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

To: WOSG
Get with the program. Whether someone meets the Constitutional residency (inhabitant) eligibility requirement can only be determined as of election day. Also, the determination is made based on the evidence, not the bare, unsupported assertion of a candidate.

The decision makes perfect sense. You're just being obtuse.
196 posted on 07/06/2006 2:24:33 PM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]


To: Iwo Jima

"Also, the determination is made based on the evidence, not the bare, unsupported assertion of a candidate."

There was more than mere 'assertion' to DeLay's change of residence. He voted in Virginia!

"Get with the program. Whether someone meets the Constitutional residency (inhabitant) eligibility requirement can only be determined as of election day."

The statement that someone can only be held 'ineligible' on election day and no prior determination can be made of such mocks the Texas law, as it specifically is providing a provision for prior ineligibility. People can certainly plan to be residents of one state or another at dates certain.

"The decision makes perfect sense. You're just being obtuse."

No. "Obtuse" is keeping a man on the ballot 5 months prior to an election despite his declaration of ineligibility for office, ignoring a provision in the Texas laws that provides for such a determination. Judge Sparks is giving the Texas GOP a catch-22; elections and ballots shouldnt be about that.

Consider Texas elections implications, if a primary vote winner found he/she couldnt serve (let's say they find they have terminal cancer requiring severe treatment) - are we better off letting the election default to the other party and/or forcing a special election, keeping this person on the ballot, than have a more sane approach of letting the person have the party select a replacement? If you really think this ruling was correct, I hope you at least agree that the outcome is not the best we can do and there should be some change in our Texas election law.



208 posted on 07/06/2006 4:15:25 PM PDT by WOSG (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]

To: Iwo Jima

And you're missing some serious points. The biggest or which has already been shown to you by Mr.Smith. And yes, it does set Prec. And yes ...the 5th circuit agrees with it.

'Judge Sidney Fitzwater in Dallas ... went on to rule that Mr. Cheney cannot be considered an inhabitant of Texas, given his "intent that Wyoming be his place of habitation." This intent was evidenced, in part, by his notification to "the United States Secret Service that his primary residence is his home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming."
This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 7, 2000.'


231 posted on 07/06/2006 5:38:46 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | 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