Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AK Forty Seven, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_go_ot/us_obama_birth_certificate



    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.

    The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year's controversy over the state's illegal immigration enforcement law.

    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, 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."
    [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

    The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate.

    So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state.

    The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona's bill would have added additional requirements.

    The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

    If candidates didn't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

    If it couldn't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

    The bill didn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.

    The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, declined immediate comment on Monday's veto. But he previously said that the president's birth record wouldn't satisfy the requirements of his proposal and that Obama would have to provide other records, such as baptismal certificates and hospital records.

    The measure, however, wasn't intended as a swipe against the president — it was meant to maintain the integrity of elections, Seel said.
     
  2. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    [​IMG]
     
  3. One reason why I did not bother in the discussion of the birther issue. All things birther will be destroyed, one way, or another.
     
  4. And those loons actually believe a sitting President with a State certifying he was born there is not going to be on every ballot in 2012
     
  5. Hello

    Hello

    I agree, I want this shit from the birthers to stop. There is zero chance that Obama will be unseated by birthers, the only chance people who believe in small government have of unseating him, is taking him on head-on, based on his bulllshit policies. People like myself who want smaller government are far better off taking Obama on, based on his bullshit policies, and the vast number of pathological lies he has told while in office. I really wish birthers would give it up already, as there is zero chance of getting rid of Obama based on their strategy.
     
  6. ammo

    ammo

    if they say it long and loud enough,the people will believe it to be true,when is the last time the us citizens got any facts/truth...media creates truth by repetition when short of fact..if trump says it's so..it must be
     
  7. It will have no impact, it is already widely believed that the hard right is anti-intellectual, and xenophobic. The birther issue plays into this perception with stunning effectiveness. If the right continues, this will bury them, again. The GOP is very well aware of this.
     
  8. Hello

    Hello

    So if republicans were to go with your idea that they can "say it long enough, and loud enough," and actually inhibit some sort of change, then why havent the people been able to lower the poll numbers on Obama based on the fact that he is a lying scumbag?

    I mean there is tons of evidence to back up that assertion, but Obama still has an undying 45-50% support level. Do you really believe there is a shot in hell of changing the opinion of the people who support Obama no matter what based on Evidence which will come forth from a birther? Obama has done so many things which should piss off the left to no end, and he has retained his support numbers regardless, the birther issue is not going to change anything going foreword. Even if a couple states were to rule in favour, it is more likley that the mainstream media will go to bat for Obama and talk about how supposed "racists" are trying to unroot him, so it will have the opposite effect. People who are opposed to government have a much better shot at getting rid of this clown by pointing out all the assinine things he has done, as opposed to questioning his birth place.
     
  9. ammo

    ammo

    bet rid of him and bring in another clown,it's all rhetoric,besides obama,where are the lawmakers policing the fed,the banks, the off shore trading,where did the tarp money go,the president is a puppet,as long as the focus is on anything but the unpunished criminals running the planet,biz will go on as usual,you can focus on obama or the dems or reps,or who they put up for prez,its all the deals behind the scenes going on day after day that go unnoticed,or noticed but swept under the carpet,these are the things you should focus on before you elect another rep or dem for prez or sen or congress or governor,these two parties should be taken out as a mass disease and burned
     
  10. Hello

    Hello

    You will see very little argument from me on this point. I fully realise that what is happening is a tag team effort from both sides. However the person who is currently controlling the scene is Obama, so although i have very little faith that it will change much,(should we get rid of him) i still want to see him go. I want to see Obama go, if for no other reason then solely for the fact that we will test out a new loser, who will probably lead us into the sewer once again. The sad thing at this point is the fact that we have not been left with a viable option, but instead the option of voting for the person we think will screw us over "less" then the last guy.

    This is where i sit with Obama. I want someone else to win simply because i am hoping the next dipshit steals a little less than Obama does. I have come to the realisation that the government will screw me either way, and i am left with a decision of whose going to get me for a little less, as opposed to a decision about who is actually going to do a good job of making this country better. Republicans and Democats are pretty much the same thing, both support the government stealing money by force, they just distribute it to different voters.....

    The only thing i can say with no qualifiers is that no matter who wins the next election, the government will come out on top in one form or another.

     
    #10     Apr 19, 2011