Posted on 04/15/2011 5:58:05 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
Gov. Jan Brewer hinted Friday she might veto legislation designed to give the Arizona secretary of state the final say of who gets to run for president here.
Brewer told Capitol Media Services she is still reviewing the measure given final approval late Thursday, which spells out what documents have to be presented by political parties to get their candidate on the ballot. The legislation requires the secretary of state, as chief elections officer, to deny ballot status to those who do not submit the required paperwork.
Backers, led by Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, say they are just trying to protect the integrity of the electoral process. But Brewer, who was secretary of state for six years before becoming governor, said the wishes of the state legislators who support the measure may be irrelevant.
“I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I don’t know if we regulate federal elections,’’ she said.
Seel conceded he is doing something no other state has tried. And he said there are court rulings that could be interpreted to conclude that his measure gives “too much authority to the secretary of state.’’
“But we’ll let the courts decide that,’’ he said, anticipating the likely legal challenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at eastvalleytribune.com ...
Yes! Rather than "shooting a little bit from the hip," it looks like Gov. Brewer shot herself in the hip with her statement.
Two words: "Standing" and "Discovery"...
Bring it on!!!
>> “I think my big concern probably, just shooting a little bit from the hip, is the fact that I don’t know if we regulate federal elections,’’ she said. <<
There are NO federal elections. All elections are state elections, which may include some federal positions. At least that’s my recollection. And it seems that in the last few years, while some tried to question Jughead’s election, that some court or other stated that STATES hold and regulate elections, especially for the federal electors who then cast the votes for Prez and VP slate.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I know someone will.
I wish people would understand, that in the US we have NO federal elections excepting the electoral college. All other elections for federal offices are state elections (including those for the electors of the electoral college). It is up to the states to determine how their elections are run, as long as they meet constitutional and other federal laws.
Requiring that candidates names that appear on the ballot meet US constitutional requirements would be well within their powers.
******
Sick. Sick. Sick. Since when did the governor of Arizona start seeking the advice of the governor of Hawaii concerning social matters and laws crucial to the people of Arizona?
For instance, did the Governor of Arizona also consult with the now FORMER Governor of Hawaii Lindle when the Governor of Arizona was working hard to pass Arizona's historical anti-illegal immigration law recently?
Doesn't the Governor of Arizona realize that the Governor of Hawaii Lindle never directly looked at or touched for herself Obama's long form birth certificate, that is, Lindle sent a high-ranking Health Department official to check on Obama's long form birth certificate, and it was that official who told Governor Lindle that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Doesn't the Governor of Arizona realize that this historical presidential eligibility law applies to ALL presidential candidates, not just to Obama?
So I beg the good people of Arizona to contact their Governor and plead with her to pass this historical presidential eligibility bill that will help insure for years to come that future candidates for President of the United States are who they say they are.
In addition, the "presidential election" is actually a state election for a slate of representatives to vote in the electorial college. Actually, apart from those few persons selected to vote in the electoral college, no one has ever cast a direct vote for president. This is strictly a state issue.
No your right. States determine elections. She’s an idiot.
Crap. States that have considered “Birther” legislation:
NH, GA, AZ, MT, PA, TX, OK, NE, IN, CT, MO, IA, TN, FL.
All seem to get buried except for Connecticut? There the pubbie said it wouldn’t take effect before 2013. Sigh.
She earlier received one huge "gift" from the Obama Administration on her Medicaid-reduction initiative, and I don't think she wants to jeopardize her chances for getting her Medicaid proposal approved. It looks like a quid-pro-quo fig leaf offer from her to the Socialist-in-Chief, as I see it.
What a classic suck-up.
When in doubt with the vast majority of politicians on either side of the aisle, look for their personal self-interest and the picture clarifies significantly.
“It’s been stated by the governor (of Hawaii), Linda Lingle, who I spoke with directly, that he was born in Hawaii,’’ she said.
Soooo it shouldn’t be a problem right?
HEADLINES
Eric Holder drops lawsuit against AZ and Obama to send troops to border
in other news, Jan Brewer vetos bill that would require someone to check the qualifications of people applying for a job.
Oh crap... Now that is unexpected — to say the least.
OK. I haven’t read the responses to this thread, so I may be restating what someone else has posted.
If the damn lawyers in the legislature would stop writing their bills using tons of gobbledegook language, we wouldn’t have such problems in regard to the stuff being passed on to various courts with activist judges to make their decisions, and it would waste so much time and money.
