Main Menu

Joseph Farah makes really stupid remark

I found this Farah quote on Mother Jones:

“Imagine if just one or two states adopt such a measure before 2012,” Farah says. “Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for reelection. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don’t think so.”

What would have happened in 2008 if Barack Obama was not  on the ballot in Arizona? Since Obama got not a single electoral vote from Arizona, I guess it would have meant nothing. In fact, Obama could have not been on the ballot in 22 states (if I counted right) and still won. Of course when Joseph Farah speaks, you have to consider his audience.

The proposed Arizona statute is blatantly unconstitutional and would have excluded just about every US President in history. It too is something really stupid.

, ,

13 Responses to Joseph Farah makes really stupid remark

  1. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    You mean Farrah only made one stupid remark?

  2. avatar
    Dave February 6, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    About the hoops that states make candidates jump through to get on the ballot, I am quite curious about just where the dividing line is between what is acceptable and what is not. For example, what if a state required proof of proficiency at calculus? Or that you have to be under 6′ tall?
    I ask because typical current requirements which I presume are acceptable include paying a fee, which in some states is pretty substantial, and/or collecting signatures on a petition. So how exactly do we distinguish the AZ law, which would exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible, from e.g. a petition requirement, which also will exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible?

  3. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 7, 2011 at 1:38 am #

    The birther klan has been imagining a lot of dumb stuff over the past two and a half years, and that’s just where it stays – in their imagination.

  4. avatar
    The Magic M February 7, 2011 at 3:42 am #

    > So how exactly do we distinguish the AZ law, which would exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible, from e.g. a petition requirement, which also will exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible?

    Tricky. I would assume that provisions that would only exclude people who don’t have a realistic chance anyway (such as people who can’t even get a couple of signatures to support them or pay up a couple $$) may be OK. This will only keep the non-serious candidates off the ballot – otherwise there’d be 10,000 joke candidates in every state.

    Limitations such as some of the new birther bills impose would affect every candidate, even the most popular ones, so that may be a different animal. Though of course you could argue that any limitation may be considered unconstitutional.

  5. avatar
    UnionJack February 7, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    > So how exactly do we distinguish the AZ law, which would exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible, from e.g. a petition requirement, which also will exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible?

    – States administer federal elections. (Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1; Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2). So, if there is a valid, reasonable “administrative” reason for a particular “ballot access” requirement, then the courts have upheld them. For example, a specific filing date-deadline requirement has been upheld if reasonable (30 day, 60 day, etc.); petition signature requirements to show a modicum of support for independent or non-major-party candidates; fees to cover administrative costs, etc. These cases have all looked at “ballot access” rules in the states to see if they are reasonable, with valid adminsitrtaive reasons (to guard against ballot clutter, voter confusion, etc.), or if they add “additional” qualifications to office (or are invalid uner the 14th Am. equal protection clasue):

    Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 719 (1974); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Williams v. Tucker, 382 F. Supp. 381, 387-388 (M.D.Pa. 1974).

  6. avatar
    Dave February 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    UnionJack — thanks. If “valid administrative reasons” is the criterion, then I can’t imagine any of these birther bills making it in the courts.

  7. avatar
    Jules February 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    UnionJack: > So how exactly do we distinguish the AZ law, which would exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible, from e.g. a petition requirement, which also will exclude some people who are constitutionally eligible?- States administer federal elections. (Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1; Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2). So, if there is a valid, reasonable “administrative” reason for a particular “ballot access” requirement, then the courts have upheld them. For example, a specific filing date-deadline requirement has been upheld if reasonable (30 day, 60 day, etc.); petition signature requirements to show a modicum of support for independent or non-major-party candidates; fees to cover administrative costs, etc.These cases have all looked at “ballot access” rules in the states to see if they are reasonable, with valid adminsitrtaive reasons (to guard against ballot clutter, voter confusion, etc.), or if they add “additional” qualifications to office (or are invalid uner the 14th Am. equal protection clasue):Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972); Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 719 (1974); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Williams v. Tucker, 382 F. Supp. 381, 387-388 (M.D.Pa. 1974).

    Another key case is U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, in which the court held that states’ power over federal elections, “was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures… not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office.”

  8. avatar
    UnionJack February 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    Jules – yes, U.S. Term Limits is a great case for that proposition, as well. Need to add that to the list.
    Dave – I don’t see any case relating to a state requirement that goes beyond merely filing of or showing a “birth certificate” having much success. Some of the language in some proposed statutes remind me of the old “loyalty oath” cases (which i think were thrown out on 1st Am. grounds, though, rarther than additional qualifications since they were often for state candidates). Since the states may, and do, require a statement, certification, or affidavit of ‘eligibility” from the party as to its nominee, or from the candidate him- or her-self, I don’t see why a requirement to provide a certain level of proof of that, such as a certifcation or certificate of birth, would not be considered a reasonable administrative or housekeeping measure (when it is without all that additional baggage/garbage about parentage and allegiance which definitely smacks of adding additional, substantive quals).

  9. avatar
    Bovril February 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Classic “What are they THINKING” line from a thread at The Pest and Fail

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/02/07/how-we-can-prevail-and-will/

    FAILURE PLUS PERSEVERANCE EQUALS SUCCESS

    Errrr, no…..

    Failure + Perseverance = Epic Failure

    Failure + Learn from mistakes + Perseverance = Possibility of Success

    Therefore, Birthers = Epic Failure

  10. avatar
    G February 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Bovril:

    FAILURE PLUS PERSEVERANCE EQUALS SUCCESS

    Errrr, no…..

    Failure + Perseverance = Epic Failure

    Failure + Learn from mistakes + Perseverance = Possibility of Success

    Therefore, Birthers = Epic Failure

    Exactly! Well summarized.

  11. avatar
    JoZeppy February 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    Wow…seems Pest and Fail is drawing in the Sovereign Citizen nuts as well. I suppose if you like junk law, go for it all?

  12. avatar
    The Magic M February 9, 2011 at 4:41 am #

    People with the typical birther mindset have always been so anti-government that the step to going full tilt “sovereign citizen” doesn’t take much.
    In fact, I believe that the vast majority of those in favour of the level in between (state secession) only see that as a means to an end.
    They all have a problem with authority, tolerance and facing the consequences of their deeds. And they all want to be in full control of their lives, regardless of others. That’s why you become a conspiracy believer in the first place – out of fear of things you can’t control (natural disasters, coincidence, “destiny” etc.) you’re willing to believe anything that suggests that everything can be controlled by (a small number of) man.

  13. avatar
    Northland10 February 9, 2011 at 7:07 am #

    The Magic M: People with the typical birther mindset have always been so anti-government that the step to going full tilt “sovereign citizen” doesn’t take much.
    In fact, I believe that the vast majority of those in favour of the level in between (state secession) only see that as a means to an end.
    They all have a problem with authority, tolerance and facing the consequences of their deeds.

    Having lived near many militia/patriot types in Michigan, I have seen how there whole issue is not with the government, per se, but their problem with any authority. They may state their issues are with the federal government, but they are always running up against the state, county, and township governments and even the local school (how dare the school expect responsibility). It does not take them long to complain about the grand conspiracy against them, like the government helicopters flying overhead. It does not matter that those helicopters happen to be the Coast Guard passing by from Traverse City to some other location on Lake Michigan.

    I have always wondered, they always state the evil federal government is out to get them, but why would the feds care one bit about some nut living in the middle of nowhere? His rusty van with his “sovereign” license plate couldn’t even make it 40 miles away without breaking down.