States have no power to regulate federal elections

[gekaap]

its not judging qualification or redefining qualification, it helps what is already on the books...thats not wrong in the slightest.

How is it not judging the qualifications? How is it "helping" if not by trying to judge the qualifications of candidates for office? It's wrong because it violates the constitution.

 

[Liberty]

its not judging qualification or redefining qualification, it helps what is already on the books...thats not wrong in the slightest.

How is it not judging the qualifications? How is it "helping" if not by trying to judge the qualifications of candidates for office? It's wrong because it violates the constitution.

making a law that says you have to be 50 years old to be on the ballot is an example of a scenario where you would be correct. simply passing a law that says "We agree with the constitution and we will make sure to abide by it" is not a problem at all, in fact it is beneficial to the process.

 

[bripat9643]

Arizona is just going to enforce what is already in the constitution...why is this a problem?

1. Arizona has no constitutional power to "enforce" the qualifications in the constitution for any federal office.

You obviously never read this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives"

and this:

"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:"

The constitution reserves such power to entities within the federal government. Only the House can "enforce" the qualifications of members of the House. Only the Senate can "enforce" the qualifications of members of the Senate. Only the electoral college an "enforce" the qualifications of the Presidency.

But the states can choose the manner in which they are elected? ROFL!

2. The manner in which Arizona is attempting to so do creates additional qualifications to federal offices than those found in the constitution. Arizona does not have the constitutional power to require a candidate for the Presidency possess a birth certificate.

Even if i did, that's entirely it's prerogative. If the state can require so many signatures to get on the ballot, then it can require a birth certificate to get on the ballot. It determines "the manner" of it's elections.

 

[bripat9643]

making a law that says you have to be 50 years old to be on the ballot is an example of a scenario where you would be correct. simply passing a law that says "We agree with the constitution and we will make sure to abide by it" is not a problem at all, in fact it is beneficial to the process.

I'm not sure that's the case. Why would such a law be unconstitutional? However, a law saying you could be 18 and be elected president would be unconstitutional.

 

[gekaap]

making a law that says you have to be 50 years old to be on the ballot is an example of a scenario where you would be correct. simply passing a law that says "We agree with the constitution and we will make sure to abide by it" is not a problem at all, in fact it is beneficial to the process.

The state's AREN'T abiding by the constitution. They are usurping powers explicitly reserved to the federal government.

 

[gekaap]

And you obviously are completely unfamiliar with what the Supreme Court has said on these matters. These arguments are not really even mine. I am simply telling you what the Supreme Court has said.

But the states can choose the manner in which they are elected? ROFL!

The state can choose its electors in whatever manner if wishes. If the state wishes a general election, then that it its prerogative. But the state does not have the power to judge the qualifications of a candidate for President. The constitution is explicit on this. Only the electoral college can judge the qualifications of the person, and only AFTER that person is elected.

Even if i did, that's entirely it's prerogative. If the state can require so many signatures to get on the ballot, then it can require a birth certificate to get on the ballot. It determines "the manner" of it's elections.

No, the state does NOT have the prerogative to add qualifications for candidacy for the Presidency. That is NOT what is meant by the "manner" of elections. The "manner" of elections has to do with by what means votes are cast and tallied. The state may choose to rely on diebold machines. The state may choose written ballots. The state may choose punch cards. The state can issue each citizen a pebble and tell them to throw it into jars that represent candidates. Again, the Supreme Court has been explicit that the states cannot add qualifications.

 

[gekaap]

I'm not sure that's the case. Why would such a law be unconstitutional? However, a law saying you could be 18 and be elected president would be unconstitutional.

The same reason why it is unconstitutional for a state to place term limits on its own Representatives and Senators. The states have no power to levy qualifications. The constitution alone sets the qualifications for President, as it does for Representatives and Senators.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh good, I guess everyone agrees?

umm this is the text of Article I Section 5....
Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

So where did you find the stuff you posted?

 

[gekaap]

So where did you find the stuff you posted?

The US Supreme Court. Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton. The OP is an excerpt.

 

[CaféAuLait]

If states have no say in federal elections how can they bar felons from voting? Some states also have legacy constitutional statements barring the "insane" or "idiots" from voting-- although obsolete.