I seem to recall that it’s the responsibility of each State to have its Sec. of State verify that the candidates for elected offices are eligible. The US Speaker of the House also has to signify eligibility of candidates in the case of a Presidential election. That latter requirement was, of course, signed off by Speaker Pelosi without verifying the eligibility of Obama.
Seems the SoS’ of the various States failed big prior to the 2008 election just as the Speaker did.
Oooops! Posted that before I finished my thoughts.
The BS about what types of documents must/or can be provided is just garbage.
The statute should just simply require proof that a person seeking to be on the ballot as a candidate for President must provide valid evidence of being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the US, as required for eligibility by the Constitution.
I live in a state that is a long way from Arizona, and I have never been to Arizona.
1. I just hope that God inspires Governor Brewer with the wisdom to follow her conscience.
2. If she signs it, great. If she doesn't sign it, I hope that she can live with herself.
3. I hope that Brewer signs the bill and Arizona goes into the history books as the first state ever that took up the challenge to stand up and be counted when it came to this presidential eligibility mess during the 2012 presidential campaign.
4. If Brewer vetoes the bill, can her veto be overturned in any way?
5. Also, if Brewer signs the historical bill, it might encourage other states to follow Brewer's historical example and pass presidential eligibility laws similar to the one passed in Arizona. We can always dream, can't we?
6. I first learned about Gov. Brewer when she was all over the tv during the Arizona illegal immigration issue a few months back.
7. The image of Brewer I remember the most is this one: Brewer is standing out in what looked like the hot Arizona desert and pointing to a large sign that, to paraphrase, warned people to avoid the area because the area was dangerous, dangerous in the sense that persons walking through the area could get attacked by others.
8. Watching Brewer on tv all those months, I came to admire her courage for the way she was fighting against the federal government by trying to bring some sanity to this out-of-control illegal immigration mess.
9. I just hope that the courage that Brewer displayed during Arizona's recent confrontation with the Obama administration over Arizona's anti-illegal immigration bill carries over to Arizona's attempt to bring some calm and sanity to this issue of presidential eligibility.
10. If Arizona is courageous enough to pass its historical bill, it will be a giant step towards helping the American people answer the following question for years and years to come and long after Obama has gone:
How does a presidential candidate assure the American public that he is who he says he is and that he was born in the United States where he said he was?
The presidential elecion is not a federal election, Governor. It is a state by state election for a federal office, just as the house and senate elections are. The people in the individual states choose representatives to an assembly that chooses the president.
A state is fully empowered to choose who is on it’s ballot.
Kind of disappointing to realize you can be elected governor of a state and not understand that there is no such thing as a federal election.
It is a state by state election for a federal office, just as the house and senate elections are.
The people in the individual states choose representatives to an assembly that chooses the president.
A state is fully empowered to choose who is on it’s ballot.
*******
Yes. It seems reasonable and logical to me that it should be left up to each state---not the federal government---to require a presidential candidate to provide some type of legal document that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the presidential candidate is at least 35 years old and that he was born in the United States as required by the Constitution.
1. Right now, it seems that all a presidential candidate has to do to get on a political party primary ballot and on the presidential ballot in Nov. 2012 is to (1) raise his hand and swear before a witness or witnesses that he is eligible, and (2) sign an affidavit that he is at least 35 years old and that he was born in the United States as required by the Constitution. That is it. No wonder Obama was able to sneak onto each state's election ballot without any state officials challenging his birth and citizenship.
2. However, there doesn't seem to be any law in any state that says that the Secretary of State has to make a strong effort to make sure that the candidate is not lying about his past.
3. To me, that is wrong, because state officials should be required to be positively sure, beyone a shadow of a doubt, that the presidential candidate is not lying about his birth and citizenship.
4. So it seems to me that it is most reasonable and logical that the Secretary of State in each state should be able to legally require a presidential candidate to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is who he says is by providing a legal document---like a certified birth certificate from the state of his birth--- to the Secretary of State in each state.
5. And to make sure that the candidate has not tampered with his birth certificate, the birth certificate must come directly from the candidate's birth state with the state's seal and not from the candidate himself or from the candidate's campaign headquarters.
6. To me, the Arizona presidential eligibility law is a fair one, because it will insure that presidential candidates will have to provide legal proof that they are who they say they are for many presidential elections to come and long after Obama has gone.
The GOP isn't stupid. They are protecting their rotten communist comrade.
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.