Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
So—I take it that your opinion is that any votes alleged to be lost by one candidate due to the presence of an unqualified rival on the ballot would be hypothetical or conjectural? If so, chance of winning would have nothing to do with it.
What Keyes would have us believe is that had Obama not been qualified to run for president then Keyes might have won. That is a stretch by anyone's imagination.
5 Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact”
sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing
concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the
plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the
requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from
adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’
which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and
most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.”
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982).
Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized
grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative
branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what
they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their
remedy may be found through their vote.
To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised
claims that are likewise barred under the “political question
doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate
political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216
(1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President
to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by
the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.
The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to
be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the
Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further,
the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to
be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President
until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions
evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political
choices.
Thanks for the ping. I’ll comment on this soon.
I suspect by 2012, even with a Republican congress correcting the economy, he will be toast. Clinton was saved by the Pubs. I dont think they will have time to turn it around for him like Newt did for BJ.
2012, we will have a Pub House, Senate, and POTUS.
TOTUS will be in the dumpster of history.
When the candidate in question is on the ballots in so few states that even if he had won them all he would still have had less than half the necessary electoral votes then yes, any damage is indeed hypothetical or entirely speculative. If the candidate was John McCain, however, then that would be an entirely different matter. As the judge in the Hollander v. McCain seemed to indicate when he dismissed that suit.
courts to citizens and taxpayers: You have no standing.
From your keyboard to God’s ears!
I understand, but that doesn’t change the standing issue, the statute of limitations, or the procedure for a private citizen to sue with respect to the qualifications of a candidate to run for a particular office. If there has been fraud, then a state attorney general or state district attorney in one of the solid Red States should initiate a criminal investigation. If Zero is indicted and convicted of fraud, then he can be impeached and removed from office. In my opinion, thatis all that can be done until the next election cycle.
Yes. But if we seek to have that changed, what might the unintended consequences be of giving each and every individual citizen and/or taxpayer standing?
- Wouldn’t the wheels of justice grind to a halt?
- Would it be logical or even possible to assign a priority to such cases?
- Life or death = 1
- Constitutional questions = 2
- ???
Thoughts?
Got it. Votes cast aren’t real or concrete, and neither are electoral votes. Only if 270 electoral votes might have been lost would that be real or concrete damage. Otherwise it’s hypothetical or conjectural. Now you know why I’m not a lawyer.
“The problem with an expert like yourself, is that he is always there to tell you when you are wrong, wrong wrong but he will never lead you to a victory because he is to ill and dishonest.”
Physician, heal thyself!
I’d rather see cases decided on the merits of the case, not who brought them. Secondly, the rationale based on the ‘standing’ issue seems a little tortured to me. I could just as easily find standing for an individual citizen based on the argument. Of course, I’m not smart enough to be a judge.
"The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516."
judge Simandle: Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
(a) "Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517."
"(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html
If the courts can find that they can determine a US House member can be seated per Constitutional requirements, then the courts can determine the same for a probable de facto president if he fails or meets Constitutional requirements.
Would it be fair to say that this judge could just as easily have decided to hear the case as to discard it?
Yes. It’s ala carte for judges.
Cannot let anything get in the way of their 9 o’clock morning tee time. /sarc
That's what I thought, and that's why your post confused me. You were making an argument for McCain having standing, but McCain was a defendant. Hollander is the one who needed to show standing.
I don't see any basis for given Hollander any standing, since he wasn't a serious candidate, either.
From the Hollander decision: "To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or the party's own chances of prevailing in the election...but that notion of 'competitive standing' has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate."
About the only person who could truly demonstrate standing in a suit against Obama is McCain himself. Because he is the only one who can demonstrate that an allegedly ineligible Obama caused the potential damage that cost him the election.
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.