Candidate Qualification: SCOTUS Ruled No to Additional State Qualifications
I happened to find the following comment from “Sola Veritas” (do a search on the page to find it; #32) at FreeRepublic.com:
Also, a state cannot impose additional requirements on elections to federal offices–which is why Congressional term limits can only come from Congress (fat chance). In U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON(1995) the Supreme Court ruled (in the usual 5-4 split, with Kennedy in the majority) that
“. . . the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners’ argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States’ pre-Tenth-Amendment “original powers,” but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby “divested” States of any power to add qualifications.”Nor can the Court agree with petitioners’ related argument that (term limits are) a permissible exercise of state power under the Elections Clause, Art. I, 4, cl. 1, to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” A necessary consequence of that argument is that Congress itself would have the power under the Elections Clause to “make or alter” a measure such as (term limits), a result that is unfathomable under Powell v. McCormick. Moreover, petitioners’ broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers’ view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office.
While this case dealt with term limits, there really is no distinguishing facts that would allow a different decision regarding presidential primaries. The Constitution does not provide for state enforcement of the “natural-born citizen” clause, so any enforcement will have to come from Congress.
The law link is quite extensive, but doing a search on the page for the first few words of the first paragraph (as the quote quotes, above) will send you to the right area, including the SCOTUS’ opinion.
Per the commenter’s last paragraph, it would appear that if US Term Limits v. Thornton is any kind of precedent-setter for the eligibility issue, that would portend some very interesting consequences for Congress, per se, and could theoretically help to explain why SCOTUS has heretofore let all lower court rulings stand.
-Phil
Jim Delaney,
My non-attorney opinion is that it’ll be interesting to see what happens with cases like Easterling v. Obama. I have no idea whether or not active duty personnel would have any standing on such an issue (however, fellow commenter and blogger “jbjd” might say otherwise).
However, having failed everything else, then yes, the States — and the State legislators, per se — would, in my view, have a significantly better chance at standing than would the “class” of regular citizens.
-Phil
Hey, Phil
What’s your take on Ferdie’s and Jean’s comments above? Sounds like they broke some new ground here with respect to the issue f standing. If their assessment is correct, then what would logically be the most efficacious way forward? Really interesting. Thanks.
From Citizen Wells ( http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen-december-31-2008-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obamas-father-kenyan-british-rule-obama-born-in-kenya-us-constitution-founding-fathers-obama-lies-restorethe/ )
Nice find Jean. Where do we argue this? SCOTUS?
I think if the pending cases fail then we need a large case with thousands of military personnel that are retired, reserve and active. Our military personnel are risking their lives to defend the Constitution which they swear an oath to. If SCOTUS says they are not eligible to demand to know if the Commander In Cheif is in uspurper through a file or amicus or interpleader to a case like Berg’s case then who has standing?
If members of the military will not be heard or have standing then we have a real problem. Too many Americans died in uniform defending the Constitution. The word will need to get out through the VFW, veterans groups, reserve groups, etc.
Question: Saw some states where Obama signed a form that stated he was a “natural born citizen.” Does this mean that all states have to remove any statement such as that and leave it as just “open” — anyone can enter — presidential elections?
Please also add to the suspect trips (1981 and 1987), the 1993 trip to Bali, Indonesia to supposedly complete his book “Dreams of My Father” and ca 1993 trip to Kenya with Michelle.
As to the Pakistan trip, paper trail at Pakistani consulate in LA where Obama (Barry Soetoro) would obtained a visa as Pakistan-Indonesia have no reciprocal travel arrangement. The same goes for the trips to Kenya. Paper trail at Kenya consulates but unfortunately they are sealed by order of Kenya.
Thank you, Phil.
Gina
I read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi vouched for Obama on the DNC election form sent to state of HI. If she sent that form to the State of HI then most likely it was also sent to other States. Therefore, the responsibility and accountability rest solely upon Queen Nancy Pelosi. Remember, the Queen is third in line for the Presidency in case somethings were to happen to Usurper Obama and Gaffe Biden. I read on Drudge where Pelosi draws her line. Conspiracy or not, I think Pelosi wants to President! She is so hunger for power is pathetic.
Phil,
I think you are smart to wait on more info for the reasons you state. I am not sure if Berg has anything up his sleeve since he overnighted Oprah a letter on the 19th telling her that she should influence Obama to step down. That is an interesting last minute power strategy especially since he says he had already sent a letter asking the same of her on November 7th. She will not respond. Why should she? I do not think Berg would have to pull Oprah into this if he had a viable plan of action. My understanding is that a case can be sealed for as simple a reason as protecting Social Security numbers since privacy is such an issue now.
Dr. Edwin Viera, a constitutional law expert, says that none of cases have gone through because none of the cases were put together well. I know Pidgeon has spoken with Dr. Viera and Taitz has tried to contact him as well.
Did you say the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”???? NOT! Obama sure doesn’t think so!!
If Congress, by law, has failed to place the responsiblity of verifying presidential eligiblity to the officer’s of the state, and the state’s refuse to verify presidential eligiblity, then the that power is transfered back to we the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Riddlemethis,
This could be some scuttlebutt — supposedly from a FOIA request to the State Department — that the President allegedly had not gotten a US passport until after he had become US Senator. Therefore, as the theory goes, if he had traveled to Pakistan or Afghanistan in the 1980s, he would have had a Kenyan or an Indonesian passport.
