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

To: Tau Food
Would it matter that the Constitution clearly provides that presidents are to be selected by electors and that there is no textual support for judicial review of the electors' decisions? Finally, the voice of reason.

I oppose judicial interference with the Presidential election process. Nothing is more political than elections, and as per Article II Section I and the Twelfth Amendment, the duty to give us a President resides with State legislatures and Congress.

Federal courts can no more legitimately interfere with the vote of State electors than they can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable. Unfortunately, all liberals and too many Freepers have fallen into a rat trap concocted these past 80 years that any dispute must be settled by a branch of government unaccountable to the people. It simply isn’t true and Scotus cannot legitimately “fill in” when some people become disgusted with the other branches.

But unlike the President, the Constitution is silent as to ambassador qualifications. So who or what body is responsible for keeping an unqualified individual out of the White House?

The responsibility can only be with the parties charged with giving us a President: State Legislatures which are responsible for the appointment of electors, the electors themselves and perhaps the Senate which counts the votes. That is why it was not unimportant for the Senate in 2008 to find that McCain met the Constitutional requirements. Our Senate must ultimately count the electoral votes and that Senate decided McCain was qualified. Very simple, and no court can interfere with State electoral votes, nor the Senate in its duty to count the votes as directed by the Constitution.

The place to stop Constitutionally unqualified candidates is our State legislatures. These are the institutions our Constitution charged with exercising electoral judgment.

732 posted on 09/02/2013 12:09:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies ]


To: Jacquerie

AND if the resolution to amend Art. 2 ever passes it goes to the states, where if passed, would mean the individual states would no longer have any grounds to challenge Presidential candidates eligibility. Not that they seem to be anxious to do so anyway, but it least it’s an option now.


736 posted on 09/02/2013 12:41:48 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies ]

To: Jacquerie
Yes, it is easy to forget that state legislatures control the manner in which electors are chosen. So far as I know, each state legislature now permits voters to select the electors either statewide or by congressional district, but any state can change those rules whenever it wishes to do so.

The way things now stand, with voters playing such an important role in selecting electors, people who have a preference for their own special little NBC definition should make that preference known to voters and to electors because, as should be obvious to everyone by now, they are the folks who select our presidents.

751 posted on 09/02/2013 9:24:39 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | 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