Skip to comments.
WNBC-TV: Republicans to appeal Torricelli issue to the US Supreme Court
Posted on 10/02/2002 2:09:54 PM PDT by Liz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-158 next last
To: aristeides
Just heard it on Hannity. Un-freaking-believable.
To: Liz
Guess who the US Supreme Court Justice is who oversees the 3rd Circuit???
SOUTER!
122
posted on
10/02/2002 2:59:54 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: Always Right
The date for the election of Senators and Congressmen and Presidents are set by US code. Here's a question: Given your above statement (which I agree with), how is it that Louisiana can legally elect their Senators in a potential December run-off? They used to hold their run-off in October, but that was ruled unconstitutional in Foster v. Love (1997). But what makes a December run-off any more constitutional?
To: doug from upland
Get a thread up Doug..
124
posted on
10/02/2002 3:00:38 PM PDT
by
Dog
To: Political Junkie Too
As far as I can tell you are correct.
An election for the next term must happen on the pre appointed election day. Not before, not after.
So if they pulled stunt as you described, it would be within the 17th Amendment.
To: BikerNYC
What are the constitutional issues involved? This concerns whether a name can be substituted under the ballot rules of a state. If the NJSC abides by the written law, which is very clear, then you are correct. In that case it is just a state deciding to follow it's own laws. Otherwise, it is an illegal attempt to change the outcome of an election that has national impact. It is not just a state issue when the openly stated purpose of all of this is to keep the democrat majority in the Senate.
Would you see the national impact if NJ simply passed a law requiring all it's US senators to be democrats?
127
posted on
10/02/2002 3:05:35 PM PDT
by
Mo1
To: Always Right
Correction: Louisiana used to hold their open primary in October and the run-off in November. That was ruled unconstitional. My question still stands: Why is a December run-off still constitutional?
To: Political Junkie Too
The fallacy is that the "special election" would not be for a 6 year term--only about a 60 day term. Plus, the gov.cannot jack around with the scheduled senatorial election. It is a matter of federal law and is required in order to fill the term beginning in Jan. 2003.
To: CyberCowboy777
If the Dems lose the case in the NJ Supreme Court, Torricelli is going to resign and McGreevey is going to name Lautenberg as his replacement and then call for a special election, possibly in one year. All of the reg regarding special elections or next successive election are in for instances where there is not an election already scheduled. Nothing will stop the election from taking place Nov 5 for the next term, as the old term has expired.
ANY moves mcGreevy makes now are restricted solely to the remainder of the present term.
130
posted on
10/02/2002 3:07:59 PM PDT
by
copycat
To: CyberCowboy777
The Founding Father deemed it necessary to keep Federal Elections under some federal law.
I doubt it. They were all dead by the time the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913.
To: CA Conservative
In that case, they are being denied the right to have their vote, legally cast under the laws of the state, counted.
No they aren't. They are voting and those votes will be counted. Moreover, to the extent that absentee voters are being denied the right to vote for a candidate who has just recently been put on the ballot, that would work against the interests of that candidate and party, since a vote for Toricelli is not a vote for Lautenberg.
To: Maximum Leader
(yes Christie appointed more Dems than Republicans!) NJ has an unwritten tradition of always replacing a D with a D, and an R with an R. Therefore, the makeup of the court has been and always will be 4-3 D.
133
posted on
10/02/2002 3:11:59 PM PDT
by
copycat
To: e_engineer
How about if they passed a law that, in effect, requires that all their senators to be either democrats or republicans, by making it more difficult for others to get on the ballot in the first place?
I am not convinced that our Constitution, limiting the power of the federal government, grants the feds the power to tell states when should be the last day on which a candidate can be substituted on a ballot. This is the feds micro-managing a state's election.
Again, I think the ballot should remain as is. But I do not favor federal government intervention just because it suits my interests.
To: copycat
I heard the Gov. picks the Chief Justice from his own party,, thats what breaks the tie,, the others are replaced by their party,,,
To: CodeWeasel
Article 1 Section 3 of the "Original" Constitution clearly places Senate elections within federal law.
To: krb
To answer your question... Great post. I am no legal expert, but if what you say is correct, it is the most concise explaination I've seen in layman's terms of what happened two years ago. I will take your word for it that you know of what you speak. I easily understood what you said, which is more than I can say for most legal documents I've read.
To: Magnum44
Well, I'm not legally trained either. I'm sure any factual/legal inaccuracies I have will be pointed out by Freepers...
138
posted on
10/02/2002 3:29:27 PM PDT
by
krb
To: Dog
To: Yardstick
The Democrats have the money to pull this off. Let us hope that the Christy Todd Whitman voters will rise up and slap this crooked bunch of Democrats. The chaos inspired by unethical Democrats is unreal. When will this constant
assualt on decent Americans with values be stopped? Torricelli is not good enough to walk in my home. I am hoping that New Jersey stands up to unethical politicians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-158 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
