The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Elderberry on February 13, 2023, 02:48:56 pm
-
The Post & Email 2/12/2023
When a Virginia state senator recently asked the Office of the Attorney General for an “advisory opinion” on the meaning of the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 presidential requirement, “natural born Citizen,” the response was a declination to issue an opinion.
According to the Office’s page on the subject, “official opinions issued by the Attorney General are part of the duties of the office (see Code § 2.2-505). A person authorized by statute, such as the governor, a member of the General Assembly, a constitutional officer, or the head of a state agency, can ask the Attorney General for an official opinion on the law. Members of the general public are not authorized to ask for opinions.”
Jason S. Miyares (R) is the Commonwealth’s current attorney general, having assumed office in January 2022 after Republicans won sweeping victories in the November 2021 elections.
Miyares is “the son of a Cuban immigrant,” he states in his “welcome” message.
“Your inquiry presents a question of federal law,” Special Counsel for Opinions Amanda McGuire wrote to 15th senatorial district Sen. Frank M. Ruff, Jr. in a letter dated January 9, 2023. “Although the Commonwealth does participate in the conduct of elections for federal offices, it is important to remember that the selection of the President of the United States is multi-step process [sic] involving two elections” consisting of an election by the Commonwealth’s voters for “choosing electors” and a subsequent vote carried out by members of the Electoral College.
The President and Vice-President are not “direct candidates on the November ballot,” McGuire wrote, but rather, “the candidates for electors” who will “select” individuals for those positions.
“Virginia law requires” that the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates put forth by the “political parties” be placed on the ballot, McGuire continued, but the law “imposes no affirmative duty upon state election officials to verify whether those individuals meet constitutional eligibility requirements” before doing so.
More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/02/12/commonwealth-attorney-general-punts-on-defining-natural-born-citizen/ (https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/02/12/commonwealth-attorney-general-punts-on-defining-natural-born-citizen/)
-
He is correct to stick with his own knitting; he is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virgina, not a free-floating advice columnist on all subjects whatsoever who is merely paid for by the taxpayers of Virgina.
-
He is correct to stick with his own knitting; he is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virgina, not a free-floating advice columnist on all subjects whatsoever who is merely paid for by the taxpayers of Virgina.
:yowsa: And he correctly identifies the problem (Which I seriously doubt is confined to only Virginia) with this; “Virginia law requires” that the names of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates put forth by the “political parties” be placed on the ballot, McGuire continued, but the law “imposes no affirmative duty upon state election officials to verify whether those individuals meet constitutional eligibility requirements” before doing so."
-
:bkmk:
-
He is correct to stick with his own knitting; he is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virgina, not a free-floating advice columnist on all subjects whatsoever who is merely paid for by the taxpayers of Virgina.
I agree, but to play a bit of devil's advocate, but what is the proper role of a state if a 23 year old wants to be put on the ballot for President? Should it simply ignore the Constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old?
I personally would have no problem with the Secretary of State, AG, or whatever other state is official is responsible for running elections to disqualify that candidate based on their age, even though it is a federal requirement.
I guess my point is that I think it is okay for the state to make clear-cut calls, but that disputed issues are better left for federal courts.
-
I agree, but to play a bit of devil's advocate, but what is the proper role of a state if a 23 year old wants to be put on the ballot for President? Should it simply ignore the Constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old?
I personally would have no problem with the Secretary of State, AG, or whatever other state is official is responsible for running elections to disqualify that candidate based on their age, even though it is a federal requirement.
I guess my point is that I think it is okay for the state to make clear-cut calls, but that disputed issues are better left for federal courts.
Fair enough.
-
I agree, but to play a bit of devil's advocate, but what is the proper role of a state if a 23 year old wants to be put on the ballot for President? Should it simply ignore the Constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old?
I personally would have no problem with the Secretary of State, AG, or whatever other state is official is responsible for running elections to disqualify that candidate based on their age, even though it is a federal requirement.
I guess my point is that I think it is okay for the state to make clear-cut calls, but that disputed issues are better left for federal courts.
I think it's simply a matter of states needing to clean up, or fortify if you prefer, the statutory language in their election laws. @Maj. Bill Martin
-
I think it's simply a matter of states needing to clean up, or fortify if you prefer, the statutory language in their election laws. @Maj. Bill Martin
That works for something like age, which is something about which there is no dispute. But if you resolve "natural born citizen" on the state level, not only could you end up with different interpretations in different states, but you'd likely have those interpretations changing in at least some of those states every election.
-
That works for something like age, which is something about which there is no dispute. But if you resolve "natural born citizen" on the state level, not only could you end up with different interpretations in different states, but you'd likely have those interpretations changing in at least some of those states every election.
:yowsa: Which is why we have SCOTUS to begin with!