Why Did Governor Brewer Veto the Eligibility Bill?


by Sharon Rondeau

Governor Janice Brewer signed a strict illegal immigration bill but vetoed a presidential eligibility bill.

(Apr. 20, 2011) — The Post & Email was able to speak with Dr. Orly Taitz regarding possible reasons for Arizona Governor Janice Brewer’s vetoing of the bill passed by the legislature earlier this week.

Dr. Taitz said that the Speaker of the House cut short the legislative session by two days, ending it on Tuesday instead of on Thursday, April 21, 2011.  She stated that because of that, “the legislature has no time to override her veto.  That’s why the only thing that can be done is calling an emergency session.  But again, who’s going to call it?  Brewer is not going to call an emergency session to override her own veto.”

Taitz then explained the petition launched since the veto to recall Gov. Brewer, stating that the citizens of Arizona are “outraged” over the decision.  She said that there is a group of people who are requesting a meeting with Brewer to give her an opportunity to “make things right.”  Taitz said, “If there is something in the bill that’s a problem, we want to know, and this can be amended.  If she has a problem with the additional alternative records that can be provided by people who do not have a birth certificate, we can remove that provision, and the only thing we would then have is the original, long-form birth certificate.  So let’s just do it.  If there’s something that’s bothering her, we can remove it.  We are asking her to reconsider her veto.”

Taitz said that Brewer seemed to have interpreted the provision for alternative documentation for those lacking a long-form birth certificate as “a requirement.”  Taitz believes that Brewer violated her oath of office by vetoing the bill, “defying her own legislators.  People need to continue pounding her.”

Dr. Taitz stated that the group seeking an audience with Brewer would give her a chance to reconsider her veto; “otherwise, we’ll proceed with the recall.”  In Arizona, any public official is subject to recall with the signatures of 25% of the number of votes cast in the last election.

While we were speaking with Dr. Taitz, she received a phone call which concluded that Brewer needed to receive a request to meet with her in written form.

In 2009, Governor Brewer called an emergency session of the legislature “to address the state budget, multipurpose districts, a payment to the Science Foundation and a legislative fix related to a regular session bill on foreclosures.”  She reportedly called a “fifth” special session to discuss Arizona’s budget deficit in December 2009.

The Post & Email asked Dr. Taitz if she believed that the bill had been sabotaged, to which she replied, “Oh, no question!  There was sabotage non-stop; we had sabotage everywhere.  We know that people are being intimidated and harassed; all kinds of things are done to keep this puppet in power.  It is convenient for our oligarchy because, thanks to this puppet, trillions of dollars are flowing out of the U.S. Treasury out of the pockets of U.S. citizens in all kinds of directions.  This is the destruction of the U.S. economy.  For this kind of money, for trillions of dollars, they can harass anybody, they can intimidate anybody; a lot of things can be done.  And that’s why it’s so dangerous.”

In 2004, then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked to reconsider his veto of a gun violence education bill.

An opinion issued by the Washington State Attorney General addressed the following question regarding a gubernatorial veto posed by a Washington state senator:

When an act passed by the legislature is vetoed by the governor under article 3, section 12 of the state constitution, and is returned with his objections to the secretary of state as is provided for therein, is the power of the legislature to override the veto dependent upon that power being exercised before adjournment of the very next session of the legislature subsequent to the veto action, including a special session called for some purpose or purposes other than consideration of the vetoed bill in question?

The answer referred to Article 3, Section 7 the Washington state constitution.

In April 2010, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, a comprehensive bill aimed to reduce illegal immigration in the state.  In response,  Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona and Governor Brewer.

However, the Ninth Circuit allowed 11 foreign countries to sue Arizona, along with Obama and his regime’s Justice Department.  One blogger stated:

These 11 nations and the Obama Administration are waging war against the people of the United States. The absurdity of it all is that the Constitution of the United States requires the federal government to keep its borders secure. Obama and Holder have tacitly joined forces with 11 foreign powers to wage war against one of the 50 States. Holder’s action against Arizona cracked open the door through which millions of illegal aliens have entered this nation, for those 11 nations to challenge a sovereign State’s right to protect its citizens from their citizens who enter this nation illegally solely because our hemispheric neighbors want our borders open to them (althought they want their borders closed to us).

