Posted on 10/04/2010 10:58:25 PM PDT by flamefront
Plain and simple. Jerry Brown is ineligible to run for Governor.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE
SEC. 2. The Governor shall be elected every fourth year at the same time and places as members of the Assembly and hold office from the Monday after January 1 following the election until a successor qualifies. The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election. The Governor may not hold other public office. No Governor may serve more than 2 terms.
Kalis will fall for him, and he has several new taxes and fees to reward them,,,,and there’s the caribou farts to worry about too,,,,,there’ll be a fee to cover that I’m sure.
Kalis will fall for him, and he has several new taxes and fees to reward them,,,,and there’s the caribou farts to worry about too,,,,,there’ll be a fee to cover that I’m sure.
Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Using that logic, the three strikes law can not count any old crimes.... Is the slate wiped clean when the law is passed?
Your logic is faulty in that the law applies to the new action, not the old.
Started about 100 years ago with a man named Woodrow Wilson....
I’m not the brightest e-lawyer here. However, the 3-strike law sure does qualify people retroactively.
It appears to say; if you have served two or more terms you cannot serve anymore new terms after said date.
What I’m seeing people say is this: Xxxx was Governor when the law was enacted, therefore Xxxx can still serve another two terms despite the new law on term limits.
Then again, I’m just one of the proles from the Central Valley, what do I know.
If they change the rules, it is ok to change other rules.
Don’t play by their new rules. Invent your own and implement them. [
So by your logic, if the state lowers a speed limit on a road and I abide by the prior higher limit, I cannot be cited?
Why is not the Republican Party not challenging this and trumpeting his ineligibility? Get the lawyers in the courts and start the lawsuits NOW. Be effing proactive CA Republican Party!!!
YES
I'm sure the California constitution prohibits ex post facto laws just as the US constitution does. Therefore, the constitutional amendment only applied to those elected after it was adopted.
I was surprised to find no exemption at the link provided. Where/How does the law exempt former governors?
You couldn't be cited for violating the new speed limit before it was enacted.
Nevermind
Isn’t he, like, 300 years old already?
I guess they put that in never suspecting anyone elected before then would actually run again!
If that piece is meant to indicate that no person can hold the office for more than two *consecutive* terms...or,if it was passed *since* he last served as Governor it probably doesn’t apply to him.Of course electing him governor...particularly *today*...would be a mistake that Californians will regret for decades to come.
See post 19... the poster does quote the law and it does exempt any time spent as Govenor prior to the law being enacted... so it’s a moot point.
Of course. That is inherently in their interest . . . which is why you do not expect Congress to propose that the states pass a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congressmen or Senators, nor to pass an amendment preventing Congressmen from gerrymandering themselves into lifetime incumbencies.Equally, you do not expect Congress to propose to diminish the powers of the Senate by making new SCOTUS justices running mates of the presidential candidates, thereby allowing the people rather than the Senate to vet SCOTUS nominees (and considering what will pass a Democrat Senate, could the people possibly do worse?).
Nor would Congress propose that a 60% vote of the states have the power to Recall justices of SCOTUS, which is needed to restore the balance between the federal and state governments.
Those are the sorts of thing for which an Article V constitutional convention is the sovereign remedy. By the time this current Congress and potus have done lashing things up, we will seriously need to restore checks and balances.
No, what a stupid statement. You couldn't be cited for breaking the law before it was enacted. Once the law is in place then you have to obey it or be cited. Where the he** did you come up with that convoluted BS and just where did I say you could break the law after it was in place? The fact is, Brown's two prior terms were during the period before the statute was put in place(sometime in the 1990s)which means he hasn't violated the term limits law since that law wasn't in place yet. You can't grandfather a law, what part of that don't you understand?
You know the part of my last comment when I said you sounded stupid? Well double that because this comment you made sounds like maybe you might be, to be generous, about 10 years old.
Thank you for you information...I wonder how much Bravo Sierra you saved us from reading.
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.