Posted on 10/26/2005 7:22:29 AM PDT by chambley1
Schumaker is allegedly violating the federal Hatch Act, limiting political activity by federal employees by running as a Democrat in a partisan election.
A U.S. Postal employee can only run in a partisan election as an Independent in a designated community such as Prince William County and Manassas. Moreover, as an Independent, the candidate cannot solicit endorsements or contributions from either political party.
Reference:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/5cfr733_05.html
That act also keeps the possibility of military coups down.
Don't forget, generals (active duty) are also federal employees.
NO active duty military may run for any elected office.
I thought the intent of the law was to prevent civil servants from taking the day off or working while on the job in support of political candidates. Can you imagine if the entire CIA or State Department decided to work against the White House in an election?....What? Oh, nevermind.
A lady in working at the Navy Base in Panama City, FL was fired back in '92 for just WORKING as a volunteer (Perot) ............
Inquest, you know damned well that the result of his defiance will simply be the precedent that only Democrats can run for public office while being employwd by the federal government.
(Mierspeak)
See, a LIBERAL running for public office isn't creating a conflict of interest; he's just an expert at knowing how to fix Big Government. A CONSERVATIVE threatens to destroy big government, so he essentially becomes an expert lobbyist within the halls of government; a Trojan, if you would. So, Schumaker isn't VIOLATING the law, he's just re-interpreting the law as a living document so it serves the purpose to which it was originally created: Big Government showering its love and concern over all her children. (/Miersspeak)
The law has changed since then. It used to be that no federal employee could take part in any political activity. Now, they are free to do so on their own time. However, they are forbidden from running for certain offices, and as the piece notes, running as members of a party. They are free to resign and run if they wish.
The law will probably not pass Constitutional muster as regards civil service employees' choice of political party affiliation........
Isn't putting "opely" and "democrat" together an oxymoron?
They are allowed to join a political party, they can be active in the party (just not at work), and they can take time off to engage in political activity (a big change from the previous law), but they are not allowed to run for office as a member of the party while still in the employ of the federal government. It has stood a number of constitutional tests.
This guy is not military, and he's running for a local office. On top of that, the law isn't a blanket provision against running for office, but against running as anything other than an independent. How that's supposed to prevent military coups, I'd be at a loss to say.
I imagine they'd get fired. That should be an administrative decision. But for the law to prohibit such political activity crosses the line.
Aren't the CONGRESS and EXECUTIVE Branch fed employees? Isn't this "Do as I say, not as I do"?.........If the law EXCLUDES these people, then I believe it's un-constitutional.......
Using Government time and resources??? Are you kidding?
Not true at all. What Democrats succeed in doing is pretending that they're following the law when in fact they're not. That's how various tax-exempt groups manage to maintain their "nonpartisan" status despite being clearly allies of the left. But when someone openly challenges the law, and succeeds, there'd be no possible way for him to make it so that only people of his political persuasion would be able to benefit from that. It would necessarily be open to everyone. Conservatives are being very short-sighted by being opposed to this just because it's a Democrat pushing it. If he succeeds, this could easily be a wedge issue for pushing for more drastic cutbacks in federal control over election campaigns.
That was my only point. Now I do think they should be able to "take the day off" but I thought the original intent of the Hatch Act was to prevent people while employed and on the job from working for political candidates. If this guy isn't doing this, I gots no problem with him being politically active.
My ex-wife lost her federally subsidized state job in PA when she ran for school board. By the time somebody mentioned it to her it was too late to get her name off the ballet.
Having to destroy yourself financially before running in a partisan election is NOT freedom.
Hmm...a number have, though.
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.