Quantcast

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes the 'Birther' Bill: Good Move?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2011/04/19 17:15:46
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed two controversial bills, one mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to run for president, the other allowing guns on college campuses, in a clear setback for conservatives who control the state legislature.

This Bill would've mandated a Long Form birth certificate for any Presidential Candidates in 2012 including Obama. The Bill would have effectively disallowed Obama from being on the Arizona ticket if he did not come up with the so called long form Birth Certificate.

Detractors claimed that it was unconstitutional. That other states in the United States of America must recognize other states documents as legal. This includes things like Drivers licenses, and Birth Certificates. The Stalte of Hawaii has said that the Birth certificate Obama has displayed is their legal document and they do not issue long form Birth certificates.

Supporters claimed that the Bill was merely enforcing what was already constitutional law. They said they were confident Jan Brewer would sign it into law.

She vetoed it today saying,
"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 baptism or circumcision certificates' ... This is a bridge too far,"

So my question is this....Was this a good decision or bad?

Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110419/pl_nm/us_arizo...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • RogerCo... oldcavp... 2011/04/19 22:39:03
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    Yes! One wonders, is Brewer's reasoning, "Who cares if few drunks get shot. However, college students getting shot is bad national news?"
  • Adakin ... oldcavp... 2011/04/20 01:39:57
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Conservative Alaska and Liberal Vermont for a long time have had no restrictions on adult citizens carrying a concealed firearm. In those states, can you point to a situation where legally armed law abiding citizens were the cause of any problems?
  • MichaelJ 2011/04/19 19:58:02
    Bad Decision
    MichaelJ
    +3
    As far as I'm concerned it should be standard practice to have any candidate who runs for office be able to prove they meet the requirements stated to run for the office. If not then why have the requirement?
  • oldcavp... MichaelJ 2011/04/19 20:14:51
    oldcavpilot
    +2
    It's a Federal requirement for Federal office already.
  • Adakin ... oldcavp... 2011/04/20 01:41:48
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Yes, its a federal, er Constitutional requirement. But who should have the responsibility of ENFORCING the law and varifying the factual qualifications of FUTURE POTUS wannabe's?
    That's the real question. We already know that its the law.
  • voice_m... MichaelJ 2011/04/19 20:59:57
    voice_matters
    when a person decides to run for office they are required to file all the proper papers to be palced on the ballot. this was done wth obama in 2007 and will continue to be done with all persons running for all elected offices
  • thefatguy 2011/04/19 19:57:11
    Good Decision
    thefatguy
    +1
    Without knowing the details of the bills' language and why she objected to them, I cannot say whether I agree or not. I do know that the "citizenship" bill does make allowances for circumcision certificates in lieu of birth certificates so I would agree that the law is poorly written. As to the gun law, I don't know why she would choose to veto it. It sounds good to me but I haven't read the whole bill.
  • Steve☮END THE FED☮ 2011/04/19 19:55:20
    Bad Decision
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    +1
    If candidates are all properly vetted there would be no conspiracies debating the process or validity of candidates. When you think about it, she looks like a complete hypocrite with her SB 1070 - her reason for supporting and signing it was because she was just upholding federal law.
  • wers Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 00:45:05
    wers
    +1
    Great post....thank you. Sounds like a long lost thing called ....."common sense"....wonder why ANYONE would oppose any law which enforced Constitutional requirements?
  • ReconMarine~PWCM*AVA*BTTB*JLA* 2011/04/19 19:32:15
  • Adakin ... ReconMa... 2011/04/20 01:48:47 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Yes, its a Constitutional requirement. But who should have the responsibility of ENFORCING the law and varifying the factual qualifications of FUTURE POTUS wannabe's? That's the real question. We already know that its the law.

    Yeah I agree, lets keep all the law abiding citizens disarmed when they are in a 'gun free' criminal and terrrorist safety zone. And we need to publisize the fact that we have criminal & terrorst safety zones where these folks know that they are safe and free from having their civil righta violated by the .45 cal.185gr Hollow point that I'd blow through them if they were to open fire on the campus that this little old helpless woman attends classes. I've been packin' my lil' Kimber with me for YEARS on various college campus's... and nobody has been the wiser. BUT, the bad guy better take me out FIRST, because if I'm in the vicinity, of a random shooter blowing away other folks, his a$$ is mine!
    helpless woman attends classes vicinity random shooter blowing folks Kimber Ultra
  • Tinka123 2011/04/19 19:31:11 (edited)
    Good Decision
    Tinka123
    +2
    I think it was a good decision. I totally disagree with reactionary legislation. I think it's the exact opposite of proper use of legislative authority. The idea that law effecting the entirety of society can be handed down as a result of vendetta, or as a reaction to one particular situation -- it's absurd to me. I think it's an abuse of the authority entrusted to our legislators and it's counterproductive to solving the REAL problems we face as a country.

