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