At that time, Brewer said, “What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”

The case was initially heard by a federal judge, Susan Bolton, whom the Obama regime had stated should not render a decision on Arizona’s counter-suit, labeling illegal immigration a “political” matter.

However, Bolton heard the case and issued an opinion that parts of the bill were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution sets forth that when a state is a party to a disagreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Did a lack of knowledge of the Constitution lead the case to be heard by the wrong court?  Did Governor Brewer know that?

Governor Brewer appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Bolton’s ruling on April 11, 2011, stating, “”For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt. For those burdened by unlawful immigration, it suggests how a state could tackle that problem. It is not our function, however, to evaluate the statute as a symbol. We are asked to assess the constitutionality.”

But is the question one of “sympathy?”  Is the question not constitutionality?

Georgia is poised to pass a similar immigration law.

The Arizona constitution has a provision for treason, which reads:

Section 28.  Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against the state, or adhering to its enemies, or in giving them aid or comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court.

By suing a sovereign state and allowing foreign governments to join the lawsuit, did Obama and Holder not commit treason against Arizona?  Instead of charging him with treason, Governor Brewer has met with Obama.

  • On November 30, 2007, in the state of Arizona, Obama declared himself a “natural born Citizen,” knowing that he was not and admitting as much on his campaign website.
  • On March 10, 2009, Obama allowed U.S. Army troops to deploy in Samson, AL, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
  • Obama installed himself as chairman of the United Nations Security Council, the “first-ever” such occurrence, aware that Libyan dictator Muommar Gaddafi was “entitled to attend the nuclear summit session that Mr Obama will chair.”  Obama’s self-appointment was a violation of his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
  • Since that time, Obama ordered the bombing of Libya despite receiving no threat from that country.
  • Obama has “bailed out” the banking and automobile industries without any constitutional authority to do so.
  • He has bankrupted America with his unconstitutional “stimulus bill” which awarded millions to those who put him illegally in office.Obama and his family have spent many millions of dollars on vacations funded by the bankrupted taxpayers of the United States of America.
  • The Obama regime has refused to protect the U.S. border from illegal activity including the murder of American citizens by Mexicans and other invaders, and then prosecuted Arizona for taking on the responsibility of protecting its citizens.

42 Responses to "Why Did Governor Brewer Veto the Eligibility Bill?"

  1. Jack   Monday, April 25, 2011 at 10:26 AM

    Apparently, this argument is falling on “deaf ears”!

    The meaning of NBC has been clearly defined by Vattal’s “Law of Nations” and at least 4 Supreme court cases;


    It’s really a great article, very well documented and I’m sure you would enjoy actually reading it with the added benefit of actually learning something…and with that learning you will gain knowledge…”knowledge is power” and with your newly acquired power (maybe) you can lose your “FEAR” of the libs. Good luck with that!

    Semper Fi

  2. Jack   Sunday, April 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM

    Albert Einstein quote,”The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
    Maybe you should try a different tack with your “numerous attempts to educate her” which would include a little deference and deserved respect for where Dr.Orly Taitz has come from and her relentless tenacity in the fight to expose the usurper and his minions.
    Not all of us can be perfect. I am not and Dr.Orly Taitz is not, however, she has courage, true grit, and respect for others which goes along way with me and most Americans.
    Most people are much more open to hearing or adopting new or different ideas/theories
    when they are presented in a respectful, non condescending manner. JMHO.

    Semper Fi
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The Post & Email respects every single person who has been tirelessly researching, writing, submitting evidence and trying to expose the truth about the fraud which has been committed.

  3. Jedi Pauly   Sunday, April 24, 2011 at 10:18 AM

    Good Point.

    One should consider that the Arizona State Legislature was only pandering to their angry patriotic base who are justifiably outraged by Obama’s illegitimacy and never had any intention of seeing this bill become law in Arizona for the reasons I have mentioned above. Further proof of their intent is seen by the fact that they adjourned their State assembly providing no opportunity to override Brewers veto. Rather convenient and telling in my opinion. It appears that it is all just smoke and mirrors to give the appearance to their voter base that they care about the natural sovereign political rights of their constituents which they obviously do not. They are all FRAUDS.

  4. BlackSunshine84   Sunday, April 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM

    There is plenty of evidence out there of our forefathers’ definition and intent concerning the natural born Citizen requirement. 0bama knows this or he’d have put this to rest 3 yrs ago.

