Posted on 12/01/2002 6:30:00 PM PST by Smackover
1. The facts are simple; the Democrat Senate nominee who was successful in the New Jersey primary resigned the nomination 36 days prior to the general election because pre-election polling surveys were very discouraging.
2. Ballot access was available except for the 51 days prior to the general election according to the New Jersey Legislature.
3. Judicial legislation by the New Jersey Supreme Court changed the 51-day ballot access requirement to 36 days, violated the Constitution and corrupted the Democrat election.
The Constitution of the United States provides in Article I Section 4 Clause 1:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators . . . shall be prescribed by each State by the Legislature thereof." (emphasis supplied)
The New Jersey Legislature prescribed how vacancies among candidates nominated at primaries must be filled.
New Jersey Permanent Statutes-Elections: Title 19: Section 13-20.
"In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election . . ." (emphasis supplied)
The highly partisan New Jersey supreme Court in contravention of the New Jersey Legislature's 51-day requirement forced the Democrat replacement candidate on the Senatorial ballot for the November 5 election. In judicially legislating the Election procedure by changing the 51 days to 36 days they violated Article I Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution, which prescribed that the legislature, not the court shall determine the time and manner of holding elections for Senators.
The U. S. Constitution; Article I Section 5 Clause 1:
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, returns and Qualifications of its own members." (emphasis supplied)
It is the Senate's duty to judge this election. Judicially forced ballot access in violation of the Constitution corrupted the Democrats election. Each Senator upon his or her sworn oath is duty bound to uphold the Constitution. the Senate is the Judge of the Election.
New Jersey's Democrat candidate is constitutionally disqualified from being seated in the U. S. Senate because his illegal ballot access corrupted his Election. The qualified candidate running an uncorrupted election must be chosen to fill the Senate seat. In this election that is the Republican candidate.
Didn't the U. S. Supreme Court approve of this judicial power grab by the New Jersey Supreme Court? No, they refused to rule on it because they knew that the Senate must judge the election, not the court. This was the correct response.
New Jersey's Democrat illegally prevailed in the election and we will hear the, "will of the people" argument when their Senator elect is refused a seat. The, "will of the people", is expressed in various ways. There is a, "will of the people" that political expediency not be a substitute for fair elections. There is a, "will of the people", that the highest Judicial Authority in each State perform its functions with integrity.
The U. S. Senate, which is the constitutionally empowered tribunal, will judge this election. Republicans who ran on a platform of curtailing judicial activism will find especially repugnant this particularly virulent form of judicial activism wherein the court legislates from the bench. This is one of the instances where the Constitution expressly prohibits judicial legislation with no exceptions.
The New Jersey Supreme Court made a cynical calculation that the Democrats would retain control of the Senate with their help in New Jersey. They anticipated that their extra legal judicial shenanigan would never be exposed in a tribunal with the power to expose their perfidy but they have been caught in the act! This power grab ran into an unanticipated obstacle. A new Republican controlled Senate duty bound to enforce an old U. S. Constitution, which clearly forbids judicial activism in supplanting the legislative rules in Senate contests.
All parties to a policial contest for Senator should conform to rules, set out in advance by the legislature of the various states. These rules must be mandated by the State legislatures not the courts. A Republican controlled credentials committee could have an interesting time listening to the New Jersey Democrats feeble attempt to justify this outrage, which of course is indefensible.
We can't be doormats any more when they violate the law. What does is say about us if we are not willing to take the heat to defend the Constitution. And for some Senators there is an easy way to explain it: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and this is a clear violation of the Constitution. This being the Constitutional duty of the Senate to Judge elections, I hereby vote not to seat Mr. Lautenberg."
Remember Missouri in 2000 wherein the Circuit Judge overruled the legislature and held the polls open in selected Democrat precincts in contravention of legislation mandating an earlier closing time.
Becky Cook then certified the dead Governor as the winner, claiming he was a resident, even though he had been dead for almost two weeks. (The Constitution requires that a Senator be a resident) Shortly thereafter, with a straight face the acting Governor declared the dead man was no longer a resident and the office was vacant. He appointed the widow to the Senate. This unconstitutional outrage occurred while Trent Lott was negotiating a, "power sharing arrangement" with the Democrats. This, "good deed" inflicted eighteen months of obstructionism on the country as the Republicans allowed the Constitution to be trampled.
There is very little downside to upholding the constitution and enforcing fair elections. When you are given power, use it or loose it.
Ask yourself, what happened to "power sharing" when the Democrats got control. What chance would a Republican have if he was the top vote getter in a corrupted election in New Jersey and the Democrats were in control of the Senate?
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.