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

[email protected]

128

Lauren Boebert says she'll seek office in a different congressional district in 2024 (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Boebert said in a Facebook video that she intends to seek office in Colorado's 4th Congressional District, which covers the Eastern Plains, currently represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Buck. Buck said last month that he won't seek reelection in 2024, due to the Republican Party's support of former President Donald Trump and, what he called an embrace of conspiracy theories. He's represented the district since 2015.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

States can’t overrule the constitution

I agree

A state can’t make that more restrictive

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

And this is where you lose me. Making things more restrictive is literally the states’ entire job.

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.

IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to 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.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

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.