Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now why don't I hear any 'activist judge!' whining and sniveling about today's decision which allows a Nebraska candidate for lieutenant governor to drop off the ballot and be replaced after the deadline for such things?
Oh, sorry - that case concerns the Republican ticket and, as we all know, the self-absorbed and narcissistic definition of activist judge is: any judge issuing a decision Republicans don't like.
Side note: the Democratic Party in Nebraska (unlike the Republican Party in Kansas) did not contest the replacement - it was the Libertarian candidate that contested this particular replacement in court. So there's only one party here that is completely two-faced, crying foul about something the other party does when they're doing the exact same thing in the next state over. And that would be the GOP.
Now, back to your regularly-scheduled pouting.
To top it off, Taylor put the papers to remove his name from the ballot, prior to the deadline, not after. Kobach took issue with the wording of Taylor's request to remove himself from the ballot, even though Taylor went over everything and was told it was fine by the S.O.S's office. Kobach tried to keep him on the ballot for partisan purposes, and the court saw through it and ruled that Taylor's intent was clear and he followed the law and direction of the S.O.S office at removing himself from the ballot. Not to mention the fact that previous Primary winners were removed from the ballot by Kobach's office for following the EXACT SAME procedure Taylor did
This was something Kobach was likely to lose in court from the start, yet he took it there anyway and now his re-election looks like its in trouble as well due to his stunt.
Joan Wagnon, Kansas Democratic Party Chair, wrote in a statement:
"I applaud the Kansas Supreme Court decision to follow the law and stop Kris Kobach from undermining Kansas democracy. Kris Kobach has proven he cannot be trusted to fairly enforce the law. So long as Kris Kobach is Kansas Secretary of State, democracy is threatened."
"Basic fairness is a bedrock Kansas value - all Kansans want is a fair shot. Kris Kobach does not believe in fair play and will continue to break the rules to push his extreme agenda. Just like Phill Kline, Kris Kobach continues to put his partisan political agenda before the law, weakening people's faith in our democracy."
Jean Schodorf, who is running for Kansas Secretary of State, wrote: (partial. read the article)
Kansans have recent memories of elected officials disregarding the process of government. We have seen what happens when politicians twist and distort their power to promote their own private agendas. Kansas did not tolerate such abuses from Phill Kline and his cronies, and they should not have to endure it under Kris Kobach. Mr. Kline and Mr. Kobach's methods are the same, they hired the same deputy, their desire to ensnare Kansas into endless lawsuits are the same, their dereliction of duties are the same, and their outcomes are the same. It is time to end this constant embarrassment for Kansas, and restore common sense leadership to Topeka
Makes the case to amend the 17th amendment and going back to the original intent of the constitution.
This obviously isn't working. When once elected, they move permanently to DC.
Harry Reid, didn't go back to Nevada during this recession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Why are you willing to deny anyone the freedom to live and work where he wants?
Not every ex-Congressman stays in D.C. Those who do ended their obligations after they left office.
Freedom is freedom, buddy. Ban them from living and working where they please, and you're next. A big part of liberty is not imposing your beliefs on others.
One, when you are elected to serve the people of your state, you don't permanently move to DC.
The only people you are in touch with are the people and corruption of DC.
What you do after leaving or getting voted out of office, is no longer any business of the people of the State.
One, when you are elected to serve the people of your state, you don't permanently move to DC.
The only people you are in touch with are the people and corruption of DC.
What you do after leaving or getting voted out of office, is no longer any business of the people of the State.
Most states require a Congressman to have an official residence in the state. What they do for accommodations varies when they're on the job. Some share apartments in D.C., a few live in their offices, others with young families rent a home so the kids can go to school, and others buy a house if they can afford it. Some fly back to their home state every weekend, which is one big reason the House isn't usually in session on Fridays.
Quite a few Republicans stay at an unofficial party clubhouse, similar to a fraternity house or an old gentleman's club that has sleeping quarters in it.
Sure; there are a handful of long-tenured Congressmen who purchased homes in D.C. and live there most of the time, only returning back to the home state a few times a year, but no member of Congress is permanent- any one of them can lose the next race.
One man's corruption is another man's ideal, Bent. Who's corrupt? The manufacturer of your flooring products? Or his he just trying to protect his company?
How about your church? There are lots of religions that lobby for all kinds of things.
How about your politics? There are tons of lobbyists that want conservative or liberal laws passed of all kinds.
Nobody can take lots of gifts and/or money and put it in their pocket. That's illegal, and sends politicians to jail. They can legally take campaign funds, gifts and services for campaign use.
Define your definition of corruption. If you think Congress should make no deals, or that Congressmen should be above all that, think again. That's been a part of our politics since we declared ourselves independent, and hadn't even won the war yet. If you think human nature is going to change, forget it.
The best we can do is regulate it and limit it, but deals are always going to be done. Influence is power, and power makes the rules. That's how Congress has always worked. They have the power to make the rules.
That's what makes an independent powerful sometimes. They don't have to vote with their parties, so their power is shifty.
