Posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT by IbJensen
Irrelevant; the law, as cited is: “the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…”
The person challenging is a taxpayer, therefore that qualification is met.
That electors cast the votes is irrelevant to the fact that someone is nominated for the office of President (Obama in this case) thereby making it callengable by this law.
All that is to say, it makes no difference that the taxpayer is not directly voting for the person, that the person has been nominated is all that is needed for a taxpayer (or elector) to challenge him under this law.
Granted the actual full text may say something different, but as presented the ruling is ludicrous. Given the train of illogic I've seen of judges recently I'm far more skeptical of them ignoring/twisting the law than I am even of newspapers (and given Zimmerman, that's a lot).
There is a good reason for that. The founding fathers realized that as soon as a law was written, people would try to evade it. So they reasoned that the constitution should be filled with checks and balances of all kinds, bodies of people with competing interests.
In this case, it was a four way balance. The people would directly and democratically elect US congressmen to the House, which is why it is called “The People’s House”.
The state legislatures would appoint senators, who would act to protect their state from the US government, but also protect the citizens of their state from being interfered with by the US government. Or else they would be fired.
The Electoral College would elect the POTUS. Importantly, if no candidate was selected on the first ballot, all the electors became free agents. This has mattered in several presidential elections. Only once they have been so deadlocked that the vote went to the House to select the president.
Importantly, the POTUS would appoint justices to the Supreme Court, but they would have to be approved by the senate (and thus by the states, by proxy).
“I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect; if someone is born a US Citizen via the 14th Amendment then are they not statutory citizens and therefore not natural born citizens? “
No. Statues are laws. The Constitution is a bit different. In any case, the US Supreme Court said the set of NBC citizens and the set of 14th amendment citizens are one and the same. The exclusions used in the 14th already applied due to the meaning of the NBC clause.
So the Constitution isn't a law? That's funny, I'd always thought it was the supreme law of the land... but since it isn't that means that the government running roughshod all over it is no big deal: they aren't breaking any laws.
In any case, the US Supreme Court said the set of NBC citizens and the set of 14th amendment citizens are one and the same.
Unless, of course, the 14th Amendment is a lie.
OK. Live in La-La Land and keep getting your butt handed to you in court.
1) I've not had to go to court, save for traffic infractions and a jury-duty calls.
2) How is it "living in la-la land" to at least know that certain things are "deemed to have passed"?
3) Why must I accept things "deemed to have passed" as valid?
4) Moreover, why is it that my butt must be handed to me in court if I take something up?
“Then when I’m President I’ll have to dissolve them in addition to the Air Force......”
Good luck with that....as I recall the Constitution is not the suicide pact you seem to think it is. The US goverment is tasked by the Constitution with providing for the common defense. Seems to me that they have done just that with the armed forces as currently constituted... Now wiggle back into your rabbit hole...Alice is waiting for you.
And who said that such a stance wouldn't?
Seems to me that they have done just that with the armed forces as currently constituted...
If even the basic structure outlined in the Constitution for the Armed forces cannot be followed, then what makes you think that any of it can?
Or, to put it another way, if the Air Force can be granted legitimacy outside of the Constitution, then why can't the ACA [ObamaCare] also be granted legitimacy? Oh, wait, it was. And for the same reason: The constitution has no respect from those in government.
It's ridiculous to say "we want the Constitution followed" and then ignore what the Constitution says.
And in any case, if such agencies are needful to the "common defence" the Constitution can be amended to allow for them... if they need to be separate at all. (I'd rather see them under the Army and Navy; just keep the two branches and let them be subsections -- it's a hell of a lot simpler that way.)
“(I’d rather see them under the Army and Navy; just keep the two branches and let them be subsections — it’s a hell of a lot simpler that way.)”
Nosing around, I smell former dog meat. Doggies are the only ones I know of that want to centralize military power in their own hands (or their’s with an initial nod to the Navy in your case). Your views on this subject are not particularily original.
A similiar scheme was tried under Truman with Gen Eisenhower testifying before Congress for passage of “elemental” armed forces per JCS memorandum 1478, a classified Pentagon document that attemppted to hide from Vinson’s Congressional oversight committee. 1478’s stated long term goal was to eliminate major sections of the other branches or incorporate them within the Army..... creating a sort of American version of the recently defeated German High Command.... Rep Carl Vinson stopped that wrong headed nonsense in it’s tracks....
You’ll note that the Navy has a Carrier christened USS Carl Vinson in his honor for his efforts in this area. You can claim “Constitution” all ya want, but it only serves to illustrate your ignorance or reveal a hidden agenda ala the old JCS 1478 Army scheme...
The Marine Corp, and Navy, predate the Constitution by several years in continuious service to the nation, while the Army was in fact disbanded post the Rev War, as I recall. Post Rev War Americans were rather fond of their Navy and Marines, but not so much enamored with a standing Army......
“Or, to put it another way, if the Air Force can be granted legitimacy outside of the Constitution, then why can’t the ACA [ObamaCare] also be granted legitimacy? Oh, wait, it was.”
The Air Force is a legitimate because of the tax powers of the Congress???? Who knew! You’re reaching too far pal, back to the sandbox with ya! (I suspect that you are both young and inexperienced...it shows.)
No, but the utter disregard for the Constitution is the same. If the Constitution is followed, then it must be followed even in those areas we don't like to be messed with: defense. Or do you intend to claim that the requirement that no fund appropriation for the army be of a duration longer than two years to be unreasonable? (Newsflash, they wrote it that to stand in the way of a standing army.)
Also, we didn't have a regular army prior WWI (maybe even WWII, I'm not sure on that so I'll go w/ the earlier); so it's a load of dung to say that we couldn't have a similar no-regular army scheme.
You’re reaching too far pal, back to the sandbox with ya! (I suspect that you are both young and inexperienced...it shows.)
Screw that; I already put 9 years in [Guard] and I'm not going to support a government that routinely ignores the Constitution. -- The thing that sealed my decision was a SFC giving me the "Shut up private"-speech (it doesn't matter if you're not a private; it's still the same speech) when I said that should Obama prove not eligible it was the duty of the Army to remove him from office (this was sometime between election and inauguration). Nice to know that the oath to the Constitution, rather than the government or a particular person, means so little to my leadership. (This thought was vindicated by LTC Lakin's courts martial, the refusal of investigation into the matter was wholly unacceptable; and yes, the investigative powers in such a military trial are greater than the corresponding civil trial.)
Nosing around, I smell former dog meat. Doggies are the only ones I know of that want to centralize military power in their own hands (or their’s with an initial nod to the Navy in your case).
I'm not sure I'm familiar with "dog meat" as you're using it; so please elaborate.
Further, I'd actually want to decentralize the army, offloading it into the State's National Guards. (IE, let them serve out their contracts training the Guard units and the general citizenry. See above: the Constitution was not meant to allow for a regular army.)
Your views on this subject are not particularily original.
Never said they were. But if I'm going to be a Constitutionalist, I'd best be a full Constitutionalist.
But that's not a bad thing; it'd solve the AZ problems: Art 4, Sec 4. (And I'd get the fun of being able to issue warrants for the arrest of every city-council, COP, and county sheriff wherein a sanctuary-city existed: you know, for a treason trial.)
obumpa
They just been waiting for us to get old. Looks like that plan is going to work for them, since they will now shut us up for good with 0'care.
If you decide to move to another location and you are on MediCare, you better check to see if there is a doctor that will take a new MediCare patient. You might find that no one will take you, not even for cash. The end result of that is Old People will now show up at Emergency rooms where they will likely receive no care, or more likely exit care.
The times they are a changin.
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.