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

To: WILLIALAL
Good point.

States, however, should not back down from this issue about their right to insist on Constitutional adherence by the Federal Government. It's time.

9 posted on 04/16/2011 9:40:54 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Jim 0216

As recently as 08 the state of California refused to allow a candidate on the ballot due to constitutional ineligibility.

Socialist party Candidate Roger Calero was removed from the ballot due to the fact that he isn’t a citizen of this country. Unfortunately he was allowed on the ballot in several other states.


10 posted on 04/16/2011 9:45:27 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Jim 0216

It is up to the states to certify candidates since states run the elections according to their rules. They cannot however require a higher standard for national office than the US Constitution establishes. Regardless there is no constitutional control over a state’s authority to certify candidates as ITS responsibility.
As a result, each situation would become an individual case:
At the state level there would likely be judicial challenges to any refusal by a state’s election authority to certify a candidate to the ballot;
at the federal level there would be challenges to a state “overstepping its authority” by refusing to certify a (presumed) qualified candidate.
Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.


18 posted on 04/16/2011 10:07:12 AM PDT by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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