Posted on 09/16/2009 11:12:42 PM PDT by jsdjason
I wanted to post this thread to let everyone know that I am going to begin drafting a proposed Constitutional Amendment that will require the Supreme Court of the United States to certify all Congressional, Presidential, and Vice-Presidential candidates eligibility to hold office PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY.
I have been inspired by what Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe have accomplished just by being active and involved. I have also been less than inspired in the lack of a formal legal process to certify our candidates, and even less inspired by the lack of recourse afforded to citizens by our federal courts.
I'm a current 3rd year law student in Texas so I already know that a simple bill passed by Congress to accomplish the same goals is likely to be litigated to death and possibly over-turned as unconstitutional based on an argument that it adds qualifications to hold office to those in the Constitution (though in my opinion I think this argument should fail). Also, it could be litigated on other grounds such as the Political Question Doctrine, which the courts are supposed to stay away from. So a Constitutional Amendment is the best, and only fail-safe way to install this check on our candidates eligibility.
I believe that leaving the power to the Supreme Court to ultimately certify our candidates is the best alternative. Currently Congress has the power to validate an elected candidate's eligibility to take their seat, and we have seen a handful of cases over the years where political games have been played. Roland Burress is just the most recent case.
The Supreme Court will be required to validate candidates based on verifiable information such as a birth certificate.
The one problem that I can think of right off the bat is what if the SCOTUS makes a clearly erroneous decision? What would the recourse be then for the candidate and also for voters? This is just one issue that I am going to have to consider.
One other thing that comes to mind if this broad idea of the SCOTUS deciding things doesn't seem to work would be to allow taxpayer standing to sue and/or obtain injunctions against allegedly ineligible candidates.
I have much research to do and very little free time. I would like as much feedback here as possible about ideas of how best to craft a Constitutional amendment. I also think that it would be a good idea to start pitching this idea to talk show hosts and any other time that this subject comes up. If we the people demand legal recourse in future elections and we keep the pressure up then people will have to start listening to our concerns and maybe we can effect change just like Hannah and James.
Ideas, comments please.
“...Congressional, Presidential, and Vice-Presidential candidates...”
Why stopping there?
Great idea.
Now, who will have the guts to implement it ???
Not necessarily stopping, if you have an idea lets hear it. I think we should try to keep the number of offices limited as this will be a great burden on the SCOTUS to verify hundreds of congressional candidates. I think limiting the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS to elected federal offices only is possibily the best way to go.
If it is Constitutionally amended then it will HAVE to be implemented.
Any way to make the change ‘retroactive’?
j/k...best of luck to you!
Oh and I also meant to say that the Constitution only addresses Congress, VP, and Prez eligibility requirements.
your pingalinglist might want to chime in here...
Best of luck to us. Me drafting a proposed amendment won’t really change much...mainly I just want this idea to get into the marketplace of ideas and for it to start getting talked about.
Even if one believes that Obama is eligible, what is the harm in having the SCOTUS verify all candidates? Shouldn’t everybody want that? Shouldn’t everyone want the current sitting President to quit spending millions defending lawsuits that could easily go away with a simple presentment of birth records? If you want something like this to happen then start talking about it with others.
bookmark
The case you’re referencing is Bush v. Gore and it was in my opinion a very screwy opinion for a lot of reasons that I don’t want to get into. A lot of people, including Bush supporters, thought the opinion was wrong. Remember it was a 5-4 opinion. But this is the precise reason why a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to grant them jurisdiction without all kinds of litigation and fear of overturning a congressional bill. Once an amendment becomes a part of the Constitution it is “Constitutional” and must be followed.
Likely the only way an amendment like this would ever be passed is the process of using a 2/3 vote congress followed by ratification by 3/4 of the states. Let’s get this idea out there though.
How about that for Congressmen, the question should go to the circuit court for the applicable district or state. If the candidate wishes to appeal a turn-down, then it goes to the Supreme Court.
The states set their own standards for ballot access. We need 5 or 6 large states to demand all candidates must provide an official long form birth certificate proving they are a natural born citizen to be placed on the ballot for president. All that’s needed are enough states with Electoral Collage votes to make it impossible to win without being on the ballot in those states.
Laws like this can be passed in months rather than taking years, like a Constitutional amendment does. They also stand a better chance of even being introduced
I’d bet we could get these laws in 8 or 9 red states in 2010 if we start now.
If the States won’t simply pass a law in their own jurisdictions, and if Congress won’t pass a law requiring it then what makes you think there is any chance of an amendment even being drafted?
One doesn’t amend the dang Constitution when there are other means.
This is almost as silly as anti flag burning amendments.
Got it. So, Governor’s requirements (and below) should be each State’s issue. (Uhm, rookie mistake. And I’m not even a rookie. I probably need coffee :P)
This only really needs to be done for the President and Vice President - and the only real issue is to make a determination of whether the candidate is a Natural Born Citizen - or not.
The Consitutional qualifications for Congress are trivial by comparison.
There really isn’t any need for action to try to define just what a Natural Born Citizen is - any such effort short of a Constitutional Amendment would be meaningless anyway. Consitutional terms can’t be defined by statute. Besides, serious Constitutional scholars already know what the Framers meant: born in the Unites States with no competing claims of citizenship and no divided layalty at birth.
In the framer’s time this clearly meant that the child must have been born in the USA of a citizen father (the citizenship of the mother was of little consequense as females did not pass down citizenship - ever). In our time, it would be necessary to make certain that BOTH parents were citizens to avoid any ambiguity regarding competing claims of citizenship.
Now, that ought not to be too hard, should it? And it ought to be obvious to everyone with the power to reason, that our current “President” is NOT Constitutionally qualified under any set of facts that could be presented.
And it makes sense, too. The Framers wanted the presedent to be unambiguously American - not some “Citizen of the WOrld” type who would place our national interest on a par with Zambia’s in the interest of “fairness”.
This “President” has given a job to the SFB (that means “S” For Brains) Cass Sunstein who suggests just that. That the US ought to submerge its own national and natural interests in favor of others - for “fairness’ sake”.
John Madison would be in tears if he knew what we have come to as a nation.
Geeeze... What a dummy ... that’s JAMES Madison.
This reminds me of the long ago blooper on some radio quiz show (back when they existed) When the MC asked the contestant, “Who wrote ‘The Three Musketeers’?” The hapless contestant replied “Alexander Dumbass” and the audience went wild... hysteria reigned! After a momentary pause as it dawned on the contestant that he had missed a really easy question, he corrected himself : “I mean JAMES Dumbass!” WHOOPS! Wrong again!
The first thing that you need to do is GET RID of the POS 14th and 17th Amendment!
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.