    The eligibility bills are a scam. Jan Brewer and the AZ state senate were intentionally trying to make 0bama eligible by passing AZ Senate Bill 1308 which defined dual citizens as natural born. They got caught, so they had no choice but to write the eligibility bill and have Brewer veto it.

    The Immigration Reform Law Institute is behind this. They are helping to draft the eligibility bills in each state and the recently submitted amicus brief to SCOTUS (Flores-Villar citizenship case) in which they omitted “of parents” from a statement about natural born Citizenship made by Rep. John Bingham (father of the 14th Amendment) on the House floor. When the mistake was pointed out to the IRLI, they made no attempt to amend their brief.

  5. Jedi Pauly   Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 7:39 PM

    Orly Taitz is rather ignorant of reality and Law. Right now the States are not responsible for certifying that a candidate is lawfully eligible. The Secretaries of State are shielded and immune from liability or civil suit because currently they rely on the candidate, political party, and the Federal Elections Commission to certify the candidates and to tell the States what is a lawful election. Therefore, it is the Federal Elections Commission who is responsible if there is an unlawful election with Obama on the ballot. You must sue the Federal Elections Commission not the Secretary of State. Orly should know this because all of her cases against Bowen were thrown out of court for lack of standing because they failed to sue an injuring party. However Orly does not learn from her mistakes. She is arrogant in my opinion and she thinks she knows better than all of the Judges and legal history of the United States.

    Orly fails to realize that Governor Brewer has no choice but to veto because she does not want to take the authority and responsibility away from the federal government and thereby open the State of Arizona to liability and civil suit if the Secretary of State should fail to obtain a BC, or if the State puts Obama on the ballot anyway despite a BC or COLB, then the State will incur the liability and lose their immunity that they now enjoy. For this reason, no State will ever pass such a bill. You are all dreaming.

    People should stop giving this woman any credibility in my opinion until she reads and comprehends the Natural Law Theory that I have written and has been published here at the Post and Email. Orly is a Unity Theorist and I have already shown that the Unity Theory is FALSE and has no law in it at all. If you are serious and want to do something to stop Obama then you need to sue the Federal Elections Commission and argue your loss of political rights based on the Natural Law Theory. Only those who are NOT born to citizen fathers have any representation and those who ARE born to citizen fathers do not have a legitimate representative Government. The laws signed by Obama are valid for those who are NOT born to citizen fathers but are not valid for those of us who ARE born to citizen fathers. It’s your father STUPID. It has nothing at all to do with your place of birth or mother. Orly still has not figured this out after all this time despite my numerous attempts to educate her.

  6. ELmo   Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 7:11 PM

    First – The question is “What is an NBC” (we all know what it is – but the libs are claiming that a “Native Born Citizen” is the same as a NBC. Some even claim 14th amendment naturalized as long as they are 35 and lived in USA for 14 years are “Natural Born” (ridiculous but true).
    If you have a Law which pretends to allow ONLY “Natural Born Citizens” on the ballot (Don’t forget – nowhere in the law is there a “Definition” of what a “Natural Born Citizen” is), then the law itself “Defines” the term “Natural Born Citizen”. If you allow a bill to become law that
    1). Does not define the term “Natural Born Citizen” or
    2). Does not require Documentation to prove Parental CItizenship Status.
    Then even if you go to Court you go with the law on the side of the Libs and you fighting to prove that this law is wrong (even though you yelled and screamed to have it passed).
    You can trust in 1/2 a law if you want to but it’s going to affect me as much as you and HB2177 was not a law that ensured that only NBCs (as we understand the term) get on the ballot. It’s a bad way to write a law – The correct language was actually in the Bill at one time but was amended out for some reason. Unfortunately – I can see my argument is falling on deaf ears – So the reality will play itself out despite my protests as there are so many states considering similiar bills, one is almost certain to pass somewhere – Then we shall see how effective it is in requiring Candidates to document their “Natural Born Citizenship (as we understand the term). I hope to God I’m totally wrong – But I fear otherwise.