And doesn’t state law regulate how states cast their Electoral College votes? Meaning some states have it so the winner takes all of the electoral votes while a few have it so the winner is based on the highest number of votes in a congressional district like Maine and Nebraska.

Aren't those examples of "regulating federal elections"?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure that's the case. Why would such a law be unconstitutional? However, a law saying you could be 18 and be elected president would be unconstitutional.

The same reason why it is unconstitutional for a state to place term limits on its own Representatives and Senators. The states have no power to levy qualifications. The constitution alone sets the qualifications for President, as it does for Representatives and Senators.

It's not unconstitutional. The ability of 5 political hacks on the court to deliberately misinterpreted the document does not change the facts. Everyone can read it for themselves, and nothing in it says states cannot limit the terms of the representatives in Congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

horseshit. There is no such language in the document. If you think there is, then you should have no trouble quoting it.

I did quote it. Maybe you should go read the constitution.



This is hardly true. The AOC had proven to be a failure. The Founding Fathers recognized that a strong federal government was necessary. Under the AOC the states were too powerful and had the ability to essentially render the federal government moot. The intent in establishing a new constitution was to ensure that the states never again would have such power.



Under the AOC it had become somewhat common for states to not send their representatives to Congress, and this prevented important business being done and crippled the federal government. You make it sound like an impossibility, but it is exactly what was happening when the framers came together for the constitutional convention, and they were determined to prevent the states from having such power ever again.



No biases. Only necessary logical conclusions based on all information available.



Yes it does. You should go back and read it.

Where did you get this hokum? It's nothing but a pile of outright lies.

Let's just say my information and sources for interpretation are above reproach.

Dude you are wrong and miss guided in so many ways on this one I am not even going to start. The Founders were looking for a balance between State and Federal Power. They did not want a fed so weak it was pointless, and they did not want one so strong as to render the individual states meaningless.

Suffice to say you are right, the States can not regulate federal elections, However they are well with in their rights to regulate what you need to do to get on the ballot in their state.

Bingo Ain't it funny how courts also agree with you

ANDERSON ET AL.
v.
CELEBREZZE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO

Although these rights of voters are fundamental, not all restrictions imposed by the States on candidates' eligibility for the ballot impose constitutionally suspect burdens on voters' rights to associate or to choose among candidates. We have recognized that, "as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974). To achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes. Each provision of these schemes, whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects — at least to some degree — the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions

 

[gekaap]

If states have no say in federal elections how can they bar felons from voting? Some states also have legacy constitutional statements barring the "insane" or "idiots" from voting-- although obsolete.

The states have the power to require voting registration. Felons can be barred from voting because it is a form of liberty that has been taken away with due process of the law.

And doesn’t state law regulate how states cast their Electoral College votes? Meaning some states have it so the winner takes all of the electoral votes while a few have it so the winner is based on the highest number of votes in a congressional district like Maine and Nebraska.

Aren't those examples of "regulating federal elections"?

No. State law does not dictate how electors vote. State law dictates how the states choose their electors. Once chosen, the electors retain the right to vote for whomever they wish. Such "faithless electors" are not unheard of. There have been over 100 instances of an elector voting for a person other than whom they were "supposed" to vote. In 1836 the Virginia electoral group refused to vote for the VP candidate for whom they were supposed to vote, and by doing so prevented anyone from having a majority, forcing the matter to be determined by the Senate.

 

[007]

Barry Soetoro, a.k.a., Barack Hussein Obama, is not a "natural born citizen," therefore he is holding the office of President illegally. This will be proven in time without a doubt.

It will also be proven that he was not born in America either, as to date, there is no proof what so ever that he was. The only thing we know is that Barry Soetoro himself is spending millions of dollars on keeping his place of birth hidden. That is only fact we have as to Soetoro's birth that is verifiable.

End of story.

 

[gekaap]

It's not unconstitutional. The ability of 5 political hacks on the court to deliberately misinterpreted the document does not change the facts. Everyone can read it for themselves, and nothing in it says states cannot limit the terms of the representatives in Congress.

The constitution vests the power to interpret the law in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court holding the final possible say on the matter. When the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, based on the dictates of the constitution. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

 

[007]

It's not unconstitutional. The ability of 5 political hacks on the court to deliberately misinterpreted the document does not change the facts. Everyone can read it for themselves, and nothing in it says states cannot limit the terms of the representatives in Congress.

