Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

U.S. general election law falls under “powers reserved to the states.” The only federal election law is on campaign finance. A candidate has to qualify in 51 separate jurisdictions under each states’ elections laws and any candidates’ qualifications can be challenged before state elections boards or courts of law.

Electors can vote against a president-elect that they consider to not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1. The House and Senate, meeting in joint-session can refuse to certify the electoral votes of a candidate that they consider to not meet the requiremnts of Article II, Section 1.

Any state’s Chief Elections Officer can refuse to place on the state ballot a candidate who does not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1.
If enough states did that, it could be imposdible for an ineligible candidate to reach 270 Electoral votes.

Nobody was “misled,” there were over 200 court rulings on Obama’s eligibility. The issue was a major discussion point in 2008 and again in 2012. Each voter made up their own mind on who they believed and that’s just as it should be.


331 posted on 12/19/2016 12:45:46 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
Any state’s Chief Elections Officer can refuse to place on the state ballot a candidate who does not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1.

The operative word here is "can". In a rational society, the word would be "shall", but we have once again been blessed by the courts with another example of their inherent stupidity when they ruled that State officials don't have to do their job. They can if they want to, but they cannot be compelled to do their job if they don't want to do so.

If forget which of the particular cases it was, but i'm sure you have it somewhere in that big list of cases you cite from time to time.

Nobody was “misled,” there were over 200 court rulings on Obama’s eligibility.

Notwithstanding the fact that virtually all of those court cases occurred *AFTER* the fact, those court cases do in fact mislead people. But it is not this particular misleading of people to which I refer. I am referring to the media and the talking head lawyers misleading everyone as to what the issue was, and what the facts of eligibility were.

The public was and has most certainly been misled by the Judiciary and Law schools since 1898.

335 posted on 12/19/2016 1:09:47 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson