AZ proposes their own barry soetoro birth certificate bill

January 22, 2010

Birth certificate posts
Bill passes first hurdle (Feb 22)
Passes second hurdle (Apr 19)
Birther bill critics: Rep Sinema, SoS Bennett

Rep Judy Burges

Judy M. Burges

Seems Arizona state lawmakers want to make sure future presidential candidates provide proof of natural born citizenship BEFORE they get placed on the ballot. The proof will be independently assessed by the secretary of state, and if unsatisfied, the SoS can withhold the candidate’s name from the ballot.

That’s a step beyond Florida Rep Bill Posey’s bill.

The measure, HB 2441, was introduced by Rep Judy Burges (R-District 4), who apparently had no comment.

SEN SYLVIA ALLEN (R-Snowflake):

Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc. It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen.

And of course the democrats immediately think it refers to barry. Why? It cannot be used retroactively. And if barry is a natural born citizen, why are they even commenting on it – let alone characterizing it as “ridiculous and offensive”. And in the state of Arizona, one would think a democrat would want this measure to pass because of Sen McCain’s tenuous NBC status on the infinitesimal though possible chance he were to run again.

REP KRYSTEN SINEMA (D-Phoenix) said it was:

…ridiculous and offensive.

He clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year. The question has been asked and answered.

[By whom and what was the answer?]

Notice Rep Sinema mentions nothing about his COLB or birth status – just that the federal government installed him. Yes, they installed him. Perfect word. Just like he was coronated – not nominated. He hasn’t earned anything and is an empty suit. He will go down as the most arrogant fraud in US history and right down the hall with be the most corrupt media in US history.

Why?

Gyne envy.

They could not stand the thought of having a woman as president. Especially THAT women. And they got something “worse” than a woman – they didn’t get a man.

They got a ditherer.

And the ditherer has been dithering while the job market burned.

Then Rep Sinema makes a curious statement about the likelihood of it being enforced when it hasn’t even been passed.

Listen closely:

The secretary of state has no jurisdiction over federal law or over the federal government.

What federal law overrides the constitutional requirement for president?

And why would the federal government be involved in the placing or the “installing” of a candidate on the Arizona ballot?

The only reason she mentioned the federal government is because she knows the candidate for president (the only one known at this point) has already made it past the S of S but would not if the bill passed between now and next election.

Her comment otherwise has no meaning and therefore would not have even been thought of.

Why would she care about someone she doesn’t even know – someone whose name hasn’t even been put on a ballot – in reference to a bill that has not passed and maybe never will?

Your boss needs a license to run the business you work for. You learn that in two year’s time, when he is required by law to renew his operating license to remain the boss, a new requirement MAY be put in place. You hear he MAY have to submit his birth certificate to the state licensing board for review before he gets his new license.

Do you automatically assume your boss will not be able to do so if he’s been running the business for a year and has worked in the field for more than a decade? Besides, what’s the big deal, everyone has a birth certificate, right?

Would you think two steps ahead of something you have no reason to doubt?

You might when it means keeping your own job if you know/suspect your boss got the job because strings were pulled and that he doesn’t really have a birth certificate or won’t be able to produce one because it would blow his cover and expose all the lies he has told about himself.

You don’t need a deposition – you don’t need a birth certificate – she said it all already. She admitted there is a possibility the bill might have to be challenged and the only person it would apply to is someone she already knows will be running for president and since no one has announced their intention it has to be the incumbent president.

Signed, sealed, delivered.

Any Arizona constituent out there want to solve the mystery once and for all in one short legally-videotaped visit?

Source: Az Capitol Times’ Luige del Puerto

BILL FOLLOWS

ORIGINAL BILL

16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot

When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his choice by a mark as defined in section 16-400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.

==========================

Amended Bill [emphasis added]

REFERENCE TITLE: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session

2010
HB 2441

Introduced by:

(11) Representatives: Burges, Ash, Barnes, Biggs, Gowan, Hendrix, Lesko, Mason, Montenegro, Seel, Williams

(4) Senators: Gray C, Gray L, Harper, Pearce R

(19) Representatives: Antenori, Barto, Boone, Court, Crump, Driggs, Goodale, Jones, Kavanagh, Konopnicki, McComish, McLain, Nichols, Pratt, Reagan, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Yarbrough

(6) Senators: Allen S, Gorman, Huppenthal, Melvin, Nelson, Verschoor

AN ACT
amending section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to conduct of elections.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1.  Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot; notice; affidavit; verification

A. When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented.  To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his the voter’s choice by a mark as defined in section 16‑400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.

B.  The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president.

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

C.  The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.

============

Recall that Arizona was the only state (I’m aware of) where barry signed a form saying he was a NBC. It’s clear they don’t want to be burnt again. And it’s clear they don’t trust the DNC to vouch.

3 Responses to “AZ proposes their own barry soetoro birth certificate bill”

  1. azgo Says:

    mattie, you are welcome and thank you!

    This is the first time I’ve been here! I’ve been reading some of the posts and Great Job! You are now bookmarked!

  2. mattie Says:

    Hey azgo. You’re welcome.

    Good to know jbjd is still at it.

    The source was listed up there right before the jump but the link wasn’t right. Thanks for pointing it out.

    http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/01/18/bill-would-require-presidential-candidates-to-prove-us-birth/

    barry is eventually going to have to answer Rep Deal’s letter…unless Deal caves. I’ll have to check out what’s happening.

  3. azgo Says:

    Great post. Thank you! … I’m amazed at the Obama supporters especially the elected supporters, not wanting a presidential candidate eligible for office.

    Just suppose by chance, Obama gets ousted based on eligibility before the 2010 or even the 2012 elections, what are these elected officials going to do? Will they jump to the other side of the issue so as to help secure their election or re-election? Will they still believe Obama is a ‘natural born Citizen’ and cry dirty politics? etc., etc…

    You would think they would be very careful about this issue and support HB 2441 to assure an ‘eligible president’ is elected for the benefit their constituents and the people of Arizona.

    Can you please direct me to the source regarding Rep. Krysten Sinema statements as those statements may come in handy?

    The individual state legislatures provide the election laws for their state, the federal government does not. The legislature can and should define ‘natural born Citizen’ in this bill and any way they want, within reason, since the term is not directly defined by the Constitution and the courts.

    So the candidate has to be eligible in that this state law would basically say, ‘you have to play our rules to be on the ballot’.

    Several other states have already enacted laws requiring the state political party to verify that the candidate is eligible for the job. Complaints have been filed to these state State Attorneys General to investigate. Copies of the complaints have been sent to the media with no response. No action by these AG’s has occurred, yet. Texas is a little different though as they have laws requiring public disclosure of the state political partys’ information.

    Go here to find out more.
    jbjd.wordpress

    This is just another reason why a state government official or at least a panel or committee must qualify the presidential candidate so the candidate is allowed on the ballot. With this, there must be a law to define what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is, otherwise the the glass of water is only half full, if not empty. Remember, the line has to be drawn somewhere for a law.

    Election law must be direct and defined to eliminate conflicts, inconsistencies and to provide for no loop holes.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s