  7. Bob1943   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM

    This popped up real conveniently for Jan Brewer to get the minds of Arizona voters off her veto of the eligibility bill:


  8. A pen   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 7:01 PM

    Just copy the art 2 requirements. The constitution makes no provision for federal enforcement so the power resides with the states or people respectively as clearly stated in the tenth amendment. The states can then refuse anyone who does not present enough documentation to fill the qualification without stating what will be accepted. If the NBC status can not be gleaned from whatever is offered then there is always the SC to appeal to, if a candidate has standing above a citizen.

  9. BlackSunshine84   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 5:53 PM

    Brewer said she vetoed the bill because she hadn’t been aware that it would require that all presidential candidates provide a baptismal record and that’s not true. The bill only listed baptismal records as an acceptable form of identification.
    Is she trying to paint “birthers” as religious fanatics?

  10. BlackSunshine84   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

    Is everyone aware that Jan Brewer has been a member of 0bama’s “Council of Governors” since Feb. 2010? The media did an excellent job of making us think they never met before their well-covered July 2010 meeting over AZ border security, huh?

  11. BlackSunshine84   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM

    Brewer vetoed the bill because Leo Donofrio uncovered her plot to make 0bama eligible for the AZ ballot through her immigration legislation,. AZ Senate Bill 1138, which has been scrapped, defined a natural born citizen as a person born to atleast one United States citizen.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/beware-arizona-senate-bill-1308-defines-dual-citizens-to-be-natural-born-citizens/

  12. AuntieMadder   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM

    The same day that she vetoed the eligibility for ballot bill, Brewer also vetoed SB 1593 — More Health Insurance Choices for Arizona Families bill.

    “SB 1593 will increase competition in the marketplace and the number of health insurance choices for Arizona families. It allows Arizona families and businesses to purchase health insurance policies across state lines, and allows individuals and businesses to keep the health insurance plan they currently have when moving or expanding business to Arizona.

    SB 1593 creates a level playing field between in-state and out-of-state companies in terms of their regulatory requirements, consumer protections, and policy offerings. It does not eliminate Arizona’s health benefit mandates as the media claims; it simply gives consumers the choice of which states’ mandates they want on their insurance policy.”

    Brewer’s gone RINO.

  13. Jack   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM

    Sorry, I must not have been “following along” when the libbys repealed or changed the wording and or intent of ART II SEC I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

    Quote from Elmo “The libby’s have been trying to say (if you have been following along) that anyone born in the USA or born of one Citizen Parent anywhere in the world, meets the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.”

    The last time I checked, the “libbys’s trying to say” something absurd and ridiculous, and
    actually changing or repealing a section of the U.S. Constitution are just a little different.
    The libbys can “argue” all they want, however, that doesn’t change the facts.
    Would the 4 supreme court cases cited above not qualify as “hard evidence” ?
    The point that I think you may be missing is that the “parental citizenship requirement” is already embedded in HB 2177 as it must conform to ART II SEC I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
    HB 2177 may not be perfect in every respect, but it is (or could have been) a very, very
    good start.
    And if HB 2177 had forced a showdown in the judiciary on the merits and or definition of NBC then I say bring it, because I along with millions of Americans do not cower in fear over what the libbys are “arguing or saying”.
    In fact, adding a clear definition of NBC to the US Constitution, that reflects the original intent of the Founders (preventing a president with foreign allegiance) would go a long way towards restoring Liberty and protecting future generations of Americans.
    I think Dr. Alan Keyes would have a few comments on this very subject.


    Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment.

    Semper Fi

  14. Birdy   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    One problem with these kinds of laws is that there is far too much opportunity to commit Birth Certificate fraud. Much more documentation is needed to absolutely confirm that a person is a citizen. Even more is needed to confirm that a person is a natural born citizen. This US HHS report examines the issue:


    Now in the case of Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama II), it is very easy to prove that he is NOT a natural born citizen. This is a no-brainer. But it may be next to impossible to prove conclusively that a person is a natural born citizen. It would take much more solid and detailed legislation than what was contained in HB 2177.

    Since before the 2008 election, we’ve seen every political authority steadfastly refuse to get into the issue of verifying candidate’s eligibility for office. The Secretaries of State directly tell us they are not required by law to do this, although we have seen actual cases where they have kept candidates off the ballot. The courts, including the US Supreme Court, say it’s not their concern. The US Congress members say its not their concern – let the courts handle it. Passing the buck seems to be standard operating procedure for Democrats and Republicans.

    Perhaps they realize that our system of verifying citizenship and natural born citizenship is completely broken. Even birth certificates cannot be relied upon.

