Replies

Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.

I'm not a lawyer either, but the second sentence above seems very poorly written to me.

... to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, ...

What kind of political power is he talking about? If he is talking about elective power, of course these candidates don't have any to be stripped from them. Maybe he should refer to the power they would have had if they had won.

Or is he talking about the political power they should have to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot?

.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?

Apparently Kreep is trying to say that some non-winning candidates may have been harmed because they might have won if non-eligible candidates had been kept off the ballot. I guess he's trying to say several other things too, in the same sentence, but this needs to be spelled out more precisely.

.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.

What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?

============================================================

I don't know if Kreep is aware of it but he appears to be drawing a distinction between a democracy -- or the rule of the majority -- and a republic -- the Rule of Law.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution To The United States reads:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." (emphases mine)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

So the answer to your question could be that Kreep is referring to "law inherent in the Constitution" as you put it.

He would seem to be arguing for A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- Rule of law" -- as opposed to a Democratic form of government: the "whims" of the mob... sometimes referred to as a "mobocracy."

If people can just vote-in whoever they want to -- regardless of the Rule of law -- we no longer have a republican form of government.

STE