128
Lauren Boebert says she'll seek office in a different congressional district in 2024
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
128 points (94.4% liked)
Colorado
1211 readers
1 users here now
All things Colorado
Let’s go Nuggets! 2023 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
Go Avs Go! 2022 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW
- No Ads / Spamming.
- All hail Blucifer
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Said it before and I will say it again. Politicians should be required to live in the area of which they are holding office.
Most states already require it from what I know. It’s just not a big deal, buy or rent a home in the district and you’re off to the races. They live in DC, the home in their district is just a permanent address.
States can’t overrule the constitution, which sets the explicit qualifications for the House of Representatives.
A state can’t make that more restrictive, by increasing the minimum age, increasing the length of citizenship, or restricting residency within the state.
Nearly all candidates do acquire residency in the district they’re seeking for legitimacy, but it’s not required.
I agree
And this is where you lose me. Making things more restrictive is literally the states’ entire job. They can’t nullify a constitutional or federal law, but they can add to it. They can’t remove or lessen the requirement for residency, because that would be an attempt at nullifying the constitution… But they can absolutely impose further restrictions.
No it isn't. The states' job is to create and enforce their own laws that are not explicitly granted to the federal government, nor explicitly prohibited to the States, in the Constitution per the 9th and 10th amendments.
Basically, the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list. If it isn't mentioned, then the default is that the right is retained by the people.
Explicitly states that as long as it isn't something explicitly granted to the Feds, or explicitly something the Constitution prohibits the States from (article II, Section 10 gives a list of things that the Constitution explicitly denies the States from having any power in), then the default is that the State controls it.
In this case, the qualifications of members of Congress are explicitly and solely granted to the federal government, through Article I, Section IV.
States themselves do not control Congressional elections. Anyone meeting the Constitutional qualifications (and filed all the correct Federal Election Commission paperwork, HAS to be allowed on the ballot.
And to your broader point, no they cannot just make things more restrictive. The Supremacy clause is explicit in that Federal law and the Constitution overrides ANY state law or restriction that is not what the Constitution itself states. You see state restrictions overturned by the Feds all the time because of this.
Laws aren't real
She says she is moving to the district because Rifle, Colorado is a shithole.
Wow, didn't think her and I would ever agree on anything.
Difference being she thinks it's a shit hole because they whine about how she "constantly food poisons everyone"
Maybe she can move out to beautiful Limon.