    You can't legislate like that and expect to be taken seriously. It's a notoriously flawed method of leadership and that mentality is responsible for some of the most destructive legislation the American people have ever be subject too. imo
  • mike 2011/04/19 19:25:23
    Bad Decision
    mike
    +4
    I like Gov. Brewer, but I don't agree her on this one. Useually in politics,when someone makes an unexpected decision, most times in my eperience, there's something else cookin !
  • voice_m... mike 2011/04/19 21:01:31
    voice_matters
    tell me why someone needs to be baptised to run for president.
  • mike voice_m... 2011/04/19 21:27:28
    mike
    +1
    OK, I missed that part. Good girl Jan!
  • wers mike 2011/04/20 00:50:40
    wers
    +1
    The bill did not require the candidate "be baptised"....it only allowed for alternate records as supporting proof of a candidate being qualified . Under the original bill, the required proof was the long form birth certificate, but was amended to allow other documentation which would satisfy the burden of proof.
  • mike wers 2011/04/20 02:29:41
    mike
    +1
    yea, I shouda looked this one over more before I got into it,thanks
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2011/04/20 01:56:16
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Its not just baptised... its varification of documents. Who should have the responsibility of ENFORCING the law and varifying the factual qualifications of FUTURE POTUS wannabe's?
    That's the real question.
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2011/04/20 13:04:44
    voice_matters
    FEC already varifies the documents.
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2011/04/19 19:18:57
    Good Decision
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    I think Obama should just show the proof birthers want and end the whole thing. We have much bigger problems to be concerned with.
  • thefatguy WhereIs... 2011/04/19 19:46:01
    thefatguy
    +1
    He has no reason to. He is helped politically by keeping the controversy going.
  • Steve☮E... thefatguy 2011/04/19 19:58:59 (edited)
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    +1
    Really? How about if for no other reason but to save himself a few more million in legal fees? Wouldn't that money be better spent going to charities? Or how about about he shows it just so he doesn't look like a total hypocrite - I would really like to see his college records, there is no way this guy passed any math or history class!


  • thefatguy Steve☮E... 2011/04/19 20:11:07
    thefatguy
    +1
    You know, I've heard a lot about that "million in legal fees" but never seen concrete evidence of that. Have you? I don't see how not showing it makes him a hypocrite. He is winning the political game by not releasing it.
  • Steve☮E... thefatguy 2011/04/19 20:50:01 (edited)
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    +2
    It is readily available on the FCC site
    Obama and his lobbying team for the his "Organizing [against] America" signed off over a million in payments to the international law firm Perkins Coie exactly $1,352,378.95 before January 2009

    international law firm perkins coie 1352378 95 2008 election

    The other payments
    http://www.freerepublic.com/f...
  • JosephJ... Steve☮E... 2011/04/19 20:57:52
  • Steve☮E... JosephJ... 2011/04/19 21:07:55
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    +1
    I should add 0bama appointed communications director the mao loving Anita Dunn is married to Bob Bauer a partner at Perkin Coie - CONFLICT OF INTEREST MUCH??????
  • Cogs Steve☮E... 2011/04/19 22:07:23 (edited)
    Cogs
    +1
    Eh, I dunno. Politicians pretty much always hire people they already know, most of the new Republican administration in my state are either old friends of the Governor, his family members (lol), or people who'd run against him in the primaries. It's a conflict of interest if you put a friend in charge of an organization that regulates their own industry though, like putting Goldman Sachs executives into financial regulatory positions or chemical industry execs into the EPA.
  • Steve☮E... Cogs 2011/04/19 22:47:15
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    Know - but this is an appointees spouse and his attorney
  • JosephJ... Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 14:27:27
    JosephJohnson
    Right! This kind of favortism has been going on for way too long!
  • Magus BN-0 JosephJ... 2011/04/20 10:01:52
    Magus BN-0
    +2
    Except there's not a shred of evidence that any of that is for dealing with Birther lawsuits.
  • reasont... Steve☮E... 2011/04/19 23:55:36
    reasontolive
    +2
    Politifact says from says 10/08 and 12/10, Obama has paid Perkins Coie $2.6million. They go on to say that there is no proof what was spent on "birther" issues versus campaign legal fees. "For the sake of comparison, the Roll Call story noted that the campaign for Obama's 2008 Republican opponent John McCain -- which was a smaller operation -- had spent more than $1.3 million on lawyers since the election." http://www.politifact.com/tru...

    Since the Federal Election Commission shows Obama as raised $747.7million and McCain raised $351.5million, the percentages are comparable. http://www.fec.gov/disclosure...
  • Steve☮E... reasont... 2011/04/20 00:05:29
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    You can refer to the court minutes for that - there are at least 3 eligibility cases where he was represented by Robert F. Bauer
  • reasont... Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 02:09:37
    reasontolive
    +3
    Those couldn't account for the bulk of those fees, in addition to the campaign wind down.
  • reasont... reasont... 2011/04/20 02:30:29
    reasontolive
    +1
    From what I have read, all the cases were dismissed not tried.
  • Steve☮E... reasont... 2011/04/20 03:41:34
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    Out of dozens three were dismissed, many postponed, many still in process.
  • Shinime... Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 10:21:25
    Shinimegami
    A lot more than three have been dismissed.
  • reasont... Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 12:18:29
    reasontolive
    None tried. No way to rack up millions in fees in addition to the campaign wind down.
  • Steve☮E... reasont... 2011/04/20 03:41:05
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    Yes it could - they were the bulk of court time - simple math.
  • reasont... Steve☮E... 2011/04/20 12:27:22
    reasontolive
    Simple math? Do you know how many hours these attorneys spent on those cases as opposed to the general campaign wind down, FEC compliance? Care to show your math?
  • Steve☮E... reasont... 2011/04/20 15:55:18
    Steve☮END THE FED☮
    These attorneys do not handle FEC compliance that was another law firm - check the FCC pages

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/30 23:33:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals