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.
Jerry Brown had no serious primary opponents this year. All prominent California Democrats stepped aside to let him have the nomination.
Apparently he technically can run for a 3rd term because the term limit law was enacted after he was governor. But he certainly violates the spirit of the law by deciding he wanted a 3rd term.
You wish we were better than this, but unfortunately, no, we are not. :-)
Did you read MY post? The answer to your question is already there. I said “unless there’s another section that’s applicable”....
Yes, I was just having a bit of late night humor, not intended at your expence. Glad you saw that.
We both know there are people out there who are thick enough to understand it that way.. LOL
Thanks for you enlightened commentary about my age and mental ability. I expected more from an ass such as you.
Back to the argument, it is not a LAW, it was made part of the State’s Constitution. Second, that part of the constitution deals with the qualifications to be governor so having served two terms is a disqualifier, it is not a punishment nor does it relate to an action that happened during his two terms of office. FWIW, wrap you mind around this decision as what constitutes ex post facto law as written in the US Constitution:
“...in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.”
Now, perhaps the discussion relative to the passage of this change may have agreed to exclude former governors and was meant to go forward, I will cede that. But, absent any such agreement or discussion, the words speak for themselves and are not limited by any notion of Ex Post Facto Constitutional Law.
Finally FWIW, I am not ten, I am 65 sonny.
I’m not sure I understand how a prohibition for a governor entering a third term means that a prior governor (not continuously sitting) doesn’t have to count his two previous terms.
You sound like you are about 10 and the only ass in this discussion is you. You seem incapable of understanding that this is indeed a LAW. Term limits are laws. Regardless of that, grandfathering a law, statute or amendment is not legal. Therefore Brown is not eligible. Does your 10 yo mind grasp that now, or do you need further explanation. Some people just won’t give up an argument, no matter how wrong they are or what proof is offered. As I said before, very liberal like and very child like.
Well, I guess you should not open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are incapable of grasping a signifant issue.
So be it. I have other things to do then debate with someone with a closed mind and too dense to follow a legitimate point of view.
One can normally assess where an argument is going when one side reverts to name calling. We can agree to disagree or not but I don’t intend to argue with a mono thought mind.
Alas, it doesn’t apply to him due to no laws ex post facto.
Not likely to have been in the original.
And laws cannot be applied retroactively (except for The First Rapist and his retroactive tax increase of 1993...)
Just saying.
Because most voters (80%) are as ignorant as children including, apparently, many Freepers...
...and presumably, uninformed or not, they all have the "right" to vote.
It means consecutive terms. :)
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.