Mmmm, ping butter...
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/07/2011 8:52:56 AM PST by butterdezillion
One of the reasons to leave the 2-citizen part in there is because that interpretation of NBC would then be subject to court review. The court would have to decide the issue, which is what Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s lawsuits were intended to address. This law would just create a situation where there is standing for the issue to be addressed on its merits.
Either side of the 2-citizen argument could be afraid of what the outcome might be, or argue about what it should be. But ultimately the country needs a decision on it. If the decision is not what a particular person wanted then that person can try to amend the Constitution to correct the definition. But we have to have a functional definition before the SOS’s can realistically enforce the requirement. That is the first step to resolving this issue for now or in future elections.
And the issue is all the more relevant because we have a spate of potential Presidential candidates who will bring up these questions. We should have that resolved when it is a hypothetical question rather than when it is a ruling on a particular individual.
That resolution certainly seems to accept the idea that 2 citizen parents are required. I guess Leahy must be racist, huh? lol
Do the lawyers among us see any problem with the AG being given the “role of defending both the candidate and the public interest as stated by the Constitution”?
Would there be any reason a state AG would balk at having his/her job pretty much defined as initiating the suit, collecting and presenting to the court the amicus briefs (including one of his/her own if so desired) and the evidence, and conducting and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any of the records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs?
Is there anything that would prohibit a law from designating the duties of the AG in these matters?
Would there be any problem with the AG not being given the job of conducting all kinds of procedural motions, but just with simply presenting the evidence and arguments and letting the court decide the case? I suppose the candidate could file his/her own suit and do the legal tap-dancing but that wouldn’t stop this suit which is based only on evidence and arguments.
If the AG’s role is as described, would the costs to the state for implementing this be less?
There’s that tension between the states each seemingly able to come up with their own definition in the practical implementation of a presidential election, and the Constitution requiring that it be interpreted by the federal judiciary.
I think the way it has to play out is by a state or states coming up with procedures that implement a certain understanding, and then the federal judiciary ruling on the Constitutionality of it. I think that’s about the only way that both provisions of the Constitution can be met.
Should have been “conducting AN INVESTIGATION and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs.”
The funny thing is Obama was a “sponsor” of the resolution, and signed it.
So Barack Obama is also be of the opinion that two citizen parents are required.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone!!!!!!
lol. I feel like I’ve been in the Twilight Zone long enough to meet its residency requirement to be President there.
But I’m not a natural born citizen of the place so I won’t even try to run. lol
On a separate track, do you think that an elector, once chosen, would have standing to compel document production?
I would think that if an elector is required to vote for an eligible candidate they would have standing to compel documentation at any time.
If we can get laws passed that keep that from being necessary it would definitely be good.
Mmmm, ping butter...
>You realize you pinged two SP’s aka FINOs???
>
>That creates a chain reaction!!!
Questions:
1) What do you mean by “SP’S”?
—I am assuming that you do not mean Shore Patrol, which as I understand is the Navy-equivalent of MP.
2) What is a FINO?
3) Considering that you said there were two of these, and there were only four in the ‘To’ field, the chance you are referring to me is .50; were you referring to me?
As I set out in a mail to you, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to prescribe the manner in which electors are chosen so that a state legislature can prescribe that electors must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution including assuring that candidates meet constitutional requirements and the manner in which they can obtain the assurances that the candidate does in fact meet the qualifications.
Do you think that the requirements at the state level have to involve the electors personally in order to be Constitutional, or do you think the state can also determine which names can be on the ballot for prospective electors to vote for in the electoral vote?
Are you suggesting that dealing with the electors themselves is the best way to deal with this Constitutionally, or the only way, or something else?
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
I’m looking at the Constitution and seeing that the only thing in there about the states’ role in the Presidential/VP election is this, in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof 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 of Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Would it be necessary, then, to Constitutionally justify any legislation regarding Presidential/VP elections by clearly saying how the law implements the “appointment” of electors?
And if so, the law would need to specifically say that the law requires electors to swear to uphold the Constitution by only voting for eligible candidates, as determined through a specific process.... (and then the law describes the process for determining eligibility)?
Am I understanding where you’re coming from on this? Are the electors the necessary connection between the state legislature and the Constitution?
“Site Pests” and “Freeper In Name Only,” like RINOs!!!
OK???
Got you, then you need as many of them you can catch, LOL!!!
Thank you.
>That’s the way I see it, but if somebody can give me an example that would work using only 2 sentences, I would gladly scrap this whole thing and use something else.
Possible 2 Sentence suggestion:
No person who does not meet the United States Constitution Article 2, Section 1 qualification for President shall be listed under this state’s ballot as candidate for either President or Vice President. The Secretary of State shall confirm such qualification prior to listing and shall provide [redacted] copies of the verifying documents to any Citizen who shall requests them.
Speaking of running, I think you should run for an office. You’re the kind of citizen that should be “serving” the people because you actually would. Don’t worry about not being a lawyer, they’re too many of those in office already! Run on this issue for starters.
(I am definitely not kidding.)
That’s another one where it seems like it would be a no-brainer, but in Nebraska, for instance, the only document required to get a candidate on the ballot is the Certification of Nomination from the national party (RNC or DNC). So if that law was passed in Nebraska, John Gale would disclose to anybody who asked a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s Certification of Nomination, on which she perjured herself by saying that Obama was the “duly chosen” candidate of the DNC, which is supposed to mean that he’s Constitutionally eligible. It doesn’t mean that, but unless there were other specific verifying documents, that is the document they would say would fulfill that law’s requirement.
It gets back to the NJ SOS issue, where she was required by law to verify Constitutional eligibility and just didn’t think any documents were necessary. That was perfectly fine with the courts. The law didn’t say which documents she had to look at so none was fine; she could have done it by psychic analysis and it would have met the letter of that law.
And in Ohio, the SOS was required to locate ineligible voters. BUT because the law didn’t specifically say she had to show the list to anybody, she didn’t. Again, the courts were fine with that - although I think they hid behind the “standing” issue again.
Those are the kinds of shenanigans that an SOS can get away with, which is why George Soros is concentrating on getting SOS positions filled with communists who will not hesitate to break the laws with a smile.
When I spoke with Nebraska SOS John Gale in the middle of all this he said that if the candidate signs a statement saying they are Constitutionally eligible that’s all anybody needs to see. The media would never let a politician get away with lying.
That conversation that I had with him plays heavily into why I tend to be more exact and specific in the requirements. From what I’ve seen we simply cannot trust bureaucrats even with no-brainer mandates. If it’s not spelled out exactly, with penalties if they don’t obey, it may as well not be law at all. That’s based on what I’ve seen and experienced from the bureaucrats.
What I’m proposing has as much to do with holding bureaucrats accountable as it has to do with presidential eligibility. I’m not sure that the two can be separated, after what I’ve seen.
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.