Such cases are the finding of simple facts and the application of clear law. This is the normal business of courts. If the Supreme Court runs away from this question, the reason is not preemption of the task by Congress, but cowardice by the Court. IMHO.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Come Back to 1600, Johnny Dean, Johnny Dean"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
Glad you pinged that ‘Johnny Dean’ one you wrote. I had missed that one! Good piece, John.
There are at least eight cases in which judges have ruled that candidates are disqualified from running. Two of those involved disqualified PRESIDENTIAL candidates.Sorry for taking a while to reply, I was out for Christmas.
Article II, Section 1 says that the states can appoint their delegates to the Electoral College in whatever way they want.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.But on what constitutional basis could the vote of these electors be revoked once cast?
I can see how the states could punish officials who mismanaged the process of selecting the electors or punish electors who did not vote as "directed". I just don't see how the electors votes could be changed once the electors have been certified and their votes cast.
Also, the Constitution makes no mention of the Supreme Court having any role in managing the Electoral College or approving of it's results.
Do you have any cases or legal research that address either of these points?
Thanks for the clarification, Billybob.
I have a question to ask you, it came from an exchange on Intrade’s forum.
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/420/2279.page
The contention is that for the Supreme Court, “all cases that the justice considers properly filed are sent to conference.” Is that true? Wasn’t there at least one other case that was denied in SCOTUS and re-submitted?
Has there ever been an issue where there were 5 cases concurrently before the SCOTUS and 3 of them were forwarded for conference? Would forwarding the issue rather than just denying without comment be an indicator of legitimacy once it’s happened 3 times?