    What Brewer’s veto has done has been to allow the Secretary of State of Arizona to use his personal discretion to decide who gets on the ballot who doesn’t. Brewer actually empowered the SOS to be gatekeeper. Signing HB 2177 would have had the effect of making the law the gatekeeper and not the person. I guess Brewer didn’t want to tie the SOS’s hands. Brewer must favor the rule of men over the rule of law. Her decision was disgraceful and lawless. The US Constitution, supported by legislation from the AZ legislature, should decide who gets on the ballot, not whoever happens to hold the office of AZ SOS.

    I believe HB 2177 was a step in the right direction. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It is my earnest hope that at least one state passes a law requiring presidential candidates to provide a certified copy of their original long-form birth certificate. This would at least have the effect of making Soetoro acquire and release his long form BC and we will see why he has been hiding it.

  15. ELmo   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    Look at what you presented above – What documentation is missing?? Birth Certificate is required, Proof of residency is required. The ONLY thing NOT required for documentation in this bill is PROOF of Parental Citizenship Status!!! The libby’s have been trying to say (if you have been following along) that anyone born in the USA or born of one Citizen Parent anywhere in the world, meets the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. We know that the founders cited Vattel, but there’s no “Hard documentation that they did (Vattel is NOT mentioned by name in the Constitution. It would have to be argued in Court (and you know how friendly the Courts have been to this issue). The Libs argue that “Natural Born Citizen” is synonymous with the English “Natural Born Subject”. Passing a bill requiring a Candidate to be “Natural Born” and then NOT requiring documentation of the Parents Citizenship Status at the time of birth can be viewed as evidence (In the bill) that the Parents Citizenship Status is irrelevant (what the Libs have been saying). When you pass a bill requiring that certain Criteria be met and you specify documentation to ensure the Criteria are met, you document EVERYTHING that’s important not some things and NOT others – What would have happened with HB2177 is: Obama would present his fake COLB and say that’s the only piece of paper Hawaii offers, he will present proof of Residency (because the Bill REQUIRES IT) but he will argue that the Bill does NOT require proof of Parental Citizenship in order to be on the ballot (and he will be upheld by the same Courts who are protecting him NOW!!). We will have built the gallows that will hang our cause. These Bills cannot be allowed to pass without Documentation of Parental Citizenship required or we are TOAST!!

  16. Tim   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM

    It would be useful to invite Valerie Jarrett to that meeting, to find out what strings she pulled behind the scene.

  17. NUTN2SAY   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 7:16 AM

    In other words….. at some point in time the sell out republicans of our government has surrendered America to a foreign (we have known for some time democrats are a foreign enemy) enemy! All our taxes are used now to support this foreign enemy! And the American people in general are too stupid to know the difference between night and day!

  18. Marty   Friday, April 22, 2011 at 4:26 AM

    There is all kind of speculation as to why Jan Brewer vetoed that bill. Frankly, I thought the bill was going to be carefully drafted and make sense and cover any possible loop hole that a future candidate may try to get around. When I read the final bill sent to her to either sign or veto, I was baffled at the list of items acceptable other than a long form birth certificate we all have been demanding from BHO. Maybe Brewer thought so also and thus the veto. As an attorney, I submit that there should be a meeting with Brewer to find out exactly why the veto. It it was due to a rather long list of rather absurd documents I never dreamed would be in the bill, then they should be dropped, and stick to the long form birth certificate and Social Security card and documents which make sense. Were those other documents of alleged proof (babtism, two people certifying a birth, etc) thrown in knowing it increased the odds of a veto? Any rational person has to ask that question. Revise the bill to make sense and make it air tight and run a draft by Brewer to see if she would sign an intelligent well thought out bill. I think she would.

  19. Bob1943   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM

    Challenge…great post, I agree completely.

  20. Don R. Smith   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

    kailuagirl you are my hero of the day!

  21. Zeb Blanchard   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM

    The AZ speaker closed the session two days early to avoid a vote.
    Brewer has precedent of calling special sessions but has no reason to do so for this issue.
    Sessions reconvene in January and can take the bill up at that time, which is in time to examine qualifications for a November election. However any bill that is dropped in January 2012 must be retroactive to include all filers for the November election.

