Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim 0216

It is up to the states to certify candidates since states run the elections according to their rules. They cannot however require a higher standard for national office than the US Constitution establishes. Regardless there is no constitutional control over a state’s authority to certify candidates as ITS responsibility.
As a result, each situation would become an individual case:
At the state level there would likely be judicial challenges to any refusal by a state’s election authority to certify a candidate to the ballot;
at the federal level there would be challenges to a state “overstepping its authority” by refusing to certify a (presumed) qualified candidate.
Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.


18 posted on 04/16/2011 10:07:12 AM PDT by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Optimist
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.

It's obvious that nobody cares about what the actual document says.

21 posted on 04/16/2011 10:20:24 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Optimist
I think it's fairly safe to say we have a lot of left-leaning courts who are now emboldened by the anti-Constitution/anti-America DemObamaCratic apparatus. These courts including SCOTUS if Kennedy goes along, are capable of having no problem with reaching into state rules for elections. (The grounds to do so seem to almost be a non-issue anymore since, at will, they either do or don't seek Constitutional support for their decisions or simply invent new constitutional rights or rules.) My guess is if they think they have to they will.

I'm saying the states, at some point, don't need the courts' permission to insist the Constitution is upheld and followed by the Federal Government.

22 posted on 04/16/2011 10:20:50 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Optimist

“Either way it would not be good for a candidate with questionable qualifications.”

Exactly. What candidate wants an issue like this hanging over his head during a campaign, with everyone asking him why he just doesn’t release his long form BC?
A simple question, with a simple answer.


26 posted on 04/16/2011 10:35:48 AM PDT by WILLIALAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson