Should the federal government adopt "resign to run" laws for the presidency?

We see bad-loser tantrums run amuck in the Senate. For a while, Bernie Sanders was doing so, but he got over it. Republicans Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and John McCain have never stopped in their fixation on retaliation against Republican voters and President Trump.

Many states have resign to run laws, meaning unless your term is ending and you barred from seeking re-election, you have to resign to run for a higher office in state government. This is to prevent 1.) officials neglecting their offices for the political campaign for a different office and 2.) to avoid the bad-loser retaliation tantrums as we see in Graham, Paul and McCain.

Should the federal government adopt "resign to run" laws for the presidency?

 

Only for senators.
They think they are the only "qualified" candidates.

Truly, I voted, "No".

 

You do know you just can not adopt rules of when and under what terms someone can run for US president without a constitutional amendment?

 

It sounds like someone is just very upset that some Republicans dared criticize DearLeaderTrump. He expected absolute party devotion to their glorious Supreme Leader.

 

Yes, probably anyway. How can Congress make reporting requirements when that is not in the Constitution? Isn't that unconstitutional?

 

Some states require a person resign a county or state office if running for any other country, state or federal office UNLESS their term is expiring when they would take office if they won. If the person loses they are out of a job.

Whenever someone from Congress (or a governor) runs for president, the essentially abandon their Congressional or governorship job for the campaign. This also allows piles of people to run solely to gain name-recognition knowing s/he has absolutely no chance of winning - meaning people hear little from each candidate. Next primary maybe there will be 40 Republicans and 50 Democrats running - meaning voters get to hear 57 seconds from each of them.

 

I don't think the federal government can do such a thing.
All elections are state elections and the Federal government has very little say in them.

 

The states can. They have plenary power to determine the method for allocating their electors.

 

Sorry the requirements to run for president is in the constitution and that over rule any added rules that the states might come up with.

See the long history of the federal constitution being supreme beginning with the question of states being or not being able to nullify federal laws within their borders that they do not care for.

 

No. The requirements to hold office is specified by the Constitution.

The states, on the other hand, were given by the constitution the power to allocate their electors any way they want, and determine that allocation by any means. Indeed, the states need not even hold an election and could, if they wanted, allocate their electors to their governor's favorite German Shepherd.

Thus, absent an amendment, the federal government has no power whatsoever to force people who want to run for one office while holding another resign from their current position.

 

Maybe we should have a policy of only having know-nothing idiots in government.

 

Sorry once more but the electors however they are appointed are free agents once they are appointed if they care to exercise that power no matter what the state laws are that try to limited who they can vote for.

Been any number of cases where an elector here and there had indeed broken his or her state laws on the subject of who to vote for and not once had anyone ever try to enforce those state laws or punish anyone for breaking them.

Nor for that matter can I see the Federal courts allowing someone to be removed from a presidency ballot due to some state added requirement to be able to run for president.

 

Not sure how you think this negates my point.

 

Simple state laws are not able to set conditions to run for the office of president over the constitution or force the federal electors to vote one way or another for that matter.

Take note in over two hundreds years it never been done also which might give you a hint that under our system it can not be done without a constitutional amendment.

 

The states don't have to hold an election for President. You can't be right.

There are no federal electors, and the state has the power to legally bind its electors to the election(if any) result.

 

Sorry but a google search will turn up any number of cases over the years of electors not following state laws in the matter of who they would vote for.

The electors can be force to take pledges to vote one way or the other but they still remain free agents and can break those pledges at will.

 

[/quote]
Aside from the fact that several states do indeed bind their leectors by law...
Why do you think any of this negates anything I said regarding the federal government not having the power to force term limits in state elections?

 

Aside from the fact that several states do indeed bind their leectors by law...
Why do you think any of this negates anything I said regarding the federal government not having the power to force term limits in state elections?[/QUOTE]

And those laws are toothless (while there are often penalties associated with those laws, they were struck down by the SC). If the state says vote for A and the elector votes for B, the vote for B stands and all the state can do with wave a fist in the air angrily.

 

Cite?

None of which has anything to do with my point re: a federal requirement that people running in a state election resign from their current office.

 

Ray v. Blair

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional

 

Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952),[1] is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a case on state political parties requiring of presidential electors to pledge to vote for the party's nominees before being certified as electors. It ruled that it is constitutional for states to allow parties to require such a pledge of their candidates for elector, and that it was not a breach of otherwise qualified candidates' rights to be denied this position if they refused the pledge. However, the violation of any pledge a faithless elector made was not at issue. It officially defined state electors as representatives of their respective states, not the federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_v._Blair

Looks like it doesn't speak to the issue.

 

But those laws can't be enforced.

 

Here's the ruling:


1. Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution. Pp. 343 U. S. 224-225.

2. Exclusion of a candidate in a party primary by a state or political party because such candidate will not pledge to support the party's nominees is a method of securing party candidates in the general election who are pledged to the philosophy and leadership of that party, and it is an exercise of the state's right under Art. II, § 1, to appoint electors in such manner as it may choose. United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, and Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, distinguished. Pp. 343 U. S. 225-227.

3. The Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring of a candidate for Presidential Elector in its primary a pledge to support the nominees of its National Convention. Pp. 343 U. S. 228-231.

4. The requirement of such a pledge does not deny equal protection or due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536, distinguished. P. 226, n 14.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/214/case.html


I don't see where the court says the laws and the penalties attached to same cannot be enforced. It does not appear if that issue was before the court.

 

This statement is taken out of context. It refers directly to the 12th Amendment argument that states cannot require electors to take the pledge (issue #3 noted in the ruling) ; in no way does it refer to the enforcement of penalties laid upon an unfaithful elector because the question of said penalties are not before the court.

 

Only with a constitutional amendment (which I would ask my congressman not to support). Congress cannot adopt such laws without an amendment.