Posted on 10/23/2015 12:07:22 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
. . . except foreign government-related ones:Republican state legislators should push bills in their individual states enforcing that stricture by keeping any elector off the ballot who is pledged to a candidate who violates it. Such bill should define "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever to include honoraria and contributions to any organization (marriage not excluded) of which the “person holding any office of profit or trust under [the US]” shall have been an officer.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Further, “office of trust” logically includes anyone who, whether an officer of the US or not, could have been assumed to have presidential ambitions. Since the “penalty” only applies to someone who actually runs for POTUS, that’s not unreasonable. Under the Constitution, the states have plenary power to control the selection of presidential electors, so no legitimate constitutional challenge would lie against such legislation. Enforcement would be by civil suit (with a mandatory fast-track to the state supreme court) and - since nobody has a right to any of a state’s electors unless the state’s government says so - no one would have a claim of lack of due process or a claim to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Banning foreign contributions?
Well, obviously that. In fact, IIRC they are already “banned” - but not effectively so. My point is that Hillary had a say in the affairs of the Clinton Foundation - and while she was SecState, the Clinton Foundation took money from foreign governments. Likewise, she was partner with Bill in their marriage - and while she was SecState he was taking “honorariums” in six figures from foreign governments. “Accept[ing] of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever" would seem to cover that, but the Constitution doesn’t say you can't be POTUS if you violate that stricture.And my point - actually the hobby horse I’ve been riding lately - is that
As I said previously, you shouldn’t be qualified to get electoral votes for POTUS (from my state or any other) if you have been on the take from foreign governments whether or not you held a federal office while you were doing it. Taking donations from foreigners - that is certainly questionable. Taking donations from foreign governments? That’s completely beyond the pale, for anyone to subsequently run for POTUS.
- obedience to that constitutional provision is the least we ought to be able to expect of presidential candidates,
- the feds (read, Obama and the MSM) obviously won’t enforce it against Hillary, and
- the states have plenary power to impose any conditions on the selection of presidential electors (they don’t even have to hold popular elections to choose them, and there are in fact variations among the states in the way it is done. I think in Nevada a game of chance is prescribed as the selection between two candidates who are tied for the popular vote plurality).
- If Republicans in a given state can’t pass a law against awarding electors in their state to people as blatantly corrupt as the Clintons, they ought at least to be able to make the Democrats in their state explain why. And I want the popcorn franchise when that is going on.
A constitutional amendment to that effect would certainly be appropriate. But individual states - especially “purple” ones - could moot the need for it with simple legislation, no supermajorities needed.
I see. I’m not sure what the Supreme Court would say. They struck down term limits on the basis that it added requirements to being an officer of the United States that wasn’t in the Constitution. These were state laws and their defenders used the same basic argument as you’ve used.
I thought the the Court got it wrong, but my opnion and 50 cents wil get you a cup of coffee. Somewhere. ..
I thought the the Court got it wrong, but my opnion and 50 cents wil get you a cup of coffee. Somewhere. ..
Yes. But all that said, I got the expression “plenary authority” as a description of a state’s control over the selection of its electors from somewhere - and IIRC it was a quotation of SCOTUS itself regarding Electors.From Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.Note that the conduct of a popular vote for Electors is not even mentioned. The Nebraska Plan elects only two (not, as is usual, all) of its Electors at large, and elects another Elector in each Congressional District. The plaint text meaning is that if, for whatever perverse reason, the Legislature of Oklahoma enacted a law naming Hillary Clinton sympathizers to be Electors, that would be that. Of course they wouldn’t, because the legislators wouldn’t want to face their constituents ever again afterwards, but . . .The situation is not the same WRT congressmen, who are to be "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” There is a world of difference between an officer who is by Constitution to be popularly elected, and an officer (“elector”) who, constitutionally, is “appoint[ed] , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”.
On top of that, there is the issue that the object of the law is to enforce a provision of the US Constitution - and a law which, at that, does not impose any criminal liability on anyone. It imposes on its targets the lightest burden imaginable. How much of a penalty or burden on your rights is it, actually, if the government imposes on you, for constitutionally sanctioned reason, the inability to be elected POTUS? Don’t you have to have a pretty high opinion of yourself to consider that any penalty at all??? And even if you do, is it actually hard for you to keep from falling under it??? (Answer: Yes - if you are utterly corrupt).
I don’t care if you are a Democrat state legislator, a Democrat governor, or even (ahem) a Democrat SCOTUS justice, you need quite a bit of chutzpah to raise any objection at all. Particularly if you are on record in favor of “Campaign Finance Reform,” which is blatant unconstitutional censorship on the pretext of preventing lesser corruption than is entailed in accepting money from foreign governments (albeit with a fig leaf of money laundering involved).
According to what I have been reading, Trump has been developing excellent ground organizations. Trump is not a fool and he did not get where he is by being ill prepared. He seems to be spending his money wisely and carefully, perhaps because it is his own money and not money belonging to someone else who is going to expect pay back someday.
Why not? Trump is spending a lot less than the other candidates.
“So, Donald, why don’t you not use your own funds for this election and join the little people.”
Yeah, Trump, Tioga here wants you to keep your money in the bank and spend other people’s money, and be beholden to the special interest groups, just like the other candidates! And don’t go spending your money in the general either, you be sure to take those matching govt (taxpayer) funds! Don’t you even think about independent and free to make decisions in the best interest of this country! Tioga and her friends want you owned by K-street, George Soros, the GOPe, the Washington cartel, the international bankers, the industrial military complex, and the crony capitalists!
Good point!
You are very arrogant, conceited, and exceedingly close minded.
I didn’t lie, I quoted the WashPo article which I posted the link to for you and you obviously didn’t read it.
NO, I want to level the playing field so Trump understands having to raise funds to run for office, like a regular person.
I don’t think he’s a hypocrite.
I think he’s doing the right thing.
I think they should all follow suit.
I also think anybody on the bottom 5 or 6 level needs to get out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.