Although the argument may have started with Obama, state Rep. Dan Carter, R-Bethel, who said he is 100 percent in favor of the proposed bill, thinks citizenship verification is something that needs to be looked into.
"I don't care about the political part of it," Carter said. "There's no mechanism in place."
Talk about a rookie mistake. Either the freshman State Rep. is showing that he has a rather large learning curve or he's simply out to lunch.
State Sen. Andrew Roraback:
State Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Republican whose district includes Brookfield, New Milford and Kent, said a candidate's U.S. birth certificate would satisfy the Constitution's requirement.
"I think it's an elementary proposition," he said.
[...]
"This proposition deserves a public hearing," Roraback said, and it will take place in the next two months.
For their part, the lawmakers' local newspaper, the Danbury News-Times, scolded the two lawmakers for going along with McLachlan's insanity.
With all the serious work that needs to be tackled in Hartford, it is disappointing that state Sen. Michael McLachlan, a Danbury Republican, wasted his time sponsoring a frivolous bill.
It also is disappointing that some otherwise sensible legislators are supporting that proposed law.
The item in question is Senate Bill No. 391: "An act concerning qualifications to appear as a candidate for president or vice-president on a ballot in this state."
This has nothing to do with controlling the state's projected $3.5 billion deficit, nothing to do with attracting business to Connecticut, nothing to do with creating jobs, nothing to do with improving the quality of life for state residents.
This has everything to do with pandering to a small, right-wing movement to discredit President Barack Obama's qualifications for office by questioning his birthplace.
This is the so-called "birther" movement, and its members have listened to neither truth nor reason.
Something tells me I should dust off my "simple question campaign" and see where all of our state lawmakers stand on this stupidity.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
