John McCain praises Gov. Jan Brewer for veto of 'birther bill'

LA Times ^ | April 19, 2011, 11:00 a.m | Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau

[Red Steel]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday credited Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) for making "the right decision" with her veto of the so-called "birther bill," which would have required presidential candidates to submit their birth certificates in order to qualify for the ballot.

-snip-

Legislation like this has been offered in a number of state legislatures across the country, driven by persistent speculation in some quarters that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. No similar law had gotten as far as a governor's desk, however.

McCain, Obama's 2008 Republican rival, said in a message posted to Twitter Tuesday afternoon that he was "proud" of Brewer "for her veto of the 'birther bill' - it was the right decision."

[jersey117]

Idiot. Even though the rats made him show his.

[kabar]

You can pursue both. What is he hiding and why? That is the question that should be put to the voters and let Obama defend why he will not release his long form birth certificate. It goes to credibility and character.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth challenged Kerry's narrative as a war hero, it froze him for almost a month. He was finished.

[kabar]

It would also be very expensive for her to sue.

[TheCipher]

And if they don't possess one, then why insist on Obama producing one? This bill will change nothing - Obama is already producing other than the long form

But, if he doesn't produce the longform, he would have to produce two of the following :

(a) EARLY BAPTISMAL OR CIRCUMCISION CERTIFICATE.

(b) HOSPITAL BIRTH RECORD.

(c) POSTPARTUM MEDICAL RECORD FOR THE MOTHER OR CHILD SIGNED BY THE DOCTOR OR MIDWIFE OR THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED OR EXAMINED THE CHILD AFTER BIRTH.

(d) EARLY CENSUS RECORD

Seeing as census records are not open until 70 years after it is taken, (d) wouldn't apply. That leaves a hospital birth record, baptismal or circumcision certificate, and a postpartum medical record.

They insist he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. If he couldn't come up with that, then it would be very interesting.

[Friendofgeorge]

Perhaps McCain is entertaining yet another bid for WH, and does not want to show his BC???

[montag813]

Can we be serious? I support the cause, but the bill STUNK, and I told several AZ Senators exactly that. They also screwed up last month by not counting votes before putting up a series of bills that got spanked down in the Senate - embarrassing Pearce, Brewer and the entire state. Russell needs to get a better grip on this process, and fix this bill AND the flawed campus gun bill.

[Cboldt]

Brewer's rationale for veto is baloney, and she knows it.

AZ law, as it stands now and did when she personally certified that Obama was constitutionally qualified, gives the AZ SoS the sole and unreviewable power to certify eligibility for ballot access for presidential candidates.

For all other offices, AZ law gives a statutory right to challenge qualifications, in a court of law.

[Cboldt]

-- Brewer is running for Senator from AZ to replace John Kyl in 2012. --

She's part of "the club."

[Cboldt]

-- The fix: AZ Republicans should take some testosterone injections and craft a bill that does the job, and that includes prevailing before the USSC. --

My suggestion is that they amend the existing presidential ballot access statute by striking paragraph "C." That paragraph says that the statute that gives a right to sue on candidate qualifications does not pertain for presidential candidates. The current law gives the SoS the sole and unreviewable power to certify eligibility, but only for candidates running for president.

Arizona Ballot Access Law <-- clickee here for details

[butterdezillion]

That was the one thing that wasn’t clear to me either because of the particular language, which was why I asked Seel about it. I’d hope that Brewer would have asked about that too if she wasn’t sure what it meant.

[frog in a pot]

Your #89 and the linked thread raise two issues.

First, there is a strong argument that a “single gatekeeper” works in favor of patriots. No gatekeeper is immune from court review. Patriots would want quick access to the courthouse if a Dem SoS were to interpret the statute in a way that caused an unjust result.

To the extent a statute provides for reviews by lateral or higher authorities, the longer it will take to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to a court hearing. Clearly, multiple and politically influenced reviews will delay a resolution for patriots at the same time the election calendar is moving forward.

