had to do was set these events in motion. For some peculiar reason (and her stated reasons are stone cold idiocy) she decided not to do the right thing.

DiogenesLamp on April 19, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4