Arizona governor vetoes state birther bill

[rocker1]

If you have Jan Brewer vetoing this bill, you know where mainstream politics stands on the birther issue.

Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes birther bill

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has issued a veto for a proposed bill requiring presidential candidates to present proof of their birth before having their name placed of the state ballot.

Ms. Brewer has vetoed the bill to requiring President Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot just days after the measure passed the Arizona Legislature.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1JviL9ThZ

She also vetoed a gun bill which would have allowed guns on campus

Arizona Guns On Campus Bill Vetoed By Jan Brewer

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial measure on Monday that would have permitted guns to be carried on public rights of way at public university and community college campuses, the Arizona Republic reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_850808.html

[catmando]

Dam she sounds almost Liberal.

[PSToolman]

Dam she sounds almost Liberal.

Or simply momentarily rational.

[TaeBoNinja]

The Birther bill messed up by including that baptism/circumcission BS.

[NRKF84]

The Birther bill messed up by including that baptism/circumcission BS.

...and, you know, by being unconstitutional.

[otisthebat]

why would she veto the CHL on campus bill?

does she really believe that law abiding citizens turn into crazed murderers when they step foot on a college campus?

[ManipulatedSelf]

They're all in bed with each other in Government

the liberal vs conservative crap is all just theatrics to play up on the masses get them separated divided and conquered as a peoples.

They watch out for their own vested interest in the system and not for the interests of truth

[NRKF84]

why would she veto the CHL on campus bill?

The language was elementary and vague. It could've been interpreted to allow guns at K-12 campuses as well.

[BeefyMcNasty]

...and, you know, by being unconstitutional.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


So how is it unconstitutional to require a person running for president to show that he meets the requirements the constitution states?

[NRKF84]

...how is it unconstitutional to require a person running for president to show that he meets the requirements the constitution states?

Full faith and credit clause.

Educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause

[otisthebat]

The language was elementary and vague. It could've been interpreted to allow guns at K-12 campuses as well.

ok, still dont see how that's a problem, since there are no 21 year old students in K-12 schools.

[TaeBoNinja]

...and, you know, by being unconstitutional.

Well no actually, it was constitutional.

[NRKF84]

Well no actually, it was constitutional.

No, it wasn't. I explained why just three posts up, not sure how you missed that.

[MonkeyC]

why would she veto the CHL on campus bill?

does she really believe that law abiding citizens turn into crazed murderers when they step foot on a college campus?

probably has to do with drinking + young kids in college + guns = bad

but i dunno, i haven't even looked at it, that's just my guess

[otisthebat]

probably has to do with drinking + young kids in college + guns = bad

but i dunno, i haven't even looked at it, that's just my guess

1. its already illegal to carry while intoxicated.
2. young kids? you have to be 21 to have a CHL. those "young kid" 21 year olds that have CHLs arent running around killing people off campus.

in after you are either ignorant of or ignore the facts.

[BeefyMcNasty]

Full faith and credit clause.

Educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fa..._Credit_Clause

lulz

That has absolutely nothing to do with proving you're eligible for the office that you're running for. How about you read the source you provide and quote the part that applies in this instance. Hint - The Full Faith and Credit clause simply means that documents, licenses, court orders, etc that are issued in one state, are applicable in another. For instance, drivers license allow you to drive in any state. A restraining order is applicable in any state. It has nothing to do with proving one's eligibility.


Educate yourself chump. And I'm not even a birther.

[MonkeyC]

1. ...why would that stop anyone from doing it anyway
2. 21 and in college is still young

i'm just giving logical reasons why they would have considered it

[otisthebat]

1. ...why would that stop anyone from doing it anyway
2. 21 and in college is still young

i'm just giving logical reasons why they would have considered it

1. because you lose your CHL. forever in many states.

2. 21 is the legal age to have a CHL, there arent 21 year old CHL holders running around murdering people. the "in college" part makes absolutely no difference.

[nutsy54]

why would she veto the CHL on campus bill?

does she really believe that law abiding citizens turn into crazed murderers when they step foot on a college campus?

And, of course, that the actual crazed murderers will see Page 27 of the Student Handbook says "No guns on campus"... and they'll actually obey that rule

[nutsy54]

1. ...why would that stop anyone from doing it anyway
2. 21 and in college is still young

21 and... anywhere else in the state which isn't a college campus... is "still young", yet perfectly legal to carry a handgun with appropriate permit - and those guys manage to do so without resorting to violent murder on a daily basis.

That's why the "no guns on campus!" positions make no sense. What makes a normal, law abiding, legally capable adult suddenly turn into a violent killer when he steps foot on a campus?

[Irishladdie235]

21 and... anywhere else in the state which isn't a college campus... is "still young", yet perfectly legal to carry a handgun with appropriate permit - and those guys manage to do so without resorting to violent murder on a daily basis.

That's why the "no guns on campus!" positions make no sense. What makes a normal, law abiding, legally capable adult suddenly turn into a violent killer when he steps foot on a campus?

I think the point he's making is that alcohol plus guns is bad, but it's much easier to ban ALL guns on campus than to simply disallow the drunk to have them, seeing as how there's not really a way you could enforce that second law before it's too late.

Being that colleges and alcohol go hand in hand, it isn't that bad an idea to have vetoed that bill.

[nutsy54]

I think the point he's making is that alcohol plus guns is bad, but it's much easier to ban ALL guns on campus than to simply disallow the drunk to have them, seeing as how there's not really a way you could enforce that second law before it's too late.

Being that colleges and alcohol go hand in hand, it isn't that bad an idea to have vetoed that bill.

And once again, people make fundamentally false assumptions...

