Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

The article I found was from the Seattle Post Intelligencer website.

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot.

The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year's controversy over the state's illegal immigration enforcement law.

Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.

"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," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

"In addition, 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 circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far."

The certificates were among the documents a candidate could have submitted under the bill in place of a birth certificate.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. But Hawaii officials have certified Obama was born in that state.

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural-born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. Opponents questioned whether Arizona's bill would have added additional requirements.

The measure would have required that political parties and presidential candidates hand in affidavits stating a candidate's citizenship and age. It also would have required the candidate's birth certificate and a sworn statement saying where the candidate has lived for 14 years.

If candidates didn't have a copy of their birth certificates, they could meet the requirement by providing baptismal or circumcision certificates, hospital birth records and other documents.

If it couldn't be determined whether candidates who provided documents in place of their birth certificates were eligible to appear on the ballot, the secretary of state would have been able to set up a committee to help determine whether the requirements were met. The names of candidates could be kept off the ballot if the secretary of state didn't believe the candidates met the citizenship requirement.

The bill didn't explicitly provide an appeals process for a candidate whose name was kept off the ballot.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Carl Seel of Phoenix, said he was disappointed by the veto. It would have been reasonable to have the secretary of state — the state's top election officer — decide whether a candidate had adequately documented his or her qualifications, he said.

Because the bill would have required candidates for all offices to submit documentation of their qualifications, he said, "it would have been excellent reform."

Seel had said previously the measure wasn't intended as a swipe against the president and would have helped maintain the integrity of elections.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Arizona-gov-vetoes-presidential-birther-bill-1342512.php#ixzz1K8grZUKC

 In real life I agree with the governor for vetoing the bill.  But I will argue against the veto for the sake of the assignment.


It is extremely important that the highest position in our government is filled by someone qualified in every aspect.  Our great nation has put rules into place that have allowed us to flourish and become the most powerful country in the world within only a few hundred years.  In order to protect us from any type of threats we must implement strict policies that ensure the potential candidate was born in the United States.  This is not singling one person out.  It is solely verifying that everyone is playing by the rules.  The law says that you must be 35 years old to be the president.  Let's say we become lenient with verification of age since we don't hold the birth documents to a high standard.  Do you feel that a 26 year old would be mature enough to handle the job?  Probably not.  There are reasons that rules are in place.  It is in the best interest of all Americans.

Not only should this bill be passed in Arizona but it should also be enabled in all states.  With more secretaries of states having to verify information, it allows little margin for error, which boosts authenticity.  Any discrepancies found will alert other states of potential concerns.  The only issue with this bill is lack of appeals process.  In order to maintain fairness for all parties an appeal opportunity should be added to the bill.  With that adjustment to the bill, there is no reason it should not be put in place.  The man or woman who leads our beautiful nation must have thorough background checks done that support the candidates' qualifications.  This is completely necessary.

Ok bye.