Posted on 01/17/2016 5:18:24 PM PST by usafa92
I listened to Levin from Day 1 of his broadcast career. He is very smart. But like so many Conservatives who have dropped like flies in the past year (Will, Krauthammer, Hayes, et. al.) he has failed to see the forest for the trees.
The states choose to put nominee names on the ballot. They don't have to do this. But if they choose to put the name of a living breating human being on the ballot, I submit that the states have the power to deny that to whoever the hell they want, for any reason at all. The states all play this hot potatoe (Hi Dan Quayle) game of requring a Certification of Qualification, but the states make no substantive test and require no evidence.
This facilitates the perpetration of fraud by the party or the candidate, whoever submits the certificate of qualification.
Personally I think that if we were to follow the original intent, each congressional district should elect one delegate and there should be a state wide election for two.
Originally the names of the electors were placed on the ballots and not the candidates.
But who follows original intent anymore?
I think you agree, the party nominees for president have no constitutional right to be named on the ballot, and the state can certainly remove them for cause. Cleaver was not going to be 35 on inauguration day, and his name was not permitted on a general election ballot.
That leaves the primaries, where the state may use its authority to create laws for conducting election. I would say that the state is the ultimate authority on the eligibility of the candidates. It does not have to (but customarily does) accept the certification of eligibility as conclusively true. There is no constitutional (NBC) violation, because the candidate has no right to have his name appear on the general election ballot anyway. The state has an interest in not enabling fraud.
I'm very open to correction on these general principles, but I think they are correct.
There are 435 electors, not 535. One for each district. Maine still operates district by district, has from it’s admission to the Union.
Good grief!
Since your canuck messiah chose to NOT get a DJ, he has yuge cloud over his candidacy.
Why would he knowingly allow this question to rise up and become an issue?
Add his support for TPA, Corker’s Iran Nukes, his “forgetfullness” of loans from his Wall St buddies and his support of ILLEGAL ALIENS INVADERS (with his BFF Glenn Beck) one gets a picture Teddy Boy is showing his phony, slimey side of his personna.
Alas, Cruzbots are using Alinsky tactics - when facts can’t support your boy, attack personally.
Sad.
Not my messiah.
Cruz could not get a DJ because the issue is not ripe for adjudication. Even if it were ripe, SCOTUS will defer to the Electoral College.
I'm a lawyer. You're a moron pontificating as if you had a clue about the law.
To repeat: I don't care whether it is Trump or Cruz that becomes the nominee.
I do care about the lies spread on FR by people like you out of either ignorance or mal-intent. The more I see of what you post here, you're either stupid or just a paid troll for the candidate you're piking.
BTW, where are your posts insisting that Barry Goldwater, George Romney, John McCain, and Barack Hussein Obama should have obtained DJs in order to run?
Well, the fact you claim to be a lawyer does NOT add to any remaining credibility you may have at this point.
As an MBA (w/national honors), former officer in a $400M corp who reported directly to the Chairman on all M&A projects and current entrepreneur with business partners in Europe and Far East, to accurately identify the core issue has always been an attribute of mine to achieve success.
At best, you simply cannot grasp the core issue and you seem to be caught up in the emotions while ignoring/rejecting reality.
As I stated, your messiah’s dark side is emerging and it’s not a pretty picture as his GOP-E allegiance (including Beck’s Amnesty support) continues to be exposed.
Three countries have a claim on Cruz. Canada by operation of natural and positive law, The US by operation of positive law (8 USC), and Cuba by operation of positive law.
If Cuba's positive law reads like US positive law, what makes Cuba's claim inferior to the US, at Ted's birth? What is Ted, the NBC of three countries?
That's absurd.
You don’t understand the law about DJs. Give it a rest.
Your MBA, “national honors,” and “experience” are worthless when it comes to analyzing what Cruz should or shouldn’t have done from a legal perspective.
To repeat: where were your calls for Barry Goldwater, George Romney, John McCain, and Barrack Hussein Obama to get a DJ in order to run for the presidency?
Once again, I do not care whether Trump or Cruz gets the nomination.
I’m simply tired of liars like you poisoning this place with your Trumpbot garbage. I’ve called the BS by Cruzbots too who lied in recent months about Cruz’s stances on TPA/TPP, H-1B visas, etc.
Both men are the best the GOP field has to offer this election cycle. Yet you go out of your way to lie repeatedly to destroy one in favor of the other. Which brings us back to whether you’re stupid or a paid troll for Trump.
Based on the precedents of Barry Goldwater, George Romney, John McCain, and Barack Obama, yes he is. To hold Cruz to a different standard would be an arbitrary and capricious application of the law.
SCOTUS will defer to the Electoral College on the issue. Obama's election and re-election is proof of that.
What is Ted, the NBC of three countries?
That's theoretically possible. For example, under Panama's constitution, John McCain was an NBC there too when born on a U.S. military base in Panama. He was also a U.S. NBC.
When a dual citizen minor becomes an adult, he is supposed to choose one citizenship over the other (assuming he knows about it). In practice, that rarely happens.
For example many dual NBCs (particularly U.S.-Canadian) keep both. It's only been with the implementation of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reporting requirements that you're seeing a trend by dual NBCs living in Canada to renounce their U.S. citizenship as adults.
It's not arbitray and capricious if the analysis yields the same reult in each case. That the precedents err is a fact. Goldwater at least can claim he was born a citizen of a terriroty that later became a state, and Mccain has an argument that he was born a citizen of whatever state his parents were domiciled in.
Congress by action coupled with SCOTUS by inaction allowed a dual citizen at birth to usurp the office. It is an improvident act. The remedy is to declare it so, and find the actions valid by the peinciple of de facto officer.
There are 538 Electors. DC gets 3.
What makes the US claim superior over Cuba’s? Subsequent residency and domicile, that’s all. At birth he cannot be viewed as belonging only to the US.
I stand corrected, thank you. 271 of whatever to have a majority.
Thank You.
After P-Marlowe took me to the woodshed over my post, I was questioning my own understanding of the roles of the legislative and judicial branches, and their jurisdiction.
Thanks for the clarification..
Because it wants to populate the continent, let's say the Australian government passes a law that states anyone who is born on planet Earth is a citizen of Australia.
Under your scenario, every U.S. citizen born when that Australian citizenship law is in effect cannot be a U.S. NBC eligible to run for the U.S. presidency.
The fact that DC (not a state) gets 3 Electoral votes is a clear indication that the intentions of the founders are no longer relevant to the election of president.
Now, instead of looking at the effect of Australian law on US law, look at the effect of a hypothetical US law on the issue. Congress could pass a mirror image of the Australian law. That US law has effect in the US. All citizens of the world are citizens of the US by operation of US act of Congress. That law is in fact constitutional. Dumb, bad policy, but constitutional. Are all the people born, in the world, NBC of the US. Your answer has to be "yes." I say it is "no."
I don't think he's terrified of Cruz. I think he just wants to win.
We've become so used to our candidates being satisfied with a "participation ribbon" that we/ve forgotten what it looks like to try to win a contest.
I think both Trump and Cruz are fighters and I'm glad they're on our team. Together, they've brought up important issues that Jebby or Rubio never would.
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.