- Alcohol is readily available off-campus, too.
- Alcohol + gun is illegal - A simple fact that every law-abiding gun owner knows. Stepping foot on campus doesn't mean they suddenly decide to become criminally negligent. If they're going to choose to drink, they'll first lock up the gun - just as they do anywhere else in the state. (And if they're willing to ignore that portion of the law, they sure as hell don't care about the "No guns on campus" stuff anyway).

Lawful gun owners aren't routinely murdering people (sober or drunk) when off campus. There's absolutely no logical reason to believe that would change when they're standing on campus. Hell, most 21+ year olds probably do everything possible to avoid on-campus parties anyway. And yet, those same guys who can legally carry a weapon off-campus today, aren't getting drunk with that weapon on their belt, and murdering their friends...


By the anti-gun "logic", we shouldn't allow cars on campus - because with all the alcohol, the result will be massive death, blood, and violence.
No kitchen knives, either

[r0gue6]

lol, yes, the governor finally makes a sane choice, and gets ridiculed by the retarded right. If you are ever attacked by right wingers, it's because you finally did something right.

[Irishladdie235]

And once again, people make fundamentally false assumptions...

- Alcohol is readily available off-campus, too.
- Alcohol + gun is illegal - A simple fact that every law-abiding gun owner knows.

Everything else you said was too presumptuous, I am not anti-gun, nor am I stupid.

Alcohol is commonly found on-campus and peer influences make public consumption more common than would be found otherwise. Add that with the frat mentality and youth, and you get plenty of fights normally. Add in guns... not so good.

And a person at a frat party is not going to abstain from alcohol because he's packing. We both know that.

Normally I'm pro-gun, but this is an example of adding weapons to the mix of what is generally considered to be humanity at its absolute most rash, inconsiderate, violent, and negligent stage.

[rocker1]

There should be no guns on campus. Students go there to learn, not to worry about whether the next guy is strapped or not in an exam.

[rocker1]

lulz

That has absolutely nothing to do with proving you're eligible for the office that you're running for. How about you read the source you provide and quote the part that applies in this instance. Hint - The Full Faith and Credit clause simply means that documents, licenses, court orders, etc that are issued in one state, are applicable in another. For instance, drivers license allow you to drive in any state. A restraining order is applicable in any state. It has nothing to do with proving one's eligibility.


Educate yourself chump. And I'm not even a birther.

We already have proper federal procedures of checking eligibility and the Arizona birther bill said forms of identity used in many states are not eligible in Arizona superseding federal law that says every state has to respect and accept the methods and records of other states. For example, Hawaii only gives out a certificate of live birth to proof natural born while Arizona said they won't accept that (presumably political motivated by Obama case).

[ne12o]

ok, still dont see how that's a problem, since there are no 21 year old students in K-12 schools.

lulz this.

brb using liberal logic and claiming kindergarteners will be carrying guns to school

[Enso]

lulz

That has absolutely nothing to do with proving you're eligible for the office that you're running for. How about you read the source you provide and quote the part that applies in this instance. Hint - The Full Faith and Credit clause simply means that documents, licenses, court orders, etc that are issued in one state, are applicable in another. For instance, drivers license allow you to drive in any state. A restraining order is applicable in any state. It has nothing to do with proving one's eligibility.


Educate yourself chump. And I'm not even a birther.

According to Hawaii, following Hawaiin protocol, he meets the eligibility requirements (they viewed the long form and released the short form according to state law). Hawaii is in our union. Arizona must respect that. If Hawaii, being a state in our union, says he meets the requirements, then he meets the requirements for all States that belong to the United States. A birth certificate is a document issued by the state...

That seems consistent with the purpose of that clause.

lulz this.

brb using liberal logic and claiming kindergarteners will be carrying guns to school

Yes, because no adults ever show up to those institutions.

[NRKF84]

That has absolutely nothing to do with proving you're eligible for the office that you're running for.

Nothing seems more appropriate right now than this quote:

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

If you don't understand how the Full Faith and Credit clause applies here then frankly you don't play at my level.

brb using liberal logic and claiming kindergarteners will be carrying guns to school

It's not necessarily liberal logic, but it's the logic that Jan Brewer used and ultimately the only logic that counts.

the governor finally makes a sane choice, and gets ridiculed by the retarded right. If you are ever attacked by right wingers, it's because you finally did something right.

Couldn't agree more.

[Mtguy8787]

Everything else you said was too presumptuous, I am not anti-gun, nor am I stupid.

Alcohol is commonly found on-campus and peer influences make public consumption more common than would be found otherwise. Add that with the frat mentality and youth, and you get plenty of fights normally. Add in guns... not so good.

And a person at a frat party is not going to abstain from alcohol because he's packing. We both know that.

Normally I'm pro-gun, but this is an example of adding weapons to the mix of what is generally considered to be humanity at its absolute most rash, inconsiderate, violent, and negligent stage.

In all your posts about alcohol and its effects.... you totally missed the point. You seem to be suffering from the delusion that laws have a magical effect that influence people to a degree against breaking them, simply because they exist.

The point is that such a law is not going to effect potential problem people either way. What part of that is so hard to understand.

Someone who is a potential candidate for bringing a gun to a party and pulling it while drunk (already illegal anyways), isn't going to be deterred any more by a law like this. Is that so hard to understand?

It seems that you believe this is what would happen.

Person A: Hey man, imma bring my .38 to the party this weekend, in case Bobby and his buds try to show up and cause trouble.

Person B: That's like, illegal, bro.

Person A: Lol, like I give a ****. Illegal -- lmao. The PoPo can kiss my ass.

Person B: But, did you also know that its illegal to carry on campus... so its double illegal.

Person A: Really? **** it... screw that -- no way am I gonna pull a double illegal.

****

On the other hand, Person C who got mugged who normally caries a gun, but wasn't, could have stopped it.