Judge: Hillary Clinton’s Name Won’t Appear on Any Ballot

Freedom Outpost ^ | 11/6/2015 | Tim Brown

[Bon mots]

Useless waste of skin.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In addition to the above (which as a practical matter can only be adjudicated by the feds under the benevolent eye of President Obama), while Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton allowed (at least) a foundation of which she was a principal, and which bore her name, to solicit and accept substantial sums from foreign governments. And her partner (husband) accepted lavish “honoraria” for speeches from foreign governments. This is public information which a state court presumably could rely on.

This, in spite of the constitutional prohibition,

Article 1 Section 9:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state

Now Mrs. Clinton assays to obtain a party’s nomination, and be on the ballot in all states, for president of the United States. But the constitutional provision of the selection of the POTUS explicitly leaves the process of selecting each state’s Electors up to the legislature of that state. Thus it would be none of the US Supreme Court’s business how the legislature of a given state chose to do it; it wouldn’t have to be done by popular election at all (indeed, a vote in Nebraska counts toward only 3 of the state’s 5 Electors - one in the voter’s home CD and two elected at large - rather than all Electors being elected at large as in all other states but Maine).

This, on top of the fact that in order to uphold McCain-Feingold SCOTUS had to stretch a point on the First Amendment - and is ill-positioned to claim that it is somehow not justifiable when a State regulates the selection of Electors to enforce an existing constitutional prohibition in a way which prevents illegitimately acquired money from being used to influence a presidential election.

My conclusion is that any state can prevent Mrs. Clinton’s name from appearing on the ballot statewide, simply by defining “of any kind whatever” in a way consistent with the spirit of McCain-Feingold, and by allowing anyone to sue to keep the name of a violator off the ballot. And all states should. I’ve written my legislators to that effect.

[PoloSec]

The Judge says Hillary’s problem is one of credibility, since when has such been a problem for Clintons.

The Judge says it is difficult to believe federal prosecutors and the FBI would not indict her, has he forget so quickly Lois Lerner.

[SC_Pete]

He’d be a good one, for sure.