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

To: MortMan

The Constitution specifies electors only.

For a State to have authority to limit an electors actions, the Constitution would have to grant that authority.

The Constitution does not grant that authority.

A similar scenario that has been sued over and won.

States cannot add additional requirements to federal positions. Such as they cannot prohibit felons from running Federal office.


72 posted on 01/17/2020 6:47:51 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: Pikachu_Dad

States are constitutionally charged to appoint electors in a manner of the state legislature’s choosing. Full stop.

The 10th amendment says that where the constitution is silent, the power is reserved to the states or the people.

The question of adding qualifications is the exact opposite. The constitution defines qualifications, and the states cannot add thereto.


73 posted on 01/17/2020 6:52:41 PM PST by MortMan (Is "buttcheeks" one word, or should I spread them apart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Pikachu_Dad

The 10th Circuit (and soon the Supreme Court) disagree eith you.

“On the merits of Mr. Baca’s claim, we conclude the state’s removal of
Mr. Baca and nullification of his vote were unconstitutional. As a result, Mr. Baca has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of his claim under rule 12(b)(6). We therefore REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


75 posted on 01/17/2020 7:02:42 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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