Most states require a Congressman to have an official residence in the state. What they do for accommodations varies when they're on the job. Some share apartments in D.C., a few live in their offices, others with young families rent a home so the kids can go to school, and others buy a house if they can afford it. Some fly back to their home state every weekend, which is one big reason the House isn't usually in session on Fridays. Quite a few Republicans stay at an unofficial party clubhouse, similar to a fraternity house or an old gentleman's club that has sleeping quarters in it.
I am not familiar with the particulars of any such laws, but they are of dubious constitutionality.
In both Powell v. McCormack (1969) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for federal office laid out in the United States Constitution are implicitly exclusive - that neither Congress nor the states can by statute add additional requirements. And the residency requirements per the United States Constitution (for both the House and Senate) are merely than, on election day, the Representative or Senator be an 'Inhabitant of that State'. It is worth noting that at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the word Resident rather than Inhabitant was part of the initial draft of that section. The moved to change the wording was put forth by Roger Sherman (the only Founding Father to sign all four of the Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution) and seconded by James Madison, who wanted to make it clear that the individual in question would not be required to be within the state in question on election day.
Now, whether or not it is good or bad politics is another question entirely.
I am not familiar with the particulars of any such laws, but they are of dubious constitutionality.
In both Powell v. McCormack (1969) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the requirements for federal office laid out in the United States Constitution are implicitly exclusive - that neither Congress nor the states can by statute add additional requirements. And the residency requirements per the United States Constitution (for both the House and Senate) are merely than, on election day, the Representative or Senator be an 'Inhabitant of that State'. It is worth noting that at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the word Resident rather than Inhabitant was part of the initial draft of that section. The moved to change the wording was put forth by Roger Sherman (the only Founding Father to sign all four of the Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution) and seconded by James Madison, who wanted to make it clear that the individual in question would not be required to be within the state in question on election day.
Now, whether or not it is good or bad politics is another question entirely.
Well, let us be clear here.
In 1787, US senators did not run for election. They were appointed by the even smaller state districts within the individual states, that are smaller even more localized than the US house is.
To top it off, Taylor put the papers to remove his name from the ballot, prior to the deadline, not after. Kobach took issue with the wording of Taylor's request to remove himself from the ballot, even though Taylor went over everything and was told it was fine by the S.O.S's office. Kobach tried to keep him on the ballot for partisan purposes, and the court saw through it and ruled that Taylor's intent was clear and he followed the law and direction of the S.O.S office at removing himself from the ballot. Not to mention the fact that previous Primary winners were removed from the ballot by Kobach's office for following the EXACT SAME procedure Taylor did
This was something Kobach was likely to lose in court from the start, yet he took it there anyway and now his re-election looks like its in trouble as well due to his stunt.
Not only that, there was another related legal stunt pulled by a so-called registered Democratic voter (whose son is actually a staffer for Governor Brownback) who sued the state Democratic party to pick a replacement candidate. The KS Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
Most states require a Congressman to have an official residence in the state. What they do for accommodations varies when they're on the job. Some share apartments in D.C., a few live in their offices, others with young families rent a home so the kids can go to school, and others buy a house if they can afford it. Some fly back to their home state every weekend, which is one big reason the House isn't usually in session on Fridays.
Quite a few Republicans stay at an unofficial party clubhouse, similar to a fraternity house or an old gentleman's club that has sleeping quarters in it.
Sure; there are a handful of long-tenured Congressmen who purchased homes in D.C. and live there most of the time, only returning back to the home state a few times a year, but no member of Congress is permanent- any one of them can lose the next race.
I suppose the key is how to maintain links/contacts with constituents while going about the business in Washington. Where one strikes a balance.
Some Congress folks who didn't do at least the minimum to stay in touch with his/her constituents paid the price for it - like Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. Eric Cantor, the recently past Majority Whip, had even less of an excuse, given that his district is only about 3 hours from DC. He just chose to focus on schmoozing with lobbyists, and his constituents decided to let him have more time at that.
In 1787, US senators did not run for election. They were appointed by the even smaller state districts within the individual states, that are smaller even more localized than the US house is.
As far as being 'clear', you need to work on that.
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, paragraph 1:
Quote:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Senators were elected [the word of the Founding Fathers, not me], not 'appointed', by state legislatures, not 'state districts' (and not all of those legislators electing such Senators represented districts, as statewide at-large seats used to be frequently used in state legislatures. And, indeed, they did campaign (or, run) for those offices - but they targeted the legislators, not the public.
None of which is relevant to my previous post. You seem to have a knack for irrelevancies.
One a side note:
Quote:
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts put a signature to documents associated with the mortgage on a Virginia residence that identify the Fairfax County home as “principal residence” of the three-term incumbent Republican.
[Roberts’ primary opponent, tea party candidate Milton] Wolf produced a commercial indicating Roberts rented “a La-Z-Boy recliner at a donor's house on a golf course.”
Comedy! Pure comedy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