Second, you are correct, voters should have standing to present a bona fide challenge to a candidate - most, if not all, state primaries provide a limited period for challenging an opponent’s qualifications - and whatever device denies such standing should be removed.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear -351 is of much help:
“B. Any elector [voter] may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.”

The operative words are “qualifications…as prescribed by law”. A challenge, therefore, almost certainly is limited to whether the prescribed qualifications are satisfactorily documented. That is reasonable, as it allows for challenging falsified documents. However, we should anticipate a candidate registering on the basis of a home birth will have those “alternative” documents well-prepared. Now what? IMO, the court will say “put them on the ballot.”

There is a reason U.S. birth certificate forms have traditionally provided for the birthplace of the parents, and that is in recognition of the Constitution and its various requirements.

The ultimate fix for this eligibility bill includes “two citizen parent” language with the understanding it will be challenged at the highest level (with other Republican states appearing as friends of the court).

Until then, or until our politicians man up and take a firm stance that disposes of the anchor baby myth, those babies have a shot at our nation’s top two offices.

[sport]

That is no surprise. John Mc Cain and a Democrat put on the same pair of pants each morning. But he is who the majority of people who voted want to represent them in the Senate.

[Cboldt]

-- there is a strong argument that a "single gatekeeper" works in favor of patriots. No gatekeeper is immune from court review. --

The AZ gatekeeper SoS is immune from court review, on the certification that the name of the person running for president is qualified. All other candidates, in AZ, may have their qualifications challenged in court, by operation of AZ statute that gives a right to challenge.

-- we should anticipate a candidate registering on the basis of a home birth will have those "alternative" documents well-prepared. Now what? IMO, the court will say "put them on the ballot." --

There is always a possibility of a "marginal" candidate, one with unclear heritage or murky documentation of heritage. I don't think that unreviewable decisions are the most reliable way to get to "metaphysical truth" in any case. Regardless of that opinion of mine, no matter what system is in place, it can swing either way, for or against those interested in the truth. Sometimes the initial take is correct, sometimes the reviewer is in the bag (See Florida Supreme Court, US Supreme Court on some issues, etc.), and sometimes the reverse.

The "cure" to blatantly incorrect conclusions of law in all of those instances is sufficient awareness on the part of the public; perhaps combined with a willingness to throw out the people who are making the blatant errors.

-- The ultimate fix for this eligibility bill includes "two citizen parent" language with the understanding it will be challenged at the highest level ... --

That's one way to get there. Another is to leave the details out of the legislation, and leave it to the challenger to voice the specific grounds for the challenge. Some challenger is sure to assert the traditional grounds for finding natural born citizenship.

As mentioned above, the ultimate success depends entirely on public awareness, acceptance, and demand for adherence to the underlying principle. My impression is that the public is unaware of (or generally accepts) the risks that dual citizenship and naturalized citizenship pose, to admission to the office of president. If the public is indifferent about the constitution (and I think, on the whole, it is), then the elites will have their way with the public.

[frog in a pot]

The AZ gatekeeper SoS is immune from court review, on the certification that the name of the person running for president is qualified.

That is almost certainly true, but doesn’t seem on point. No one here is, or should be, arguing that on the basis of the language in this bill, the SoS is responsible for determining NBC, or should bear liability for any misjudgment in that regard. (Quite the opposite, of course, if the bill specifies two citizen parentage.)

The issue is whether it is favorable to patriots that a single official be the gatekeeper for determining conformance with the statute and the names on the ballot. Section -351 you cited earlier provides for exactly such a court review after ballots are printed.

Fortunately for AZ, Rep Seel happens to agree with the single gatekeeper concept.

It is difficult to argue with the remainder of your comments; they describe the stuff you and I wish America was made of.

