Posted on 10/07/2002 10:53:40 AM PDT by Howlin
First, it is unknown who voted what way on SCOTUS. Therefore, your blanket statement regarding Justices Thomas and Scalia (it would also seemingly apply to Chief Justice Rehnquist, which would be the three that signed a concurring opinion that further argued that Bush v Gore violated the Constitution with regard to who sets the rules for the citizens' vote Electoral College election, which has NO federally-authorized Constitutional "oversight" outside of due due process clause of the 14th Amendent and the Amendments that give blacks, women and 18-year-olds the right to vote) is irresponsible at this time.
Second, using your logic, the citizens' vote for the Electoral College election is not a federal election that affects the citizens of all states, It's the Electoral College that actually elects the President; the "election" in November merely chooses which slate of Electors participate.
Your arguments have taken every power out of the hands of the states why not one more? When will it be enough? Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts. In the long run, this decision works towards the rights of the states and how they run their internal affairs, something I thought conservatives still cared about.
This is a decision that, Constitutionally, the New Jersey judiciary had NO right to make. Had the NJ Legislature passed a special law in this case, then the merits of the case could be argued by the Senate in the immediate aftermath and by Congress in the long term.
Going furhter, should the State of North Carolina, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that affirmed the right to bear arms, be allowed to grab every gun in the state? Should it, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that prohibited the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime, be allowed to force you to take in a soldier in peacetime? Should it, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that prohibited the taking of private property without just compensation, be allowed to take private property without just compensation?
Methinks this was their fallback. First choice was for Lautenberg win and be replaced by a rising dimo star within the year -- before it became too apparent that Lautenberg is a zombie.
The Dems have to be seriously worried about how Lautenberg will behave in a debate.
Why should they debate? They are ahead in the polls because of the change of position of a significant number of dims who wanted to vote for a dim but couldn't stomach Toricelli. They will cancel the debates, which would only help Forrester. Not enought time to preapare, etc. etc. The Kool-aide drinking dims and enough independents will buy it. NJ is essentially a socialist state, after all.
Watch them try to shield Lautenberg from any public and unscripted performances.
Yep. Got to hand it to those dims. When it comes to skullduggery, they are world-class.
Like turning the Chandra Levy investigation over to Gary Condit.
The Bill of Rights covers issues at the federal level that the states are not allowed to touch. However, you've forgotten the most important one. The Tenth Amendment. It applied before 1860 and although liberals and conservatives of all sorts have run roughshod over it to further their agenda, however limited it has become it applies today and in this case particularly
Both.
SCOTUS only refused to hear the case. No precedent has been set, except that they may at times chose to ingnore state courts' failure to enforce their own laws.
And if the 'Rats keep this crap up, Congress may be inclined to get involved, and create a uniform national standard. This is not necessarily an endorsement of such a prospect, but merely an observation of what could happen.
RATS
They must be *high-fiving* at the DNC hdqtrs.....
My fear is now more voter fraud, especially if Forrester just happens to pull ahead....they wouldn't have gone to all of this trouble to change candidates, just to have Lautenberg lose at the polls.
Then on Monday, Lautenberg's handlers (should we call them keepers?) announced that there was "no way" he would engage in 21 debates. They did not explain whether this was the first big lie of the 2002 campaign for him, or merely a "senior moment" when the need to think and speak overwhelmed him.
The 21 county debate was an idea that Lautenberg had demanded of Millicent Fenwick when he ran against her in 1982. He also said she was "too old" to serve six years as a Senator. She was then 72. Lautenberg is now 78.
The only good news is that Lautenberg's "primary" bump is now over. He has dropped back to a tie in the polls. And the more he dotters and drools in public, the further he will drop. Forrester needs to win two general elections to get one seat in the Senate. Looks like he will do exactly that.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but at least with regard to Congressional elections in New Jersey, there was no role for the state judiciary to play with regard to ballot vacations.
2. Does the Constitution speak to the election itself, or also to the means by which candidates will be selected? 3. What effect did the 17th Amendment have on this passage? Did it modify it in any way?
"The times, places and manner of holding elections...." (Article I, section 4) would suggest that the means is also left to the states' legislatures, subject to Congressional changes and the US Constitution. Speaking specifically about the 17th Amendment, that changed the group doing the election from the state legislature (Article I, Section 3) to the people of the state that meet the qualifications of the electors of that states' most-numerous branch of the legislature.
As a side note, the similar section of the Constitution with regard to the Electoral College appointment (not necessarily an election, see Article II, Section 1) was cited in the concurring opinion joined by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.As the election of Senators IS delegated by the Constitution, it does not fall under the purview of the Tenth Amendment.
October 1, 2001 ... "The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court today and gave him 40 days to contest the order."
Not only does the X get mad, he gets even.
Source: www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html
Pegita
Sorry, I'll try to rephrase and be more clear...
IMHO, the SCOTUS had to weigh two issues: to what extent the NJSC's ruling had infringed upon the Constitution versus the states' rights issue.
Is it possible that SCOTUS decided the voters of New Jersey will still have a chance to vote for a candidate, and so a bad NJSC ruling did not do such damage as to warrant federal intervention?
As for the rest of your post, I'll check it out soon as I can. May not be today though, things are a bit hectic.
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.