Reply With Quote
I am ok with this stupid bill going forward but this was done to try and mess with Obama.. I want the president to indeed be a citizen of this country but this bill is just political grandstanding..
So then access to the ballot is a purely state matter. Well and fine.
Whence arises the concern about unqualified candidates becoming US President the Arizona law seems to address?
I am ok with this stupid bill going forward but this was done to try and mess with Obama.. I want the president to indeed be a citizen of this country but this bill is just political grandstanding..
Are they not vetted by the American voters? Seems like a nomination pretty much meets that challenge.
ROFL. I'm such a bonehead that occasionally I like to play dictionary-nazi., ya got me. I guess I officially gave up my right to argue in this thread.
Just joshin' ya.
Maybe it should have. There's never been any need for it before now. What's so fire important about now?
doobs shot me down on this. I presumed that because there were Cons utional qualifications somebody actually checked them. I guess that's our job in the voting booth.
So what's the point of having any cons utional requirements for eligibility?
BTW, I'm of the opinion that voters should be en led to elect whoever they want. If I had written the Cons ution, I would not have inserted any of the age, residency, or natural birth requirements. But rules are rules, and this is a very effective way of enforcing the rules and resolving any doubts.
Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla, agrees.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3203
"Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history,” Martinez responded.
And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president,” he wrote.
(TB beat me to the point.)
You'd probably have to ask some dead guys about that. But, ostensibly, you've got to put some structure around who is and who isn't eligible for candidacy. Pretty sure we don't want to burn time watching a 14 year old kid take a run @ POTUS, sponsored by MTV.
What doubts?
Forget about Obama.
What should happen if Schwarzenegger decided to run in 2012? If he's popular enough, should voters be allowed to just disregard cons utional requirements and elect him? If not, is it enough that we can rely on the courts to bail us out after the fact?
Or does a ballot access measure like this make sense?
Any doubts that might arise about a candidate's place of birth. Or age. Or whether he's satisfied the residency requirements.
Etc.
How did we ever get along without one up 'til now?But, ostensibly, you've got to put some structure around who is and who isn't eligible for candidacy.
Why have we "got to put up some structure" around eligibility? 35 years old, native born. It's not that hard.
...
Schwarzenegger cannot run for POTUS. It's a self-limiting question.
It is likely that the issue would be decided in the Fed. courts, but the likelihood of that happening approaches zero.
That is the structure I was refering to...that which already exists in the Cons ution.
Why can't Schwarzenegger run for POTUS? Other non-natural born citizens have done so, just not successfully.
Then one could say their lack of success is a product of the vetting process?
btw, what other non-nat citizens have run? Not saying there weren't, but I remain ignorant of their stories.
Most recent example: Roger Calero (Nicaragua), 2004 and 2008.
Is there some question that Obama has fallen short of a residency requirement to be US president?
Do you have any doubt, doobs, that an adversarial primary and Presidential election process sorts out factual issues related to qualification at a fairly early stage, with more than reasonable diligence and reliability? (Political candidates are motivated to win, not just to win the argument.)
No doubt the timing and motivations are political. But that doesn't make the concept a bad one. Protecting the integrity of elections seems like a noble endeavor to me. From President of the U.S. all the way down to local elections. Even if it's not neccessary, what's the downside here? Candidates already have to file some paperwork to get their names on the ballot. What's the harm in asking for one more piece of paper? I honestly just don't see why anyone would be opposed to this.
I'm saying make the case that we need laws like this. That argument hasn't really been made, yet.
Asking for proof that you meet eligibilty requirements is just wack. In fact, I think a "don't ask, just believe" policy should be enacted all across our society. Who needs proof of some fancy shmancy medical license to be a doctor? A white lab coat is all the proof I need.
Interesting. From the wiki on him "In 2004, Róger Calero was the SWP candidate for President of the United States and received 3,689 votes, with Arrin Hawkins running for Vice President. Because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero is ineligible to become U.S. president under the United States Cons ution, and so James Harris, the Socialist Workers' Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed, receiving 7,102 additional votes."
The statement describing where James Harris had to basically be a stand-in on the ballots of 9 states where Calero could not be included seems to suggest that what Arizona is proposing is actually nothing new and other states apparently do this as well in some fashion (vetting candidates).
We don't need laws like this, since there is always an available remedy in federal court. But I would rather avoid that disruptive process, since it only becomes available once a plaintiff has standing to sue . . . after the ineligible candidate has already been elected.
This is a relatively minor, but thoroughly sensible, requirement for candidates to fulfill if they want to win an election. It answers any eligibility questions before the fact.
If this doesn't end up becoming law in Arizona, then that's OK, too. Like you said, our current system--with hard-fought primaries and such--is pretty good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
