Would this State law be upheld by the Supreme Court?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Dec 10, 2010.

?

Would the SCOTUS uphold the Ariz State law?

  1. Without a doubt, as it does not violate the Constitution

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  2. More than likely at least 5 would vote yes

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  3. If upheld, would be close 4-3

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  4. If struck down, would be 4-3

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. good chance it would not be upheld, at least 5 would vote no

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  6. This is just the "birthers" looking for a needle in a haystack

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  7. Other answer

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    217
    #1 Salty, Dec 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2010
  2. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt the SCOTUS would uphold the law. Too many of them seem to be in Obama's back pocket.
     
  3. SRBooe

    SRBooe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Voting procedures are controlled by the States, not the federal government.

    I know that there will be people who don't want the states to have any powers at all, but until the consitution is rewritten, that's how it is.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    217
    SR , I agree with you totally, but the question is: will the SCOTUS uphold the Const?:tear:
     
  5. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know whether your Supreme Court would uphold such a law or not, but when I saw the OP, I wondered about what reason Arizona is giving for introducing the law. Could it be because a person has to be a certain minimum age to become President, and the State wants to save the expense of including in the ballot people who would be disqualified from running by reason of age?
     
    #5 David Lamb, Dec 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2010
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    217
    The Constitution of the US says in part

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    Yes, there is an minimum age (35) but more importantly the individual must be a natural born citizen.
    In 2008, then Sen Barrack Obama has only shown a "Short" form of his birth certificate. Many in the US - know as "birthers" contend this certificate is not proof he was actually born in the US, thus not eligible for the office of President.
    In addition, the subject was brought up about Sen McCain, as he was not born on US property as his father was stationed with the US Navy on official orders.
    Also, back in 1964 a question was brought up about Sen Barry Goldwater. He was born in Arizona in 1909 - 3 years before Ariz became a US State!

    After reading the above passage from the Constitution, it does not state specifically you know be born withing the geographic United States, but simply a natural born citizen.
    Also the framers put in "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," because the first 5 Presidents were actually born as British subjects!

    and finally, the Constitution does not prohibit a non-citizen from running, but if elected he would not be able to serve - I know that sounds dumb, but some folks in the US do dumb things:smilewinkgrin:, like going off and starting their own country
     
  7. SRBooe

    SRBooe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    And our U.S. Supreme Court, in their infinite detachment from reality, don't recognize a U.S.citizen's right to have the federal government comply with the U.S. constitution. Since the SCOTUS will not do its job and interpret the laws brought to it, then states have to take their own actions to prevent a repeat of what we are living with - a president who cannot prove citizenship like all the rest of us have to do.

    Bravo Arizona!

    Some states ARE finally waking up and taking themselves out of subjugation to the federal government.
     
  8. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Salty, for taking time and trouble to explain that for me. I appreciate it!
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    It would never be declared constitutional. Think of the Pandora's box this would open. Who knows what other requirements interest groups would try to have imposed on candidates in different states. Ain't never gonna happen.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    217
    Actually, not too many - as this specifically referes to a constitutionally requirement for the office of President. There are only 3 - age, natural-born citizenship, and residency.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, because Congress controls federal elections. For the same reason there are no term limits for congressional candidates in any state.
     
  12. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it would be constitutional. Voting procedures are set by States.
     
  13. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    from wiki note last 2 sentences

    Term limits movement
    "Homesteading" in Congress, made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century, brought about a popular insurgency known as the "term-limits movement". The elections of 1990-94 saw the adoption of term limits for state legislatures in almost every state where citizens had the power of the initiative. In addition 23 states limited service in their delegation to Congress, with the general formula being three terms [six years] in the U.S. House and two terms [twelve years] in the U.S. Senate.
    As they pertain to Congress, these laws are no longer enforceable, however, as a result of lawsuits filed by term limits foes including ousted Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits.[20]
     
  14. SRBooe

    SRBooe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but they don't control the state's procedures or ballots.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    From wiki

    Congress
    Reformers during the early 1990s used the initiative and referendum to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 24 states. Voters in eight of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of two to one.[22] In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, they brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor.
    It limited members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms. Because the Republicans held 230 seats in the House, they were able to get a simple majority. However, constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, or 290 votes, and the votes to restrict term limits in Congress fell short of that number.
    In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court [23] 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.
    Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress.[clarification needed] For the hopes of some that Congress would self-impose term limits had abruptly come to an end. Congressional term limits had been featured prominently in the Republican Party's Contract with America in the 1994 election campaign, and may well have contributed to the Republican Revolution, as the Republicans wrested control of the House of Representatives from the Democratic Party for the first time since the 1952 elections. The Republican leadership brought to the floor of the House a constitutional amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate to two six-year terms. However, this rate of rotation was so slow (the life-tenured Supreme Court averages in the vicinity of twelve years) that the congressional version of term-limits garnered little support among the populist backers of term limits, including U.S. Term Limits, the largest private organization pushing for Congressional term limits. (U.S. Term Limits wanted House members to be limited to three two-year terms.) With the Republicans holding 230 seats in the House, three versions of the amendment got well under 200 votes, while the 12 year term-limits which overrode all the more stringent state measures managed a bare majority in the House of 227-204,[24] well short of the requisite two-thirds majority (290 votes) required to pass a constitutional amendment. Defeated in Congress and overridden by the Supreme Court, this populist uprising was brought to a halt for the purpose of reforming the federal government. The term limits intended simultaneously to reform legislatures (as distinguished from the congressional delegations) remain in force, however, in fifteen states.[25]
    In 2007, Professor Larry J. Sabato revived the debate over term limits by arguing in A More Perfect Constitution that the success and popularity of term limits at the state level suggests that they should be adopted at the federal level as well. He specifically put forth the idea of congressional term limits and suggested a national constitutional convention be used to accomplish the amendment, since the Congress would be unlikely to propose and adopt any amendment that limits its own power.
     
  16. SRBooe

    SRBooe
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's your point with this large cut'n paste?
     

Share This Page

Loading...