On September 10, U.S. District Court Judge William C. Griesbach, a Bush Jr. appointee, issued an order in Marshall v Wisconsin Election Commission, e.d., 1:24cv-1095. He refused to put Shiva Ayyadurai on the ballot as an independent candidate, even though the petition had enough valid signatures. The reason is that Ayyadurai was born in India.
The four-page order says the case is frivolous on its face. Yet the issues are not frivolous, and were the subject of extensive briefing in Trump v Anderson. It does not follow logically that just because a presidential candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications, that he or she cannot run for President. This is true partly because the presidential electors are the true candidates in November. It is also true because the Twentieth Amendment specifically provides for procedures when presidential electors in December choose a president who doesn’t meet the qualifications. It also ignores the fact that in the past, Wisconsin did print the name of a vice-presidential nominee on the ballot even though he was age 33.
Ayyadurai plans to appeal, although there is no possibility that he can be on the ballot this year.
“The four-page order says the case is frivolous on its face.”
Did they even bother to read the filings? This court deserves to be held in contempt.
—
“It does not follow logically that just because a presidential candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications, that he or she cannot run for President.”
If you will forgive me for being pedantic, in my opinion it does (seem to) follow “logically”, but it does not follow precedent. On the face of it seems to make sense, right: Why allow someone who does not meet the constitutional qualifications for office, to stand for office and thereby affect votes?
Even though the electors are the actual candidates, and could in theory cast their votes for someone who does meet the constitutional qualifications, it still does not seem illogical (to me, at least) to bar them from being pledged to someone who does not meet those requirements.
But then comes the reality check: Because we have done so repeatedly before.
Either, correct for the previous instances where we have allowed Republican and Democrat candidates who did not meet constitutional qualifications, to not only stand for office, but to actually take office; or, allow independent and third party candidates who do not meet constitutional qualifications, to also stand for office, and to take office if elected. But be consistent.
Don’t like the constitutional qualifications? Pass a constitutional amendment to remove or change them.
Do not, however, insult the constitution, as well as the electorate’s intelligence, by playing these double standard games, where Republicans and Democrats get away with flagrantly violating the constitution time after time, but third party and independent candidates whom they don’t like, can’t even appear on the ballot, because the uniparty selectively cares about the constitution (only) whenever it suits them.
—
This, and even more so the Louisiana malarkey, makes me feel the urge to spend my vote on Shiva just out of protest. That is a slippery slope however, at the foot of which is giving Trump a sympathy vote just because of the vile abuse he has been receiving. Parish the thought! Facts before feelings. And reason over emotion. Shiva has campaigned on being a raging antisemite. He does not deserve my vote.
*Perish the thought!
While somewhat rare, parish can also be a verb, but it means something rather different XD
Article II, Section I:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”
The Constitution barely restricts how states choose electors. Furthermore, in many states, the state may legally choose a slate of electors that is not explicitly represented on the ballot (a winning write-in vote).
People also say that the First Amendment is strong in the U.S. Actually, by itself, it is not. It only restricts Congress, not the other two branches of federal government, and not the states, either. Wyoming, for example, has much stronger free speech and assembly protections in its own state constitution, yet they still upheld a ban on petitioning within 200 feet of a polling place.
This tells us that the written law has only so much teeth. If Wisconsin should put Dr. Shiva on the ballot, it’s not because of what’s written in the Constitution. It’s because of something else. If that something else is court precedent, then the courts truly *do* make the law, not just interpret it.
PLACE OF BIRTH MEANS ZERO
FATHER IS NBC OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN WHEN KID IS BORN-
VATTEL – LAW OF NATIONS
— GOES WAY BAAACK TO ENGLISH FIGHTING IN FRANCE IN OLDE 100 YEARS WAR —
ENGLISH KIDS BORN IN FRANCE.
BRIT LAW ENACTED DECLARING SUCH KIDS TO BE ENGLISH SUBJECTS.
@Adam Cerini
Article II, Section 1 also defines who is and who isn’t eligible to the office of president, in Clause 5.
That does not explicitly affect those running for office. That’s where logic comes in: it is, to my mind, logical that people ineligible for office should also not be standing for office.
But regardless of whether or not my logic is sound, ineligibles have repeatedly run for president and therefore it is inconsistent to bar some from doing so but not others.
Similarly and more importantly, ineligibles have repeatedly served as president and vice-president and therefore it is inconsistent to bar some from doing so but not others.
We are faced then with the dilemma.
We can be consistent and continue violating Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, because we did so repeatedly in the past.
Or we can be consistent and fix having violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in the past by undoing everything that was done by ineligible (vice-)presidents and everything that could only be done as a result of their actions, and going forward stop violating it.
But we must be consistent.
And it is absolutely within the scope of the judicial branch’s duties to ensure that one of those alternatives is followed. Not WHICH one of them is, but THAT one of them is; i.e., that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is not being arbitrarily and inconsistent weaponized against some (e.g. Shiva), when it hasn’t previously been and isn’t currently being upheld against others (e.g. Kamala).
In this case, this means that the District Court has the DUTY to see to it that the Wisconsin Election Commission does not bar Shiva Ayyadurai from appearing on the Wisconsin ballot, UNLESS every ineligible candidate that has previously been on the ballot in Wisconsin is recognized as having been on the ballot illegally, and UNTIL all actions undertaken by ineligible “presidents” (e.g. Chester Arthur, Barack Obama) and “vice-presidents” (e.g. Chester Arthur, Kamala Harris) or facilitated as a result – however indirect – of such actions is reversed.
