Posted on 04/19/2011 7:02:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In a somewhat surprising move, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed the so-called “birther bill,” which would require presidential candidates to show proof of citizenship. When the bill passed the Arizona legislature it seemed all but a done deal.
Wait. Brewer did?!? Jan Brewer? Yes. Yes, she did. Jan, thank you, Jan.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
In an uncharacteristic move of sense and sensibility, the Republican governor — who, let’s face it, has a reputation for steering into the crazy, not away from it — surprised everyone with her veto letter, saying the measure “is a bridge too far,” according to My Fox Phoenix, and that House Bill 2177 “creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.”
Leading up to her veto, Brewer had been fairly mum on whether she would sign the bill into law.
“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 or circumcision certificates,’” she said.
And like that, until another state attempts to pass a birther bill, it seems the controversy over whether or not President Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii has been put to rest.
The Arizona legislature could still override the governor’s veto, but that hasn’t been accomplished in 50 years. Such a move requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, so it appears for now that legislators will not even attempt an override.
“Overrides are a real difficult monster,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Carl Seel (R-Phoenix), according to the Arizona Republic. He said that overrides are as much about defying the governor, also a Republican, as they are about supporting the legislation’s intent.
Other reactions from state legislators have been mixed:
Democrats cheered Brewer’s decision Monday, while some members of her own party questioned the wisdom of her actions.
“At the end of the day, it was the right thing for Arizona,” Sen. Steve. Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said of the veto, adding that the birth-certificate bill “puts another black cloud over the state of Arizona.”
But Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said the bill would have put questions to rest over Obama’s citizenship.
Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said he wasn’t surprised by her action, suggesting that Brewer believed the bill would put the secretary of state in an uncomfortable position.
In her letter, Brewer wrote, “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.”
It should also be noted that Brewer even vetoed Arizona’s guns on campus bill, perhaps a more noteworthy veto. That legislation, according to the Arizona Daily Star, would have allowed people to have guns while walking or driving through university and community college campuses. The governor said although she generally supports allowing people to carry their weapons in more places, the “poorly written” legislation had too many flaws, including a failure to clearly define public places where guns would be allowed.
When Gov. Brewer is the sensible one, what does that say about your state legislators?
Then again, she did sign into law a bill that states “Arizona would prefer that married couples be given higher consideration for adoptions than non-married people, if all other factors are equal.” In other words, she would prefer gay couples not adopt kids.
Two steps forward, one step back.
It looks like Pelosi gets to decide who is on the ballot in AZ now just like 2008. Thanks Jan.
it’s one way only:
conservatives decompensate into liberals,
but never do liberals upgrade to conservatives.
Over-ride the veto.....
I think that she vetoed it because I believe that the bill stated that if there was a dispute or question it was left to whomever the Secretary of State is to give a yea or nay. This could result in unintended political consequences if the AZ SoS were a criminal democrat. It would be a precedent that could be challenged in court and emulated by democrat controlled states.
So, to date, not one state in the union has a law requiring anything more than a COLB?
Just HOW does this put this question "to rest"?
Fidel Castro for POTUS!
As someone else put it (Lenin, Stalin, Marx... someone like that)
“the forces of socialism only march in one direction”
40 to 16 is 71% over ride the veto!
Anybody know what the chances of veto being overridden?
Look for her to get a huge check from Soros after she leaves her government job behind her.
Brewer is dead to me
It may not be blackmail but rather death threats. Look at Glenn Beck: Doesn’t he look like a man who saw a ghost? Ups and quits and heads out of Dodge, BOOM! Just like that! George Soros is one of the richest men on Earth and he’s not the only billionaire Democrat by any means! With that kind of money almost anything is possible.
Somebody put a horse’s head in her bed.
Please do not use God’s name in that way.
Go to the Kos, they like that stuff over there, most on
this forum don’t, thanks.
I was surprised at her statement last Friday that she might veto this bill, so the actual veto wasn’t such a surprise. Last night I discussed the issue with a fairly savvy lawyer who said the way the law was written, she probably did the right thing.
Remember: this law left it to the Secretary of State to be the sole arbiter on eligibility, Remember also: Soros has funded a project to install (Soros friendly) Secretaries of State throughout the US. So, were a SoS so inclined s/he could eliminate candidates at will, with potentially dire consequences, rather than those intended by the bill’s authors).
This lawyer suggested instead that the electors (who we are actually voting for) should bear responsibility to vet candidates according to an established procedure before the electors are allowed on the ballot. Those electors would have to certify the eligibility of the candidate for whom they might ultimately cast their electoral votes. In the least populated states, that would be 3R an 3D electors who would have to vet and certify the candidates’ eligiility. They could then submit to the SoS who would verify that the information was properly obtained/vetted by the respective teams of electors. Assuming that is done properly, the electors for the candidate are then put on the respective states’ ballots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.