Posted on 03/17/2019 3:49:48 AM PDT by Libloather
Your comment;
If that was constitutional CA,WA,NY,NJ could all easily pass something to exclude all non-Marxists and no Republican could ever get elected again.
California did a pretty good job of eliminating political opposition with their primary elections filing regulations and results.
New Jersey did the same thing. So what. A republican will never again win either state.
We are becoming a balkanized society along political lines.
JoMa
Three years will consist of a $1 salary.
Big deal. Trump can’t win Washington anyway. This is nothing more than a symbolic move on their part. However, it is nice to see the liberals out themselves and show off their Fascist foundation. They are power mad.
It’s getting close to the point that the country is so divided that elections won’t be honored by one side or the other.
It would be REALLY EASY for Republicans to pass state laws requiring X% in EVERY county/district to get on the ballot.
We have more counties/districts that reject liberals.
We should start voting based on acreage, one vote per acre!
Combine this with their votes to ignore the electoral college and this is very dangerous. If the electoral run around bills stand, then the winner of the popular vote wins the electoral votes in about a dozen states. If Washington does not count Trump's votes, then the democrat will easily win the popular vote.
I would say that the Washington and New Jersey bills have the same problem that state laws seeking to impose term limits on congresscritters had.
The Supreme Court case is called U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). The link is below:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/
Interestingly, the 3 most conservative justices on the court (Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist) joined by O’Connor, would have upheld term limits imposed by states. John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
The law therefore is that a state cannot impose more qualifications on a candidate for congress than are stated in the federal Constitution. By logic, this would extend to presidential candidates too.
I noticed the Saab also.
A guy gets called into the Bosses Office.
The Boss tells him he is doing such a great Job that they are transferring him to Seattle to run their Regional Office.
The guy says Seattle (?), that place is full of nothing but Hookers and Hockey Players.
His now incensed Boss says, MY MOTHER LIVES IN SEATTTLE!
The guy replies, really, what Team does she play for?
Except that Article I of the Constitution confers on Congress the (sole) power to judge the qualifications of its members, AND the power to set conditions and to regulate elections for the House of Representatives.
The Constitution confers (sole) power to indirectly choose the President and Vice President on State Legislatures. All 50 State Legislatures have, at present, chosen voting by members of the public as the mechanism to accomplish this task, but there is no requirement that they do so.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN GRANTED NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE STATE LEGISLATURES IN THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORS.
This is on purpose, so that the forces in power on Capitol Hill and in the White House cannot regulate their political enemies so as to prevent the replacement of the President.
I know what you mean. I NEVER use the Orwellian post-Election Day 2000 newspeak colors.
Civil-War-II BUMP
Yep. I used to think Eastern Washington could merge with Northern Idaho. But that was back when E Wash was solidly red. It’s purple now and trending towards blue. Liberalism is a retrovirus.
????? Your retort to my post makes no contextual sense.
Be sure to read my tagline....
I like that thought. So would the voters. Five years of all personal records of all politicians would be quite revealing.
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.