However, given clear evidence the voters are being dumbed down, that 47% of them are not taxpayers, most of them have no idea who is serving in their local government and that “they” have sent close to 100 out-of-the-closet socialists to Congress – it seems clear we need stronger laws that reflect the Constitution.

IMO, that includes adding NBC to state eligibility requirements, rather than hoping the USSC will hear a claim by a defeated candidate.

[Cboldt]

-- Section -351 you cited earlier provides for exactly such a court review after ballots are printed. --

The timing is after the candidate has been "nominated," or after the last day for filing candidacy. This is before ballots are printed. The law gives the court 10 days within which to render a decision, and the court decision is directly appealable to the state supreme court.

Contrast with AZ law (as it stands now) regarding presidential nominees. The SoS certifies eligibility, and that decision may not be challenged.

My other point is that the AZ legislature can avoid all the minutia that pertains to defining NBC, and simply provide that after the SoS certifies "qualified," the public may challenge on substantive grounds.

[frog in a pot]

A challenge does not appear to expire once ballots are printed. From the section:

3. The board of supervisors and the recorder of each county or the clerk of each city or town who is responsible for preparing the ballots that contain the challenged candidate's name.

Perhaps you can point me to the section that supports:
The SoS certifies eligibility, and that decision may not be challenged.

Thanks.

[Cboldt]

-- Perhaps you can point me to the section that supports:

The SoS certifies eligibility, and that decision may not be challenged.

Arizona Statutes: 16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper

A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper ...

C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.

My contention is that for presidential candidates (those covered by 16-242), the challenge procedure of 16-351 is not available. Now, there might be a separate, stand-alone statutory right to challenge ballot access for presidential candidates, in an AZ court. Given the structure of the AZ election statutes, I don't think there is. Absent a statutory right to challenge in court, my belief is that an AZ court would assert something akin to "no standing."

-- A challenge does not appear to expire once ballots are printed. --

I don't disagree with that, but the timing of the challenge (which is NOT available under 16-351 for presidential candidates) aims to have the issue settled before the ballots are printed.

[yup2394871293]

True, but Swift Boat Vets was a bunch of private citizens, not elected officials.

[frog in a pot]

Let me finish by noting that while Section -351 applies to voters and denies them standing, it does not expressly deprive a “candidate” of a challenge, nor does such a prohibition appear elsewhere.

Ergo, on the face of it, judicial review of the SoS’s certification is not prohibited and the single gate keeper concept continues to hold promise for patriots. But is judicial review otherwise available?

Interestingly, AZ judicially overturned SoS Brewer’s formal certification of voting machines (Chavez v Brewer). Because of their unique circumstances the plaintiffs had standing, brought suit via statutes and the state’s Constitution, and prevailed in meaningful parts.

While the facts are different than what we would expect here, this statement from Chavez is helpful:
That the authority to certify voting machines is not constitutionally committed to the secretary of state but is prescribed as one of her duties by the legislature is an important factor in our determination that judicial review of her actions is not inappropriate.

Cboldt, you can have the last word.

Red Steel, this has been a good thread, I hope we didn’t drive folks away.

[Cboldt]

-- judicial review of the SoS's certification is not prohibited and the single gate keeper concept continues to hold promise for patriots. But is judicial review otherwise available? --

I don't know if any of the birther suits, either against McCain or against Obama, were brought in Arizona, and then, against Brewer so the case would be tried in a state court.

Hopefully, my rationale is clear, in that an affirmative and express statutory right to avail court process is more likely to result in court process, than is an absence of statutory prohibition. Courts can (and do) duck issues; see numerous suits pertaining to eligibility for ballot access - not just Obama, but McCain as well. As far as I know, none of those cases was decided on the merits. No plaintiff had a statutory right to court process either.

In your remarks, you said that the voting machine issue involved "... suit via statutes and the state's Constitution." I presume you aren't meaning to imply there was a statutory right to sue for a judicial review of the SoS determination, but that the statutes gave the authority for certifying voting machines to the SoS.