February 25, 2010
And that’s probably as far as it’s going to get.
Arizona State Rep Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) introduced a bill (along with 39 other Republicans) back in January that would require the presidential/VP candidates to submit an affidavit and sufficient documents to prove they meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the Presidency. The documents would then be scrutinized by the Secy of State. If s/he is not satisfied, then the candidate’s name can be withheld from the ballot.
HB 2441 amends Statute 16-507 [compare], which deals with the placing of presidential candidates’ names on the ballot.
1-Party must provide the Secretary of State with written notice of their nomination for Pres/VP:
2-The candidate himself must swear to his (no need for her) eligibility and the Party has to back it up with actual documents – not digital images and 48 year-old birth notices .
3-The Secretary of State would then review the submitted documentation and if s/he has “reasonable cause” to believe things aren’t kosher then s/he can withhold the name from the ballot. Something not included in Rep Posey’s (R-FL) bill.
AMENDMENT SUMMARY: [emphasis added]
Requires that written notice from a national political party committee for a presidential candidate that is entitled to representation on the ballot be sent to the Arizona Secretary of State (Secretary), that contains the party’s nomination of candidates for president and vice-president.
States that within 10 days of the submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate which states the candidate’s citizenship and age.
Stipulates that presidential candidate affidavit include documents that prove:
- That the candidate is a natural born citizen.
- That the candidate’s age.
- That the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in the United States Constitution.
States that the Secretary shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot if upon review of the affidavit and other documents submitted pursuant to this Act, the Secretary believes the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.
Makes a technical change.
Doesn’t detail “reasonable cause” or what documents serve as “proof”. Will be the focus of voting no.
Passed 2-22-10 in the House Subcommittee on Government by a vote of 6-1 (2 absent).
Now it’s up to the House proper – 90 members.
Only one Democrat had the courage to show up and vote on record.
|Frank Antenori||Y||Chad Campbell||N||Tom Chabin
|Adam Driggs||Y||David Gowan||Y||Warde Nichols||Y|
|Anna Tovar||AB||Steve Montenegro||Y||Judy Burges||Y|
Why would anyone vote no?
Why would Democrats vote no when the US Senate thought it necessary to pass a non-legally binding resolution declaring Arizona Senator John McCain a natural born citizens?
Why wouldn’t they want to keep foreign-born felons off the ballot, like Nicaraguan-born Socialist Roger Calero?
Empirically, it makes no sense. They are lawmakers sworn to uphold the Constitution, which is exactly what this bill would ensure.
So why are they objecting?
It only make sense if they know with certainty that a specific presidential candidate would not be able to provide sufficient proof to pass the Secretary of State’s sniff test.
And since no one has declared their intention of running, it can only mean the incumbent…barry.
The Democrats behavior is absolute proof they know that the digital image COLB is bogus and that Nancy Pelosi committed fraud when she signed two different versions of the official certifications of nomination.
If little people in Arizona know – everyone in Congress knows.
And if by some miracle someone in the media were to ask the dissenting Democrats to justify their objections about a bill that is designed solely to safeguard the Constitution?