In vetoing Arizona’s so-called ‘birther’ bill, which was passed by a majority of the Arizona House and Senate, she said:
“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 or circumcision certificates’…this is a bridge too far,“
However, the bill only presented such documents as options for proving constitutional eligibility for the office of President, otherwise no woman could be on the presidential ballot in Arizona, which she never argued the bill did.
What really was a bridge too far for her was betraying the President who appointed her to a council of governors in 2010, which, in my view, is a subversive organization to weaken the constitutional diffusion of powers in the republic that is the United States.
As I mentioned in a previous article, Canada requires candidates for political office to swear an oath to their eligibility, but no proof of eligibility is required for a far higher office in the United States, and to me, that is ironic, given the specific natural born citizenship requirement for the office of President, which was obviously important to the 39 signatories to the Constitution.
She also said the bill could lead to “arbitrary or politically motivated decisions” because of the power of government officials to make judgments as to constitutional eligibility, yet she apparently hasn’t read, or has ignored, the very Constitution she swore an oath to uphold.
Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members“
So it’s nothing new for government officials to be given the power to decide on qualifications of political office holders, when the Constitution itself gives inherently political members of the U.S. House and Senate the sole power of judging the qualifications of its own members, even after they’ve been directly elected by the people.