  22. Challenge   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 5:44 PM

    IMHO our central government has already surrendered to a Communist\Jihadist Evil Alliance. The government is unwilling to tell the American people the truth so they use all manner of contrivance to try and keep the populace quiet. Meanwhile, their failure to resist and inform the People of what is happening provides time for the screws of totalitarianism to keep tightening its grip, until one day we wake up and realize it is too late to effectively do anything about it. In this manner the Evil Alliance can take over the country without destroying its infrastructure. No need for military style frontal assaults and invasions, no need to blow up buildings any more, just use lies, deception, faints, intimidation and slowly destroy our U.S. Constitution and strip away our unalienable rights. Obama is the front guy, but certainly not the brains behind this takeover. I am incapable of describing my disgust for all the military and government officials who have yielded to and are actively facilitating the takeover. The latest example of this is Jan Brewer’s veto in Arizona which whacks away at our U.S. Constitution. Her excuses for vetoing the Ariz. bill are only phony cover for her cowardice action. She was capable of making a difference by doing something significant, but she actively sided with the Evil Alliance’s objectives and gifted them her aid and comfort, selling her soul to the Devil. And then, there is John McCain who immediately ran to her side and lauded her wise decision to veto the bill. I suppose there is some type of blackmail involved in this takeover, but I will never excuse our government officials for having submitted to such tactics. Simply put, there is nothing more criminal, evil, vile, and sinful than colluding with the enemy behind our backs to give away our God given unalienable rights.

  23. Bob1943   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:27 PM

    Quote from Jack:

    “One commenter on another site suggested a possible reason for the veto was that Brewer was complicit in the fraud because she was “Arizona’s Secretary of State in 2008, and was in charge of the elections in AZ. She is the one who let Obama be on the ballot in AZ in 2008, so she “HAD” to veto this bill, or else she would be incriminating herself, should it come to light that he was in fact ineligible”.

    Good thought, I am pretty sure a copy of the Arizona eligibility document Obama signed is available on the net. I can’t remember for sure where I saw it, but Obama said he was a “natural born Citizen” on that document. If this was accepted without any other evidence, as it apparently was, and Brewer was the Secretary of State of Arizona at that time, it seems quite likely IMO that could be a reason why she would veto any Arizona eligibility bill.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I printed off a copy, I believe from Scribd.

  24. ZoneDr   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 4:26 PM

    The article speculates that Gov. Brewer had some kind of technical misunderstanding of the bill, causing her to veto the legislation. I don’t think that is the reason. The reason, I believe, is that Brewer developed a personal friendship with former HI Gov. Linda Lingle, who is an ardent Obama apologist on the eligibility issue. Of course she can’t state this as the reason, so Brewer instead used a totally lame technical rationale (about not wanting just one person to have the power over ballot access) to cover up her real reason for the veto.

  25. Jack   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM

    One commenter on another site suggested a possible reason for the veto was that Brewer was complicit in the fraud because she was “Arizona’s Secretary of State in 2008, and was in charge of the elections in AZ. She is the one who let Obama be on the ballot in AZ in 2008, so she “HAD” to veto this bill, or else she would be incriminating herself, should it come to light that he was in fact ineligible”.

    Then there is the fact that Brewer is on the usurper’s unconstitutional “council of governors”, that little gem was nagging me right up to the veto.

    Then there is also the possibility that she is under duress from the the usurper and his thugs or that what happened to Ms. Giffords and Judge Roll is still fresh in her mind…the “Chicago machine” does play hardball.

    Has anyone heard or read anything regarding the overriding of the veto?

    Semper Fi

  26. Duke-Jinx   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

    Love it! …and with ponies at that… it would perhaps, take six nice long months.

  27. Duke-Jinx   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

    And why not? She has held tuff all this time… saying exactly what ‘we’ want to hear and have done… then a third party.. uninformed it seems, makes allegations and blam… Your ready to toss her to the curb on hearsay? WITHOUT… the benefit of doubt?
    Come-on Bob… as noted by ELmo above, the Natural Born language we all insist upon… was removed. Do we want law that makes for zero, with British father.. pass muster .. and conflicting with our USC? I think not.

  28. Jack   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 1:21 PM

    How does ART II SEC I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States get thrown out the window?

    How do the libbys get to redefine the meaning of “natural born citizen”?

