Posted on 04/18/2011 6:15:48 PM PDT by RBW in PA
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Monday that would have required presidential candidates to provide their birth certificates to appear on the ballot, and another that would have allowed guns to be carried on school grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at tucsonsentinel.com ...
What are the chances of overriding this veto?
The bill is at http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.htm&Session_ID=102.
The bill's requirements are enough. If the Kenyan clown's campaign did show up with anything other than a long-form birth certificate, the resulting furor would end any chance for his re-election.
The governor did this out of spinelessness, not out of her feigned concern about making the Secretary of State too powerful or some such claptrap.
The bills are on the Arizona legislature's website. HB2177 is at http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177s.htm&Session_ID=102.
WTF?
Show me polls where it says that Obama’s popularity rises when the issue of eligibility comes up.
When the issue comes up there is a full blast of 24/7 propaganda of the media giving out disinformation and trying to call anybody with questions kooks. The full force of Soros’ machine’s fury. And yet Donald Trump leads the R field right now.
Possibly because about 90% of the American public right now believes that Obama has not proven his eligibility and that there should be laws making sure that candidates DO prove eligibility.
If she was looking out for re-election prospects - especially in the national scene - then she would have done what was right and signed the bill, allowing the courts to decide the issue once and for all after having access to all the records and finding out which (if any) of them are actually genuine.
I and a lot of other people just want this jackassery to end and get back to some semblance of the rule of law - on the eligibility issue and on every other way Obama has screwed this country and torn apart its foundations.
We are in no mood for cat and mouse over something that should have been resolved 3 years ago. I apologize for speaking bluntly; my impatience got the better of me.
Have you finished reading everything at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com ?
If so, then perhaps you can tell me why “Koa” and the Prius Chat poster documentably lied when they said they got the Star-Bulletin birth announcement image from the Hawaii State Library. Why did they lie about that instead of just going to the HSL and getting a real copy of what was there?
Maybe you can tell us why the HDOH indirectly confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate in 2006, or why - if Obama had a valid HI birth certificate, he couldn’t come up with a valid BC#/”date filed” combination on the Factcheck forgery. Why didn’t he just copy the BC# and “date filed” off of his legally-valid BC?
You say we’re so ignorant. OK, then tell us the things we don’t know, O great one. Dazzle us with your knowledge.
The documents that were required were irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it allowed eligibility to be challenged in court - and specifically by members of the AZ House and Senate, who have subpoena power and can subpoena the records necessary to find out whether the documents have been tampered with. The original language in the bill included requirements for the parents to be citizens so if the bill passed somebody like Seel would file a suit based on the 2-citizen parent definition of NBC AND get all the birth and citizenship records with the transaction logs revealing whether those records had been altered.
So this bill would have done EXACTLY what we need.
If winning elections is the end-all be-all for you then I suppose this IS all nonsense.
If, however, the Constitution and the rule of law mean anything to you, it’s a different story, because laws and rules are being broken with stunning regularity by government officials. Crimes are being committed by Obama and his handlers. Stuff like threatening media heads that if they allowed anybody to report on it then the FCC and anti-monopoly measures would annihilate them after the election - which was then passed on to the on-air personalities as “If you report on eligibility your career, life, and family are all fair game.” See http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373 And it was not a vain threat.
If that kind of stuff is cool with you, then go ahead and worry about winning elections as if it even matters who gets elected and what laws they pass when the whole infrastructure is lawless. Keep bailing water when the whole bottom of the boat is a shambles.
persistence48,
Since you are from Arizona, what have you been hearing
about a “next” step in all this....?
Also Ping to others
I'll defer to you on this, Butter, because I know how thorough you are with your research. The part of the bill I saw was weak, but I admit that I didn't see the whole thing.
If what you say is correct, Gov. Brewer just failed us.
Maybe she did it because of the parental requirement was taken out of the bill?
***************
Amendments Adopted by Committee
1. Removes parental requirements needed to run for or hold office or to be put on the ballot.
2. Adopted strike everything amendment.
Amendments Adopted by Committee of the Whole
1. Adds a list of documents that can be submitted if the presidential candidate does not have a birth certificate.
2. Permits the SOS to establish a committee for determining the validity of the documents submitted in place of a birth certificate.
3. Adds a severability clause.
*******************
I had seen last week the original version that the House which had mentioned this parental requirement but now all it shows is something about schools.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2177p.htm
The whole Section 16 is not even in there.
Do this seem strange to you? It does to me.
IMO, I think she might have vetoed it because the bill is now vague on the NBC issue and Obama could have easily shown whatever documents, including the bogus COLB, as proof that he does meet the citizen part of this bill. If the bill still had the parental requirement, Obama could not be put on the ballet.
“Would you accept Obama’s circumcision or baptismal certificates if that’s all he had?”
No I would not since we are led to believe he can indeed produce the primary document.
“I’m thinking the COLB would have sufficed.”
I think you are wrong on that. A certification was not one of the listed documents.
Nothing will come of this issue. It is a distraction from far more important issues. Obama knows this and that is why he is desperate to keep this issue alive.
Immigration is a far more important issue, and on this Brewer is a hero. She has done far more than 49 other governors.
Brewer was AZ Secretary of State in 2008. She certified that Obama was qualified. She knows that the secretary of State's conclusion in that regard is not reviewable as a matter of law. IOW, the Secretary of State is too powerful NOW, making her argument a crock.
See www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2707123/posts for the statutory language, and a suggestion that gives Brewer what she asked for - a way to diversify the conclusion of "qualified" in a way that provides, if needed, oversight to the Secretary of State's certification of eligibility.
FWIW...
This is what I was reading that lead me to think the AZ birther bill was not worded strongly enough.
I could call you a classless dumba$$ but you probably wouldn't understand why.
Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.
Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.
“Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?
“I do know it’s another sleuth order executed without any announcement, OR EXPLANATION to the People.”
Patriots know by now that the promised Obama “transparency” is a fog.
Checking the Net on the Council of Governors, CFP found other than a few blogs only UPI.com had the story as of this morning:
“President Barack Obama Monday established a panel of state governors to collaborate with Washington on a variety of potential emergencies, the White House said.” (UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.). “Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement.
“The statement said the White House would seek input from governors and governors’ association (sic) in deciding which governors to appoint to the council, which will have no more than five governors from the same party.
“The secretaries of defense and homeland security will also sit on the council, as will presidential assistants for homeland security and counter-terrorism, intergovernmental affairs, the U.S. Northern Command commander, the commander of the East Coast Guard, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau.
“The panel was set up under a provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the White House said.”
There was no timestamp on the latest Emergency Order from Whitehouse.gov, which readers can see below.
The Obama administration seems to be conducting the business of America under cover of the dark.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
- (1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
- (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,January 11, 2010.
“Maybe if you all READ the reasons, you’d think differently instead of being KNEEJERKS.”
Unfortunately, you are SO correct. That happens a lot here where someone reads only a headline that doesn’t tell the whole story, and then goes ballistic against someone that they previously respected. Perhaps a course in “Thinking Out of the Box” or “Tunnel Vision Avoidance” is in order for some of these folks.
Her reasoning seems pretty clear to me. She wants to avoid (1) too much power in the hands of one individual (think flaming lib SoS) and (2) protect 2nd rights and avoid conflict with Federal law; she wants a law that can be successfully defended against legal challenges from the usual sources.
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.