?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

AZ Rep. Judy Burges *did* write me back...

Back in February, I wrote a message to AZ Rep. Judy Burges about HB 2441, the so-called "birther" bill. I had assumed that I'd gotten no response until I went looking for the e-mail and found that my e-mail program's folders kinda got it twisted and she had written me back. And was she ever polite and understanding about my concerns!

Valsadie:

As part of my commitment to the voters, I read every e-mail so the constituents can rely on the fact that their voices are heard.  Many of them are refreshing, pertinent and express viewpoints that are valid and directly related to the specific legislation.  Many are merely knee-jerk diatribes that are inane and are not even connected to the specifics of the issue.  Unfortunately, it is evident that you have never read the bill and, therefore, do not understand the important purpose that it is being considered.

With all the duties and responsibilities that I have here in the legislature - I spent an eighteen hour day yesterday serving the citizens of Arizona - wasting my time is one of my least favorite things.  I will take the time to inform you as to some facts and I hope that I am not wasting my time and that you will actually read and understand the principles for my bill.

First of all, there is no effort to require the current President to show his birth certificate under by bill.  The bill goes solely to the fact that the Secretary of State must verify that candidates for office - local, state or federal - meet the Constitutional and statutory requirements for holding that particular office prior to placing the name on the ballot for voters to consider.  There is no provision to require retroactive certification in the bill.

As Americans, one of the most sacred rights we have is the right to select those who are in authority over us.  This applies to the President, the Governor, the County Supervisor, the Mayor, the Legislature, or any other public office.  All of these positions have minimum qualifications and none of those qualifications are more important than any other.  The electorate MUST have confidence that the names presented on an official election ballot have met the qualifications of the office.  To do less would be doing a disservice to all voters.  When I am a candidate for office, I am required to present original documents proving that I meet the qualifications for office.  I support the retention of those requirements as they give credibility to the process.

Again, my bill does not address the current President.  Once he is elected, that is the purview of the Senate of the United States to certify his/her election.  For the last two years, however, his authority to hold office has been questioned by some and that alone brings an unnecessary burden that should be eliminated in the future.  My bill is designed to prevent that unfortunate occurrence in the future.

Again, in the future, it would be helpful if you would at least read and understand legislation prior to going off on a rant that is ill-conceived and not pertinent to the provisions in the bill.

In your service,

Rep. Judy Burges
State Representative, LD4

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
haddayr
Apr. 24th, 2010 03:13 am (UTC)
0_o

i
what
for the luvva
i
whut
valsadie
Apr. 24th, 2010 03:40 am (UTC)
All that what you said? That's where I was when I first read this.

And then I noticed the obvious -- she didn't answer my question about why she thinks this bill is necessary. Then she tries to use as an example that she's had to "present original documents proving she met the qualifications for office." Obama served as a state senator in Illinois, then as one of the two Senators for the State of Illinois, and is now President of the USA. Does she really think Obama hasn't had to present those same kinds of original documents at some point in his public service career?? And they were obviously judged sufficient or he'd have been stopped somewhere along the way. Can't at least common sense be used here...

But anyway, most important with your post--Iolaus LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE :)!!!
haddayr
Apr. 24th, 2010 03:52 am (UTC)
Iolas is lurve. I'm somewhat partial to Autolycus, too.

I am just gobsmacked that a public official would not only be so rude and dismissive and hostile (accusing you of WASTING HER TIME), but that she would put so much time into it. I am just completely speechless.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )