Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   



Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill


PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot.
Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.
"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer.
(visit the link for the full news article) news.yahoo.com


Chicken! Buuuuck-buuuuck-buck.

Seriously, I don't blame her for not wanting to be the one to bring down Obama. Only his handlers can do that, and apparently it is not the time yet. He will just steamroll over her.
Here we are folks, no one can see this president's birth certificate, his school records, etc.
Prepare for four more years!
edit on 18-4-2011 by tungus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 

lol no surprise guess who owns your senates...

this would of been epic tho but looks like your stuck with barry the kenyan commie president you never wanted
change you can believe in

still probably better than trump
Ps why does Ron Paul scare folks more than these goons?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Most likely because there would be costly constitutional legal consequences. She's not too bright but were not talking abour a difficult concept here.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
It's way past time for the Arizona electorate to put this statist governor out of office. She should never be in public office again. The worst thing any politician can do right now is to protect the status quo.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
There is more than enough proof of his birth certificate and even pictures of it, just not with the state seal on it because it is a copy. There's a reason people like O'reilly and Limbaugh are not on board with this. It's because if Obama falters in the polls for whatever reason he is gonna whip this thing out and make the birthers look like complete idiots.

Any republican calling for further proof is just walking into a cleverly laid trap by Obama.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
There is always more than one way to skin a cat!!!



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


Gov has a point.. there should have been a bipartisan panel created to judge the candidates..



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


You have to wonder what happened to majority rule and representative Government in the US..

All I see now are vetoes, signings and executive orders...

Looks like dictatorship to me...



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by tungus
 


You have to wonder what happened to majority rule and representative Government in the US..

All I see now are vetoes, signings and executive orders...

Looks like dictatorship to me...


You are not very informed then. The liberals are wondering why the tea parties gained so much in 2010? Because they didn't go out and vote and the tea people did. Our government is as represntative as it's always been and actually if you look at the presidential records you will see that Bush had one of the lowest numbers of presidential vetos in the history of the u.s.

Of course he had both sides of congress but the point is that you are incorrect in stating that all you see are vetoes and executive orders.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
and now it goes back to the floor
of the state and with a 2/3 vote
can still pass anyway without
her approval.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You are not very informed then. The liberals are wondering why the tea parties gained so much in 2010? Because they didn't go out and vote and the tea people did. Our government is as represntative as it's always been and actually if you look at the presidential records you will see that Bush had one of the lowest numbers of presidential vetos in the history of the u.s.

Of course he had both sides of congress but the point is that you are incorrect in stating that all you see are vetoes and executive orders.


How dare you call me uninformed......
I hear of vetoes and executive orders all the time...
How many has Obama signed??

In a truly democratic society there should be NONE...



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
and now it goes back to the floor
of the state and with a 2/3 vote
can still pass anyway without
her approval.


I just checked the roll call votes. It appears it already passed the house and senate with a 2/3 majority. So I guess all they need to do is have the same vote over again and it becomes law.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


I just checked the roll call votes. It appears it already passed the house and senate with a 2/3 majority. So I guess all they need to do is have the same vote over again and it becomes law.


You'd think the Governor would have had no right to veto a law if it passed with that majority..
Doesn't make sense to me but then when did Government ever make sense?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
while I do agree with the meaning of the bill,
I do agree with Brewer that the decision to
be on the ballot should not rest in any one
individual's hand. It needed to be an un-biased
panel decision and in my opinion is why she
vetoed it. I'll bet she also agreed with the
content but is holding out for an amendment
to the bill. If they amend it, I'll bet she signs it.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



It needed to be an un-biased
panel decision and in my opinion is why she
vetoed it.


Maybe but it's not like there's really any decision to be made..
A candidate MUST show X proof..
It's not open to interpretation..It's either shown as required or it isn't..



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


Yep, the birther bill was vetoed. Brewer is an opportunistic politician on the rightwing, but even she is smart enough to recognize what she was stepping into had she signed off this bill. To state the obvious:

The law violates the constitution in the full faith & credit clause, in particular it refuses to recognize what Hawaii considers a suitable form of a birth certificate.

It automatically disqualifies natural born american citizens from running for the presidency because they don't have a long form birth certificate, it is silly. None of my relatives have their original long form birth certificates, not all original birth certificates are held by each state, some states no longer issue them, Arizona being one of them:
www.azcentral.com...

Aside from the waste of money on these kinds of birther bills, what exactly will an image of Obama's long form birth certificate do for birthers alike considering:

"It's just a piece of paper" in their words.
They are unqualified to examine it's authenticity and would require Hawaiian officials to do so (again)
That it will repeat the same informaton contained in the short form?

So what will releasing his long form birth certificate do? Nothing really. If a child cries and stamps his feet because he wants that toy on the shelf at a shopping center, the wrong thing for the parent to do is to give the child what he wants, because then the child will become spoiled and demand for more.
edit on 19-4-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



So what will releasing his long form birth certificate do? Nothing really. If a child cries and stamps his feet because he wants that toy on the shelf at a shopping center, the wrong thing for the parent to do is to give the child what he wants, because then the child will become spoiled and demand for more.


that's your opinion..
but the president needs to be a natural born citizen and the short form simply doesn't adequately prove that..

Some would argue it's childish NOT to release what you state is just a piece of paper with no secrets on it..



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by tungus
 


You have to wonder what happened to majority rule and representative Government in the US..


It's rather simple to understand. The United states is not a Direct Democracy, it is a Republic. This is high school civics stuff, not too hard to understand. This is why during the elections the electors along with congress elect and confirm the president. This is how we avoid mob rule because essentially by your logic, the majority and vote to re-established racial segregation or push for a law banning guns to american citizens.

If you believe Obama is ineligible to the presidency because of his birth place, provide the evidence, simple as that. If he guilty, the evidence is out there, birthers (if they well and truly believe this) should focus their resources in actually digging for solid evidence, because according to the prior 71 lawsuits and 13 failed birther bills, they ain't getting anywhere.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
that's your opinion..


Opinion? What is your qualifications for confirming an authenticity of an Hawaiian birth certificate?


but the president needs to be a natural born citizen and the short form simply doesn't adequately prove that..


Now that is an opinion right there. Hawaii law dictates it is a birth certificate and considering no other president has presented their original long form birth certificate before, your opinion doesn't add much weight as to whether Obama has failed in presenting anything.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Originally posted by Southern Guardian



Opinion? What is your qualifications for confirming an authenticity of an Hawaiian birth certificate?

My opinion comment was in relation to you calling anyone that disagrees with you 'childish"..
my opinion is that yours is a childish comment..


Now that is an opinion right there. Hawaii law dictates it is a birth certificate and considering no other president has presented their original long form birth certificate before, your opinion doesn't add much weight as to whether Obama has failed in presenting anything.


Facts are facts and that's all I stated...
I don't give a damn if it's Obama or the tooth fairy..
Simple FACT is the short form does NOT adequately prove someone to be a "natural born citizen"...

That's all I'm saying..
Argue the FACTS, not more childish comments..
edit on 19-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join