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

To: butterdezillion

And, a few lines down, the same report says:

“It appears from the record that no Member of the House or Senate of the 111th Congress, in joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral vote, raised or forwarded any objection to the electoral votes of (then) President-elect Obama on the grounds of qualifications, or otherwise.”

So it is absurd to suggest that Congress has no power to enforce eligibility requirements.


877 posted on 12/15/2010 8:20:36 PM PST by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies ]


To: BigGuy22

Objections to electoral votes are the basis of the counting of votes, not constitutional eligibility. Two pages prior to what you quoted is the section that says no federal agency or office vets candidates as to qualifications. The next paragraph says that states and state laws administer the elections of federal official within those states. Congress does NOT have a constitutionally designated function of vetting eligibility ... and especially not the sole eligibility to do so. Such powers not designated to the Federal government fall to the states or people according to the 10th amendment. This explains why states have ballot laws and affadavit requirements for presidential ballots. It also means Lakin has a constitutional right to challenge the constitutional authority of the resident of the White House.


880 posted on 12/15/2010 8:37:44 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | 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