Yes, if the candidate who wins is younger than 38, and it's not a US citizen, the governor is not required to certify the election results.
Do not reverse the burden of proof.
The justiciability question has been asked and answered.
You've provided no citation to any law giving the governor the authority to withhold the state's electoral vote upon the governor's sole determination that the candidate is ineligible.
"Regard for the constitution" is not a legal cause of action. Can you cite to any statute in any state legally obliging the governor to personally certify the candidate's eligibility for President and to withhold his state's electoral votes upon that determination?
Yes if they are only 18 years old, and not a US citizen their name can be kept off the ballot.
Answer my question.The authority to NOT sign something??
So the age regulation, the citizenship regulation, the residency regulations is meaningless and the Governor and Secretary of State have no authority to enforce it.
*President Trump's eyes light up as he grabs a blank Executive Order form*
Stop putting words in my mouth and answer my question.
Authority is not required to refuse to sign something, especially if your refusal is based on a common sense understanding of the US Constitution.
"Going on the ballot" is generally covered by different laws that "who can be elected President."
Under the prevailing interpretation of constitutionalism, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. Federal law is determined by Congress. This is in fairly marked contrast to the notion of constitutionalism in the United Kingdom and probably most of the Commonwealth. Under the U.S. case Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say in determining how all laws (including the Constitution) apply to a given set of facts, and which laws may be precluded by others. State courts have delegated authority to rule on some questions of federal law and the Constitution, but are subject to appeal into the federal judiciary. In the recent case Trump v. Anderson, it was decided that state courts do not have the authority to determine a candidate's eligibility for federal office. In the specific case of eligibility under the 14th amendment, the court further found that Congress would need to take action to provide a cause of action, such as had been previously done. Since no cause of action existed, the matter was not ripe for the court's adjudication.
Someone can be barred from being elected President if they have already served two terms. However, the states may not individually determine who is eligible for federal office. That must be decided by the federal judiciary.
Wrong. States are not legally required to put someone on the ballot for President if they are clearly unqualified, such as if they are too young if they are not a citizen or if they have not lived in the USA for 14 years.
Legal obligations are not created by "common sense understanding." They are created by laws and ruled on by courts. You are unable to cite to any law that gives the governor of a state the power to unilaterally determine a candidate's eligibility for President and to enforce his determination by withholding the state's electoral vote.
There is no law requiring a governor to certify the election for someone who is clearly unqualified to be president.
Asked and answered.
Straw man. Trump v. Anderson decided that states do not have the authority to individually determine eligibility for federal office. I quoted the relevant passage and gave you a reference to the precedent, neither of which you have acknowledged.
Wrong.
"Clearly unqualified" according to whom? By what finding? According to what evidence. As I have said several times, the justiciability of that question is no different here than for any other requirement.
You keep trying to reverse the burden of proof. You are claiming a govenor has a specific legal authority to make a determination and a specific legal obligation to act in a certain way based on that determination. You've cited zero authority for any of those claims. You've just flailed at straw men and wave your hands vigorously about what you think ought to be true.
Asked and answered. I cited the relevant part of the decision. You're conflating that finding with the application of that finding to a claim under the 14th amendment.
Thanks.
Where does that clause give authority to governors to unilaterally determine the eligibility of a candidate for President and enforce that determination by withholding the state's electoral vote?
You don't need authority to refuse to sign something.
It would have to go through the federal judiciary, yes, and rise to a level such that the court's decision would be binding nationwide on the question of eligibility on that point of evidence. The exact cause of action and method would vary by state.
It is, and I've read Erskine May.Oh, it's all very complicated!
You really don't know how government and laws work, and you really like reversing the burden of proof.
Are you making such an argument?
Please provide a link so i can read it.
The question still boiled down to whether a state court (or any state authority) could determine a candidate's eligibility for federal office. That should stand irrespective of the mechanism by which the election occurs. The fact that the people elect electors who then elect the candidate in a general election shouldn't encumber the reasoning too much.
A link to what? The entire body of jurisprudence on federal electoral law?
Yep. That move to me cemented the current Supreme Court’s complete cowardice WRT defending the constitution and, by extension, the rule of law.
Thanks again.
In the primary, the candidate isn't technically on the ballot either. You're voting for delegates to the party convention. Most states have amended their laws to create the effect that "on the ballot" means the nominal candidate, even if there is a mechanism of delegates or electors involved as the direct recipient of the vote. In my understanding, what you're proposing is just a technicality too far.
He's serious about everything he says at the time that it proceeds out of his mouth. Then later he's serious about different things.