The constitution vests the power to interpret the law in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court holding the final possible say on the matter. When the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, based on the dictates of the constitution. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

Nothing you say matters. You're part of the birther problem, because you're making a career out of defending the indefensible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That doesn't even make sense...they are making the process more constitutional by following the constitution.

According to the Supreme Court it makes perfect sense. The federal government handles federal offices when it comes to judging the legal qualifications of people holding those offices. The state governments handle judging the legal qualifications of people holding state offices.

How can that be wrong?

Because what the state of Arizona is trying to do is unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly reserves power to judge the qualifications of federal offices to certain federal entities.

Wrong
ANDERSON ET AL.
v.
CELEBREZZE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO

Although these rights of voters are fundamental, not all restrictions imposed by the States on candidates' eligibility for the ballot impose constitutionally suspect burdens on voters' rights to associate or to choose among candidates. We have recognized that, "as a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974). To achieve these necessary objectives, States have enacted comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes. Each provision of these schemes, whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects — at least to some degree — the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends. Nevertheless, the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions



Furthermore, in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions[18] implicate a uniquely important 795*795 national interest. For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation. Moreover, the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.[19] Thus in a Presidential election a State's enforcement of more stringent ballot access requirements, including filing deadlines, has an impact beyond its own borders.[20] Similarly, the State has a less important interest in regulating Presidential elections than statewide or local elections, because the outcome of the former will be largely determined by voters beyond the State's boundaries. This Court, striking down a state statute unduly restricting the choices made by a major party's Presidential nominating convention, observed that such conventions serve "the pervasive national interest in the selection of candidates for national office, and this national interest is greater than any interest of an individual State." Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, 490 (1975). The Ohio filing deadline challenged in this case does more than burden the associational rights of independent voters and candidates. It places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process.

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 - Google Scholar

 

[gekaap]

Nothing you say matters. You're part of the birther problem, because you're making a career out of defending the indefensible.

The constitution is indefensible? Sorry you feel that way. Maybe you'd like another country better.

 

[CaféAuLait]

If states have no say in federal elections how can they bar felons from voting? Some states also have legacy constitutional statements barring the "insane" or "idiots" from voting-- although obsolete.

The states have the power to require voting registration. Felons can be barred from voting because it is a form of liberty that has been taken away with due process of the law.

And doesn’t state law regulate how states cast their Electoral College votes? Meaning some states have it so the winner takes all of the electoral votes while a few have it so the winner is based on the highest number of votes in a congressional district like Maine and Nebraska.

Aren't those examples of "regulating federal elections"?

No. State law does not dictate how electors vote. State law dictates how the states choose their electors. Once chosen, the electors retain the right to vote for whomever they wish. Such "faithless electors" are not unheard of. There have been over 100 instances of an elector voting for a person other than whom they were "supposed" to vote. In 1836 the Virginia electoral group refused to vote for the VP candidate for whom they were supposed to vote, and by doing so prevented anyone from having a majority, forcing the matter to be determined by the Senate.

I think you may have misunderstood, I may have asked poorly. Maine and Nebraska elector votes have state laws whereby they split their electoral votes part go by the “winner take all” lines, while some votes go to the highest vote-winner in each of the state's congressional districts. IIRC it is a 2-3 split. 2 from Maine and 2 from Nebraska go by the winner take all rules and the remainder ( I believe 2 from each state) goes by the highest congressional district vote.

That would be state law, no?

 

[gekaap]

I think you may have misunderstood, I may have asked poorly. Maine and Nebraska elector votes have state laws whereby they split their electoral votes part go by the “winner take all” lines, while some votes go to the highest vote-winner in each of the state's congressional districts. IIRC it is a 2-3 split. 2 from Maine and 2 from Nebraska go by the winner take all rules and the remainder ( I believe 2 from each state) goes by the highest congressional district vote.

That would be state law, no?

Yes, it would be state law. But such laws don't really say much about the state's ability to regulate federal elections or test the qualifications of a candidate for federal office. The constitution grants the states the power to set for themselves their own chosen way to select electors. So the laws in Maine and Nebraska that dictate which way the electors go falls within strict and explicit allowances to the state. On the other hand, requiring that the candidates have a birth certificate, or any attempt by the state to test the qualifications for such candidates is beyond what the constitution allows the states to do.