That is interpreting the law, not making it.
“every ineligible candidate that has previously been on the ballot in Wisconsin is recognized as having been on the ballot illegally” omg, I might literally die of laughter if that ever actually happened
I’m more surprised that “Wisconsin did print the name of a vice-presidential nominee on the ballot even though he was age 33” considering that age is (arguably?) harder to debate than birthplace
Replacement for 12th Amendment:
(1) Apportion presidential electors among the United States (plural) and their (sic) territories on the basis of citizen population over the age of 18. Apportion at least one presidential elector for every 20,000 persons.
(2) Presidential electors chosen by popular election by voters eligible to choose chief executive of State or territory (15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments apply). Time, place, manner by State or Territory, with plenary authority for Congress (same as for US representatives).
(3) Presidential electors: US Citizen for at least one year, 18 Years Old, and resident of State or territory for one year.
(4) Presidential electors meet at time and place designated by Congress and choose President and Vice President (majority required).
(5) Repeal 23rd Amendment (no longer necessary).
Jim Riley: hell no on that one. It moves things in the wrong direction.
Regarding past practice: past performance is no guarantee of future results. Doing something wrong in the past is not a reason to keep doing it wrong. Whether it was wrong to begin with or not is a separate question.
You’re either a natural born citizen or you need to be deported, period.
You’re the one who’s against everything the US was founded and built in answer to by people who fled from it from other countries in every part of the world. If anyone needs to be deported, it’s you.
“Doing something wrong in the past is not a reason to keep doing it wrong.”
I certainly agree. When it comes to enforcing the law, it is less bad to do something wrong consistently, than to do selectively do it wrong or right depending on whatever benefits you in any give instance. Wisconsin cannot remove Shiva Ayyadurai from the ballot if they are not also removing all other candidates for president or vice-president who are not natural born citizens, which notably include Kamala Harris.
“I might literally die of laughter if that ever actually happened”
Indeed. It’s funny because you know they would never be willing to do that. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.
Trump v. Anderson, muddled as the opinion was, rested on Section 3 being different (because of Section 5, mostly) from the other presidential eligibility requirements in terms of enforcement by the states. It was dubious logic, but pretty clearly distinguishes from this and all the other precedents that states can, as a policy choice if they want, bar presidential candidates who don’t meet the age/citizenship/residency requirements in Article II.
UNIFORM ELECTOR / VOTER IN ALL OF USA —
USA CITIZEN, 18 PLUS YEARS OLDE , BE REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAYS
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWS
ONE ELECTION DAY
PR – LEGIS
APPV – NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
TOTAL SOP
J.D. VANCE is a WINO: White In Name Only.
He is married to Usha Chilukuri, a liberal Democrat whose parents were born in India. The couple have three mixed-race children.
He is the author of the memoir Hillbilly Elegy (2016), which slanders Appalachian Whites by portraying them as drug addicts, petty criminals and hopeless losers.
He is a staunch Zionist, who puts Israel’s welfare before that of the US.
On July 30, Jewish media in Israel and the US simultaneously revealed that Vance’s chief of staff was the Jew Jacob Reses. If Reses remains at the post (and is not replaced by another Jew), this means that if Vance becomes the vice president, and later ascends to the presidency, that Reses will be the Jew behind the scenes calling the shots, the de facto unelected president.
539 PM
ANOTHER AZ FELON IMPOSTER
WILL BAN EVER GET AN EMAIL PURGE OF IMPOSTERS SYSTEM ???
“J.D. VANCE is a WINO: White In Name Only.”
Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are winos: drunks perpetually intoxicated by wine.
“He is married to Usha Chilukuri, a liberal Democrat”
Is she? How do you know?
“He is the author of the memoir Hillbilly Elegy (2016), which slanders Appalachian Whites by portraying them as drug addicts, petty criminals and hopeless losers.”
Pretty sure that was more a description of those around him, than slandering Appalachians.
“He is a staunch Zionist,”
Good for him, if true, which I doubt.
“who puts Israel’s welfare before that of the US.”
Given what the US is become, good for him, if true, which I doubt.
“Vance’s chief of staff was the Jew Jacob Reses”
Yes, so what?
“if Vance becomes the vice president, and later ascends to the presidency, that Reses will be the Jew behind the scenes calling the shots, the de facto unelected president.”
That assumes not only that Trump will be killed, die, or be removed from office, but also that Vance has no mind or will of his own.
Look, there is a lot to dislike about Vance, as there is about Trump, but this is just a bunch of nonsense, apparently being posted under someone else’s name.
Yes, by all means, remove the deportable Cumala Herass as well.
What is the point of putting a candidate on the ballot who everyone knows is not legally qualified to hold the office?
Giving voters a chance to express themselves, allegedly. What’s the point of putting on a candidate everyone knows can’t win?
Any candidate who gets on a ballot could win, even though the odds for some candidates a very small. The issue here is not who do the odds favor for winning, but rather whether or not one is legally qualified to hold a particular office.
Someone can win without being on a ballot in most states. There’s also a small chance an ineligible candidate could win a lawsuit over eligibility.