Again, the above is highly speculative, but that could be about which Mr. Wells is speaking. Or, it could be something else.
I don’t intend to post anything until I have something in hand that can be objectively verified.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
A state’s SoS cannot use selective judgement on who is allowed on the ballot and who is not. Either they honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution or they don’t. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every government employee must honor this doctrine regardless of any law, statute, or resolution passed to supplement its meaning. And since no additional requirements have been defined, the supreme law of the land remains in tact.
There is no “hazy gray area” where Secretaries can dictate who they or don’t allow on the ballot based on political affiliation. Check for qualifications on all candidates or let Congress decide. But do one or the other consistently.
That’s the essence of the Keyes case.
Citizenwells.wordpress.com reports tonight:
Barack Obama is not qualified to be president and therefore
per the 20th Amendment, Joe Biden is president until Congress
makes a further determination. Furthermore, aside from the
vast evidence that we have that Obama is not a Natural Born
Citizen and no legal evidence to the contrary from Obama, a
little birdie tells me that some new certified evidence has
come to the surface that is conclusive evidence against Obama
being qualified.
Not saying what it is, but Obama’s oath today was just not the right one…Biden’s was correct. There was a subpeona for his Occidental records.
A state could therefore write a law mandating that their election officials (SoS?) seek proof and verify the candidate is eligible to be on their ballot.
State’s can not decide who to have on their state’s ballot, specifically Presidential candidates? If I’m not mistaken, only 5 states had Roger Calero on their ballots. Meaning, for whatever reason (disqualified, unqualified?) he was not on the others. Why? The reason is obvious why he wasn’t on all states ballots, as he was a green card holder and not even a Naturalized citizen…let along NBC.
That seems to me like the states do have a right in determining who shows up on their ballots.
Gina,
It could potentially be used as a precedent-setter for pointing the onus of eligibility ultimately on Congress. Therefore, it could be good in the sense of narrowing the scope of accountability.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
scott,
Each Secretary of State does take — as a part of their oath of office — a promise to fulfill their official obligations per the Constitution. As such, they are obligated to be the final arbiters of the electoral system of a given State (at least that’s how I understand it).
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
scott,
We’ll have to see what happens with Dr. Taitz’ Keyes v. Obama case based on an Executive Order, as well as whatever else Berg and attorney Stephen Pidgeon have up their sleeves.
Also, we already have a promise from Gary Kreep, lead attorney for Keyes v. Bowen (still pending in CA with a standing subpoena for the President’s Occidental College records), to be challenging the President’s authority from here on out.
And Linda Starr (one of Berg’s assistants) is saying that a Freedom of Information Act request that may show that the President never had a US passport until he was a US Senator; rather interesting allegations, should they prove to be true.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I’m sorry. Is this a good thing or bad thing for the eligibility cases?
Thank you.
I have a slightly different opinion.
As quoted above “First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States’ pre-Tenth-Amendment “original powers,” but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby “divested” States of any power to add qualifications.”
The argument is against “adding” qualifications. The state that would require a mechanism to verify a qualification that already exist in the constitution is not “adding” a qualification and therefore this decision should not apply.
Greg
Does anyone know this information:
What office do I need to send my mortgage booklet to and my gas bills as well. Are they the same office or is there a separate one for housing and one for utilities? Does anyone have that, have they released it yet?? Woohooo–free at last! St. John, here we come…I can finally do more of what I want…which is lay on the beach and play with my kids…thank you Obama!
But wait, if some states do authenticate the eligibility of each candidate through some process, then that is a state-reserved right and under the 9th amendment it can be protected. Is it possible? The decisions’ comment (in my previous comment) was misinterpreted by me thinking it came from the SCOTUS decision.
So it sounds as if Wrontowski is DOA, as is all the cases challenging any secretary of the sovereign states. It’s so sad to read that SCOTUS commented on another (unchallenged) portion of the Constitution in making an example of the answer to the petition.
So how sunk are we and what’s left?
What Congress does is under the Legislative Branch of government. States really don’t have any authority unless the Constitution specifically gives them that authority. That is why Burris was seated as the U.S. Senator from Illinois. The 17th Amendment specifically spoke of the appointment by the states.
However, we are dealing with the Executive Branch. This is not on the same level of Congress. We are in a dilemma. But, the people need to be informed and demand accountability in their POTUS. The military needs a valid commander in chief for legitimate orders or they run the ability to be court marshalled.
This is a constitutional crisis no doubt and a coup de’tat with power forces pulling the strings.
That also appears consistent with U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s ruling on Sep. 16.
However, what does it say about state Secretaries of State who got Roger Calero removed from their ballots (while allowing Obama and McCain) for not being a natural born Citizen?
This process is a mess and from the looks on their faces as they left the Capitol basement on their way to the stumbling administration of the presidential oath of office, they appear to be burdened and perhaps shaken with their responsibility.
The arguement presented is silly.
Requiring Presidential candidicates to meet constitutional requirements on State Ballots, obviously does not add any further requirement to constitutional requirements.
Anyone who thinks so, is not thinking!
Has the world gone mad?