listeme wrote:
brygenon wrote:
realist wrote:
In case any newbies or others who were here at the time don't remember Keyes v Bowen and the outcome,
here is the opinion of the appellate court.
Not only does
Keyes v. Bowen crush the hopes of the California challenge, parts of the Appellate Opinion are probably worth quoting in other states.
the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes.
Georgia law may disagree, but the California Court has a point.
I guess this has no practical application/ramification in the various election challenges elsewhere? Is it worth even noting in those challenges?
Absolutely. Even in Georgia, where an administrative court has decided that state law requires it let ballot changes based on eligibility to hold federal office proceed, the judge cannot be so deluded as believe himself the authoritative voice on the national question. Georgia law charges his office with deciding ballot challenges within the state, which seems to require a determination of eligibility. The administrative court would seem to be in an impossible position. Except, no, not really. It is not assigned the task of making all the various laws consistent, and in the case actually before it the authoritative answer has already appeared.
There's a bit of a subtext to both the California Courts' opinions in
Keyes v Bowen. Though addressing a challenge to including a candidate on the ballot, and thus considering the questions as of ballot time, the Courts actually wrote their opinions later, knowing how the candidacy at issue was to play out. Like the Court of Appeals, still quoted above, the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento had taken the U.S. Congress as the authority:
Finally, the Secretary of State persuasively argues that the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.
Whether or not a state must trust the nominating party to so fear congressional derailment of electoral victory that it will appropriately vet the eligibility of its candidate is s a moot point for this particular candidate, and was already moot by the time of the California courts' opinions.
The Constitutionally prescribed joint session of Congress certified Obama's election without a single objection. The previous administration, of the opposing party, smoothly and graciously transitioned power. The Chief Justice of the United States swore in the new president, and federal courts all over the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have welcomed his appointments. The best evidence that Barack Obama is eligible to be President of the United States is that Barack Obama is President of the United States.
Login
Register
FAQ
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
