We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

New answers tagged

1

You asked whether 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits aliens from voting for state legislators. As usual, the answer is: It depends. In this case, it depends on whether there are candidates for federal office on the ballot. 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits aliens from voting in elections that include candidates for a federal office. So if there is no federal candidate on ...


8

TL;DNR: Madison, Hamilton, Justice Harlan & Justice Scalia agree with you. Justice Black does not. You raise an interesting question. As you point out, the Qualifications Clause, Art I, § 2.1, (those who vote for the House of Representatives “in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State ...


1

I think there is some confusion here between unconstitutional and just plain unlawful. Even leaving aside whether the President needs to order the Attorney General to perform the investigative steps, with respect to the various election issues that have arisen the current Administration, there have been significant potential problems with existing law. If ...


0

Clause 1 The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators. It’d be this one.


1

You asked: Suppose a President can see that such a vote is coming and will pass, shortly before an election. Can that President resign just before the vote in order to effectively avoid the disqualification penalty? Then I asked Are you considering a resignation before the Senate votes on whether to convict, or after that vote but before a second vote ...


4

"Conflict of interest" has a specific meaning w.r.t. various federal laws, which have financial gain as their underpinning. The so-called conflict which your referring to is an abstract moral duty, eforced at the polls every few years: there is no conflict of interest. "Obstruction of justice" is defined in 18 USC 73. The law does not require a person to ...


0

So, in cases of investigating election fraud, why couldn't the White House investigate campaign issues (involving the Ukraine, Clintons, and Bidens), regardless of any perceived conflict of interest? How is it unconstitutional for a President to investigate election fraud? Because that office doesn’t have that power - the Attorney General does. If ...


0

The case of William Belknap indicates that impeachment and trial need not end with the resignation. He was impeached by the House after his resignation, and was tried and acquitted by the Senate (largely because some of the Senators didn't feel they had jurisdiction any longer). I'm assuming the reason the trial was held was so Belknap might be disqualified ...


3

The true answer is this is fundamentally unclear and ratification would definitely set up for a Supreme Court showdown. The Supreme Court would in my opinion need to resolve 3 issues: Are Congressionally imposed deadlines in resolutions proposing an amendment to the States for ratification binding? Does a state withdrawal of its ratification of an ...


-1

So yes, the combination of the deadline and the withdrawl of support would mean that the 75%+ threshhold has yet to be crossed by whatever deficit is required (where there three more states needed, prior to the sunset and repeals of approval? Or would the two states that passed recently plus Virginia close that gap? Your math is rather fuzzy in how many ...


-1

As the Wikipedia entry says, the Constitution does not say whether a state can rescind it's ratification. No one can say otherwise until the matter goes to court, if it does. Whether that counts would ultimately be up to a judge.


5

This is technically an open question, but there is a general consensus that Consovoy's argument is unprecedented and unsupportable. If the president can be dragged into civil litigation over private matters in the middle of his presidency, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), it seems unlikely that the courts would give him a pass on prosecution for a ...


1

The question is very simple: It is short, but not simple. Often short, seemingly simple questions have the most complex answers. The First Amendment itself has only 45 words governing six separate rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...


1

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990), holding that the Fourth Amendment does not "appl[y] to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country," may have shed some light on this issue (while by no means this is conclusive on the issue of First Amendment protection ...


4

Speech of foreign nationals is not treated the same as that of citizens. In the case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of various statutory limits on campaign spending. Some parts of the law were upheld, others were overturned in 1st Amendment grounds. They upheld limits on contributions to candidates and ...


3

Yes, depending on the local registration laws of the country in question, when you have a residence in that country. You can also be a resident of multiple countries under the same conditions. You can also be considered a non- resident citizen of your own country. In the European Union, Residence Laws are national laws only for periods up to 3 months ...


2

Presumably you are asking a legal question and not hoping to generate opinionated discussion. In which case, it matters what country we are talking about. In the US, there is a legal concept "lawful permanent resident" which you can apply for (if you are legally here, reside here for 5 years, and are of good moral character). This comes with a number of ...


9

The Supreme Court considered and rejected some related interpretations in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The entire opinion, and the dissents, are well worth reading, if you wish to get a clearer understanding of how the Court has most recently interpreted the Second Amendment. A few specific comments: "The Second Amendment protects ...


2

If a supreme court judge makes a sentence It wouldn't be a Supreme Court Judge, it would be the Supreme Court Justices, they have to come to a majority decision. a sentence which violates the constitution The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court so the conclusions they come to become "the law of the land" (I use that phrase loosely). Can ...


Top 50 recent answers are included