Posted on 01/23/2014 11:58:44 AM PST by smoothsailing
updated 1:45 PM EST, Thu January 23, 2014
(CNN) -- Allan Levene really -- really -- wants to serve in Congress.
So much so, that he plans to run in four states: Georgia. Minnesota. Michigan. Hawaii.
It's puzzling, but the Republican freely admits his strategy increases his odds of winning a House seat. As he sees it, all roads lead to Rome.
"No matter where you win a seat in Congress, you go to the same building. You do the same work," he said. "You can work for your constituents, which all have similar needs, but the key is you go to Washington and help solve the country's problems."
Legally, his strategy is possible. But it likely will be a logistical nightmare.
......
The Constitution lists only a few requirements for a House member: Be at least 25, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years and a resident of the state when elected.
But the Constitution says nothing about primaries or the nominating process, and that's the heart of Levene's strategy.
Leaving out a rule that would prevent multi-state campaigns was an understandable omission by the Founding Fathers, Levene said. How could they have envisioned such an approach?
"Back then they couldn't fly from state to state," he said....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
What’s with the comparison to Rome, I wonder?
Don’t states usually have a residency requirement?
If it’s only three months, this would be legal.
However, a four-state stratergery spreads the money out a bit thinly.
If you could manage to build a house where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico come together, perhaps you could satisfy the residency requirement for four states.
The Roman Senate was chosen by “voting blocs,” consisting of groups of citizens determined by social class and property (”legions,” BTW).
Senators were not chosen to represent groups of people in a given geographical area. (That’s a relatively new function of parliamentary systems.)
In Rome, money determined political power, just like in the modern United States.
Don’t the states require residency to run? Maybe that’s how he picked his four states, by finding the ones that didn’t. OR, maybe that stuff has been loosened in recent years by leftist chicanery, like the new CO rule that lets voters pick the jurisdiction they want to vote it. If his campaign is made possible by leftist shenanigans, I’d love to a win for him bite them in the butt. “Unintended consequences — the liberal’s bane.”
What a stupid thing to write. It is not possible to ADMIT to something that is a matter of opinion.
With that said, I "freely admit" that his strategy shows a lack of commitment to the voters and a lack of seriousness on his part, and that it will REDUCE his chances of winning a seat.
Some states require residency it in order to run and some don’t. I think he chose ones that don’t.
I am pretty sure they all require residency in order to serve.
Is he doing it for the right reason or simply to pad his own ego
As long as he’s playing by the rules, I’ve got no problem with it, though personally I wouldn’t want to vote for someone who only moved into my district to run for office.
Let's hope all four states just say no.
“Some states require residency it in order to run and some don’t. I think he chose ones that don’t.”
All states require residency at the time of the election, but not during the primary.
If he wins a primary he will have to set up residency before the election to qualify.
Oh, okay.
Thanks for the correction.
i gotta laugh. he sounds like a perfect fit for the GOPe.
He gives this as two of his reasons for running...
“For Levene, he believes he must get elected to carry out his ideas—which include carving out a back-up territory for Israel inside of Texas, and creating a pathway for thousands of Chinese nannies to come to the U.S. and teach children how to speak Mandarin.”
“He also wants to eliminate corporate income taxes. To combat “career politicians,” he wants to void pensions for members if they don’t leave office after four terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.”
Hmmmmmm. The federal government "carving out" pieces of a sovereign state. It appears he might not be very familiar with our Constitution.
I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to carve up Texas from a U.S. congressional seat.
Perhaps he should be running for a seat in the Texas state house. Not that he'd be any more successful at cutting up the Lone Star State from the inside, but at least it'd be legal for him to pursue it.
LOL. If he has any chance at all, it’s Georgia. It’s an open seat and he currently lives there.
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.