The US Presidential election law each state needs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by moonman239, Jul 30, 2016.

  1. moonman239 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #1
    "a)No delegate to the Electoral College shall vote for any candidate who, during their tenure in any capacity within the government of the United States, performs or performed any action which could or could have compromised the security of the nation, whether or not the candidate intended to so affect the nation.

    b) The (insert name of whatever state agency determines a candidate's eligibility for the ballot) shall enforce a) under the supervision of the applicable courts of this State

    c) Upon official determination that a candidate is ineligible for election under a), all delegates pledged to that candidate shall be free to vote for the eligible candidate of their choice"
     
  2. DeltaMac macrumors 604

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #2
    Lucky for you, opinions don't decide the legal eligibility of candidates. That's when the "official determination" would be relevant, as that would hopefully rely on provable facts, and not just a combination of circumstances.
    Otherwise - both parties could have a problem, eh?
     
  3. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #3
    A few minor issues...

    Provision (a) abridges a delegate's 1st Amendment rights, because it defines what citizens may and may not do to express themselves in political speech. If money is political speech (see Citizens United v. FEC), then an overtly political act like voting for a candidate is certainly political speech. Also read about "faithless electors" -- state laws governing their votes have never been enforced.

    There's also the nebulous criterion of "could or could have compromised", or "official determination". What standard of proof is needed? Is a simple allegation all that's needed (j'accuse)? A loss in a civil trial? A loss in a criminal trial? Who is the official who gives official determination? A court? An appointed office? An elected office?

    Even ignoring the above, the propositions would be unenforceable by States. You'd also need a Constitutional Amendment altering who is eligible for US President (i.e. who can be a candidate for President). Note that ballot eligibility is not the same as candidate eligibility. Presidential eligibility requirements are defined by the Constitution and its Amendments. State's have no power or jurisdiction to make additional requirements, or to forbid a candidate from running for President.
     
  4. moonman239, Jul 30, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2016

    moonman239 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    #4
    The basic idea is this: The US Constitution says anyone can run for President who meets the minimum qualifications spelled therein; it doesn't say the States can't decide how the State votes in the Electoral College.

    With a statute like I'm proposing, you could still run, but if you jeopardize our nation's security while serving in the US government, good luck trying to win - it might theoretically take a miracle (such as delegates bound under such a statute having car trouble or being held up at the airport, and thus unable to vote at the electoral college)

    As to your concern about adjudication, a mere accusation would certainly be insufficient. An accuser should have to prove:

    a) The candidate committed the action that the accuser accuses him/her of committing
    b) The said action jeopardizes the security of the United States.

    Such a case would possibly be a civil case, as there would be no law enforcement involvement unless such is requested by the US gov.
     
  5. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #5
    Any of the above deny the ability of the people to choose their president.

    If I want to vote for Charles Manson I should be able to do so.

    The election process is in itself a background check, and people decide what's a go or no-go.
     
  6. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
  7. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #7
    Read about the faithless elector laws. They haven't been challenged in federal court. In short, there's no way to say which way the courts will rule, because nothing quite like them has ever been tested. However, given Citizens United, I wouldn't be surprised if those state laws were struck down, or at least severely curtailed.

    People can run even when they fail to meet the Constitutional requirements. The first female Presidential candidate would have been below the required age of 35 years, but that didn't prevent her from running.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull

    "Prove" in what way? To what standard? If as you say it's a civil case, there's still law enforcement involvement, because courts are law enforcement.

    What happens if a candidate hasn't yet been proven to have committed a disqualifying act, but there is at least one lawsuit alleging so? Is the candidate allowed to run or not?

    What if the allegations prove true (under whatever standard of proof you want), but that result doesn't occur until after the election, and the candidate has already won? What if they prove false, and the result doesn't occur until after the election?

    Simply having an unresolved lawsuit shouldn't be enough to prevent a candidacy, because then anyone could file such suits to prevent anyone else from running. If suits alone can prevent candidacy, there'd be a new blood-sport where PACs file lawsuits alleging misconduct, as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #8
    As chown33 said, it'd be too easy for a campaign to level some BS charge at an opponent to knock them out of the campaign. You voted down a bill to approve fighter jets? You've compromised national security. You want to take in some Syrian refugees? You've compromised national security. You can see how somebody could take this way past just the concept of state secrets.

    Besides, you're specifying those in government. What about people like Trump? Granted the security violation he was charged with turned out to be nothing more than click-bait, but what if he had given out secret information? He's not covered under this law.
     
  9. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #9
    I want the loser of the President race becomes the Vice President just like it used to be!
     
  10. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #10
    That is wrong. The VP is not there to be beside the president but to replace her.
     
  11. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #11
    Each elector gets two votes, and each party puts up two candidates for president?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788–89
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1792
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800

    The election in 1800 turned out to be quite the fiasco, which is why it was changed
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    Obviously the system is broken, it gave us Trump and Clinton.
     
  13. impulse462 Suspended

    impulse462

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #13
    you could say that for democrats. trump was amongst 17(?) people and voters chose who they wanted. i agree most of the 17 were useless, but there was rand paul and (maybe) mitt romney. democrats didn't have anyone until bernie decided to enter. i feel like everyone overlooked martin o'malley. sure he might not have been ready for president but i think dems should have taken him more seriously. i don't think democrats don't have a wealth of "stars" in their party at the time, but thats changing. cory booker comes to mind
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    I don't think it is. As a pro-open candidate Clinton is probably the best as she's a centerist. As a pro-closed candidate Trump isn't *that* bad.
     
  15. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    Trump earned his position on the ticket through the democratic process.

    Clinton and the DNC rigged an election, disenfranchised voters, and undermined the democratic process.
     
  16. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #16
    Oh come now! Why not devise a body specifically for this purpose? Call it something suitably illustrious, like the Guardian Council of the Constitution.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    Please follow the rules and provide a source. There has been nothing that amounted to rigging an election in any of the emails released to this point. If you are aware of something that is not publiclly available please release it so everyone can know.
     
  18. Ledsteplin macrumors 6502

    Ledsteplin

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Location:
    Florence, AL
    #18
    Are you saying Wasserman resigned over nothing? I kind of doubt that.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #19
    She resigned because the emails were embarrassing, but nothing in them amounted to rigging an election.
     
  20. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #20
    People resign over appearances all the time.
     
  21. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
  22. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #22
  23. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #23
    While I would not like a proportionals system like many in many primaries, I wouldn't mind a system like ME and NE where each CD winners gets that CD's electoral vote and the winner of the state as a whole gets the 2 "Senate" votes.

    But the Dems would never go for it as they would lose the entirety of CA and NY as much of the rural areas are conservative.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    Sshhhhh ssshhh the Russians the Russians the Russians!!!
    --- Post Merged, Jan 8, 2017 ---
    Clinton was fed debate questions prior to the debate and said nothing. Integrity level: 0

    Here's a source since your head seems to have been in the sand for the last year:
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donna-brazile-wikileaks-fallout-230553
     
  25. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    Emphasis on @chown33 post no.3. I'll add that all candidates for President should be required to submit to an agreed upon politically neutral psych eval as a qualification. I'm serious while acknowledging it would be critical to handle this in a 100% non partisan manner.

    And maybe no candidate with a business track record with over 500 lawsuits, or x (pick a number) judgements against in court, Civil or otherwise is disqualified on a ethics morality clause.
     

Share This Page