The May 2 issue of the Washington Post has this article about what legal scholars say about John McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, given that he was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s “How Appealing” law blog.
The May 2 issue of the Washington Post has this article about what legal scholars say about John McCain’s eligibility for the presidency, given that he was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s “How Appealing” law blog.
Sorry to break in here, with an unrelated story, but this is HUGE!
A Libertarian has just been elected Mayor of London England. It’s just breaking… He beat incumbent Leftist Ken Livingstone.
He’s a part-time comedian and free speech advocate who calls himself a “libertarian.” He’s a member of Parliament as a Tory.
Eric Dondero is known for calling almost anyone a libertarian, but usually makes the condition that the person be pro-war.
Unfortunately for Dondero, Boris Johnson frequently appears on Antiwar.com with his fiercely antiwar articles.
Boris regularly touted Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com when he was the editor of the British Spectator a few years ago.
Don’t some states have laws requiring candidates to have constitutional qualifications in order to be on the ballot? Are those states where these lawsuits are being filed?
#3 Don’t some states have laws requiring candidates to have constitutional qualifications in order to be on the ballot?
Such state requirements only apply to state and local office. The states cannot change the qualifications for federal office, and would (I strongly suspect) be irrelevant to establishing standing to sue on the Canal Zone question.
I believe Fred is correct that some states do require that presidential candidates be qualified for office as a prerequisite to ballot access. That is why the Socialist Workers Party ran a stand-in candidate in some states in 2004.
It is not a matter of the states changing the qualifications for federal office. It is a matter of some states enforcing the U.S. Constitutional qualifications at the ballot access stage and others letting the issue go until after the election.
The federal district court challenge mentioned in the article sounds like a dead end. But a state court challenge could end up being resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court before the election.
Blackstone’s Commentaries
Book I, Chapter 10
See also 1866 debates in the 39th Congress (mainly Senate) about the citizenship sentence in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Hey guys, thanks for taking my news tip and running with it here at your site, but not giving me any credit for it.
Gee you guys are swell.
Bob Richard,
Ohio has laws that require any slate of electors for President and Vice President on the ballot must be pledged to an eligible candidate.
It makes one wonder why a group couldn’t get certified as unpledged electors for President and Vice President. After all, you are voting for the electors.
What the article doesn’t mention is that another lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Riverside two months ago questioning this, independent of the NH suit.
My friend Tannim’s blog (http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html) explains the reasoning why McCain is not eligible in great researched and cited detail.
As for the state election laws, Congressional districts were ruled unconstitutional in US Term Limits v. Thorton, but the states ignore that one too.
Having looked at the complaints, I will be shocked if the NH and CA cases are not dismissed. They don’t even bother to address the criteria for the federal district courts to issue declaratory judgments.
re #8, the States are free to structure the process by which they appoint their electors.
In some States, it is (independent) presidential candidates who file, and who designate their vice presidential and elector candidates (all who of course must agree to serve in those roles). In other States, it is the elector candidates who file, and further agree to form a slate, and support a particular presidential and vice presidential candidate. They may have the latitude to indicate that they are unpledged.
If a presidential candidate is a party candidate, then the State party may control the appointment of the electors as well as designating the presidential candidate. But since this sometimes results in faithless electors, the State’s may let the party designate the presidential nominee, and the nominee the electors.
If a candidate is NOT eligible to hold an office, then any vote for that candidate is NULL and VOID — constitutional and election law 001.
Party hack 12th Amdt Electoral College electors are robot / stooge agents of Prez/VP candidates — since 1832.
How much separate and UNEQUAL stuff lurks in the election laws / regs of the various regimes in the U.S.A. — 50 States, DC, colonies ???
Again – ALL of the election systems in the U.S.A. have ANTI-Democracy STONE AGE timebomb stuff from the 1700s — gerrymanders, plurality, etc. — i.e. monarchy / oligarchy EVIL JUNK maintained by the EVIL party hacks.
Raving about such EVIL JUNK is a waste of time and energy — ALL of such JUNK must be abolished and replaced —
P.R. for legislative body elections
Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices
— pending MAJOR public education about advanced math.
See the top 2 WA State primary coming in Aug. 2008 — one very major step to wipe out the EVIL JUNK.
See what it took to abolish very entrenched slavery in 1861-1865.
Eric, I’ve seen the complaints. I also know the legal angles very well. Both are valid cases that need to be heard. When it comes to the Presidency, these suits are not frivolous. You may find fault with a lack of criteria for issuing a declaratory judgement, but that may not be what the different parties are after, either. Besides, that’s the judge’s problem.
If you believe they are valid cases that need to be heard, then work to ensure that they are brought before an appropriate court properly. Otherwise, no judge will get to the merits of the issue.
If anyone has a theory that would justify a federal district court adjudicating this question before the election, they need to articulate that theory in the body of their complaint. This is _not_ the judge’s problem.
The modern version of the very ancient Writ of Quo Warranto will be used on any candidate who is NOT eligible but who appears to be elected.
How about a SUPER Bush v. Gore type case in Nov 08- Jan 09 for the party hack Supremes to worry about — perhaps compounded by a 269-269 tie in the timebomb Electoral College ???
How many Vice-Prez candidates will NOT be eligible to be a natural born Prez — last sentence 12th Amdt ???