    The meaning of NBC has been clearly defined by Vattal’s “Law of Nations” and at least 4 Supreme court cases;

    HB 2177…the relevant sub section is 16-507.01., and it very clearly states that potus and vpotus candidates must submit documents that prove that he/she is a “natural born citizen” as per ART II SEC I, Constitution of the United States. (see below)

    16-507.01. Presidential candidates; affidavit of
    7 qualifications; enforcement

    (in addition)


    Semper Fi

  29. Bob1943   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM

    There is no way in my opinion that Brewer vetoed the bill because it wasn’t good enough. She vetoed the bill because it would have been the first “birther” bill to be law in in any state and she was not going to let that happen. A different bill would have gotten the exact same treatment.

  30. kailuagirl   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 10:24 AM

    If so, Brewer additionally passed on the opportunity to use her rejection as a platform to explain natural born Citizen. It is her explanation, that is her problem now. Her choice of words in explanation of her actions, just happen to, align with the “talking points” put out by the RNC. Not buying it.

  31. kailuagirl   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 10:16 AM

    Those of the organized “left” and those of the organized “right” have obviously merged forces involving the subject of “birther”, and now- the “trumpers”. This linking of the attack dogs may prove to be a catalyst that brings the cover-up and the truth to light.

    Most astounding, however, is the unfolding of the talking-head “conservatives”. One would naturally expect the “liberals” to defend the Usurper [off the cliff], at all costs. Not expected however- the unveiling of the “right”. Now, with the cave of “tea party” Bachman in conjunction with breach by “reformer” Brewer, and at the same time “know-it-all” Rove is out declaring we are all “far-out-kooks”… the RNC “crying captains” believe they have full control of its “loyal troops”. Newsflash for these arrogant traitors…there is a big problem in your OZ-land: the more Trump questions your Obama birth story…the outright panic of your “left-right-government-media-axis” is made apparent to the masses! As these corrupted puppets firmly defend what is obvious [over the top] collusion & corruption, the result is the silent majority awaken to the obvious [in your face] lack of reality involving all things Obama. How do you package the reality that there is not a scintilla of fact in support of this axis-of-evil story-telling. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious to watch, my favorite to date is Georgy-porgy-Stepho-boy as he continues to get deeper and deeper into the lies and bury himself and his network, in panic mode, in defense of and explanations for that fake “certification of live birth”. So sad what men will go to for love of self/money/power.

    And now, Mr Limbaugh, actually believes he needs to school Mr Trump in how to be a “conservative”. Give me a giant break! What a corrupted clown. Is there such thing as being “conservative” in America without being a real person of TRUTH in belief and support upholding its CONSTITUTION? Here again, a reality check [or mental hospital] is in order for these people.

    The Bush-Obama-Clan over-throw of the USA, is, and has always been, about one thing: Usurpation of the highest office, in fact, is CRIME of the Highest Order! The end.

    Core question: what does this “left-right-government-media-axis” fear so much to cause them to merge into panic-mode collusion? The CIA connections to the fall of the towers on 9-11? Full disclosure about the history of the Bush family dating back to Prescott Bush & the rise of Hitler, and the creation/purposes of/for the CIA? Connections by and among Bush and Obama and the CIA? Whichever/whatever, it is, it seems more apparent with each passing day Mr. Trump grants media interviews, that thing [those things] feared most, is the core of it all.

    I do not in any way believe the talking points mantra “get off the birth certificate because we have so many other important problems we need to address right now”, and “its a bridge too far”. In fact, it is full disclosure involving all things Obama…specifically those pesky background records [the red ruby slippers], that may prove to be the only way to save USA-Titanic.

    IT will be interesting to see if Palin backs off this week, it appeared she was joining Trump, let’s see how smart this woman really is. The single biggest mistake any politician or media type can make now is to NOT follow Trumps lead.

  32. Stephen Lumpkin   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 9:21 AM

    She vetoed the Bill because it was complete garbage. Orly has obviously not read the Bill & neither have those who keep bashing Governor Brewer.
    proving a baby has been circumsized does NOT prove the Mother & Father were American Citizens at the childs birth. “Natural Born” would have been thrown out the window if Governor Brewer signed that Bill & everyone with a half of a brain knows it.

