@wildgrasssaid In a federal election, the crux seems to be the decisions of one state affect the voters in other states too. Not that trump was winning Colorado anyway, but theyre not going to allow states supreme court rulings to decide federal elections.
@wildgrasssaid In a federal election, the crux seems to be the decisions of one state affect the voters in other states too. Not that trump was winning Colorado anyway, but theyre not going to allow states supreme court rulings to decide federal elections.
Then Mr. Hassan should have been allowed on the Presidential Primary ballot and, by extension, States are powerless to keep those under the Constitutional age limits for Federal offices off their ballots.
@no1maraudersaid Then Mr. Hassan should have been allowed on the Presidential Primary ballot and, by extension, States are powerless to keep those under the Constitutional age limits for Federal offices off their ballots.
Interesting.
Maybe there could be lawsuits based on that. And we end up with a presidential ballot that has 129 names on it.
Maybe there could be lawsuits based on that. And we end up with a presidential ballot that has 129 names on it.
You certainly all are aware that before the advent of the huge liberal movement, that nothing like this was ever even thought of. Now they are taking over the world, a lot of change afoot. Oh boy.
Sure, 129 candidates is possible. Is this then where you fellers continue with what had been the framers’ intent,?
@no1maraudersaid Then Mr. Hassan should have been allowed on the Presidential Primary ballot and, by extension, States are powerless to keep those under the Constitutional age limits for Federal offices off their ballots.
States enforcing qualifications for Federal office would create a terrible "patchwork" which is completely unacceptable according to the SCOTUS decision you and others here are defending.
@no1maraudersaid States enforcing qualifications for Federal office would create a terrible "patchwork" which is completely unacceptable according to the SCOTUS decision you and others here are defending.
states are not required to enforce anything, never have been.
Why would you say that? other than a shytweasel response.
States follow fed guidelines, they cant make their own laws. If there is a problem fed courts will enforce.
You came out on the short end of the stick on this one. Don’t make it worse with incoherent babbling.
@mott-the-hooplesaid states are not required to enforce anything, never have been.
Why would you say that? other than a shytweasel response.
States follow fed guidelines, they cant make their own laws. If there is a problem fed courts will enforce.
You came out on the short end of the stick on this one. Don’t make it worse with incoherent babbling.
The "Federal guidelines" for who qualifies and doesn't qualify for Federal offices are in the Constitution. Colorado did follow them in Hassan and was told that was perfectly acceptable by now Justice Gorsuch.
The State did the same thing here and was told that was unacceptable because States doing so would create a "patchwork" of different interpretations of those guidelines.
@no1maraudersaid States can't make their own laws??????? LMAO!
You clowns are too stupid to "debate".
Marauder feigns disbelief that Mott said that, knowing full well what he meant. This is an example of cluttering up posts.
I sure hope I don’t say race when discussing horses running, he and Sue will catch me too!
How electors get picked varies by state, but in general state parties file slates of names for who the electors will be. They include people with ties to those state parties, like current and former party officials, state lawmakers and party activists. They're selected either at state party conventions or by party central committees. Each presidential candidate gets their own unique list of names on their slates.
Are they bound by the popular votes in those states?
In some places, yes; in others, no. Thirty-two states plus the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate the party has nominated, or they have to sign pledges.
Some states threaten electors with fines or even criminal penalties for going "faithless." In New Mexico, it's considered a fourth-degree felony; in South Carolina, they are subject to criminal action; Oklahoma holds out a fine of $1,000; it's $500 in North Carolina.
@no1maraudersaid States can't make their own laws??????? LMAO!
You clowns are too stupid to "debate".
You are right, mister attorney is wrong.
If Kansas did not make their own law making murder illegal, you could murder someone in Kansas
and "get away with murder" because there is no federal law against murder on (any) state land, no jurisdiction.
this is for the lawyer, mostly.
Who led the investigation into President John F. Kennedy's assassination? (who had jurisdiction?)
Unanimous Supreme Court restores Trump to CO ballot
07 Mar '24 12:08
Reveal Hidden Content
Back to Top