  33. ELmo   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    I would like someone to explain to me why this bill should be passed when it does NOT provide for the documentation of “Parental Citizenship” at the time of birth!
    This bill is a “Trojan Horse” as written. Brewer should send it back and have the “Parental Citizenship” documentation requirement (that was in the bill at one time), restored. If this bill becomes law as written – It will only require that a potential Candidate produce a Birth Certificate (For age and place of birth), prove residency (for the 14 year residency requirement) but NO documentation is required to prove Citizenship Status of the Parents at the time of birth of the potential Candidate. This would be disasterous. The libs are already trying to redefine the language to mean that even a 14th Amendment “naturalized citizen” can run. This bill will redefine “Natural Born Citizen” to be equivalent to “Native Born Citizen” (because it won’t address the CItizenship of the Parents). The Secretaries of State will never ask for documentation that is NOT required in the law (That’s just the way politicians are – they don’t go out on limbs), and
    good luck in getting the courts to “See things our way” once the law is implemented and the only required documents are a “Birth Certificate” and proof of residency. This is NOT a good bill as written and will undercut the provisions of Article II, Section I by essentially redefining “Natural Born Citizen”. IMO EVERY BIRTHER should be against this Bill without the Parental Citizenship Documentation language.

  34. Zeb Blanchard   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM

    The Georgia legislative session has closed, but did pass our HB87 for illegal alien control. The bill is now waiting the governors signature. The bill was not modeled after the AZ bill as it removed many of the trips inherent in the AZ bill and tightened the “rules” for examination of the potential alien.
    The amazement with the Georgia bill was that it was the only bill to pass this session that supported sovereignty and states’ rights issues. All others, approximately 30+ bills, died in House committee, some having passed the Senate. It is my opinion that this bill was passed to garner votes, as most bills are. In order to be efficient in interacting with ICE on immigration issues, the local LEO must have what’s is referred to as 287g training. There was no talk of this or reference to it in the bill passing process. I am thinking the “deal” was to allow the bill to pass to keep the power structure in place in the state legislature but never enforce it and/or allow it to be tied up in inferior courts.
    I am way too old to be engaged in conspiracy theories but do pay attention to the real world. This many pertinent bills killed in process are facts. The bills were not stopped on the local level. The legislators pursuing the bills were constitutionalists. The legislators blocking the legislation are known RINO’s with serious ethical challenges and direct ties to Washington (Nathan Deal now governor). The appearance is that our legislation is being run by a combination of the national RNC interests for the purpose of preserving the image and funding threats from the federal government.
    This, then, would be yet another example of the federal shadow government usurping constitutional rights, this time of the states. And yet another example of a stand alone federal governemnt operating against the government established by the constitution, or in other words acts of treason.

  35. RacerJim   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:43 AM

    Quartering? Such cruel and unusual punishment? YOU BETCHA!!!

  36. johnny says   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM

    she was protecting john mccain. he is complicit in this fraud and brewer knows it.

  37. Stock   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:14 AM

    It seems we have been hoodwinked again.

  38. Bob1943   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 6:52 AM

    I don’t see where she deserves the “benefit of the doubt”. Seems to me like she folded under fear of the Obama regime. It has happened to the entire Congress, Fox News and lots of so-called “conservatives”, why not her?

  39. Chamberjac   Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 1:57 AM

    She vetoed the bill because she is afraid of Holder & Obama. She does not have the courage to make waves with the Criminal In Chief.

  40. Duke-Jinx   Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 11:33 PM

    In Governor Brewer’s defense, she did state as partial reason for the veto… was that she did not like ‘A single person vetting the candidate, it left room for corruption’ . Though she should have had a Draft the the Bill prior the the Az. Legislative vote.. and disagreeing with the language in part, said something at that stage of the game verses now..
    However, she still has the benefit of the doubt from my standpoint… there is more to this than what it appears… She’s tuff as nails, I can’t see her just laying down or succumbing to pressure.

    “The U.S. Constitution sets forth that when a state is a party to a disagreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.”

    She was sent a link to PH’s article addressing that issue and the relevant law.

  41. Brenna   Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM

    I don’t know why anything surprises me anymore, but I almost fell off my chair when I saw this this morning. Unbelievable!!

  42. Larry, Larry, Quite Contrary   Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 11:07 PM

    A firing squad is too good for the culprit in the Oval Office. . . quartering would be more appropriate for his repeated acts of treason against We the People and our Constitution!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.