Hypothetical

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

High-powered jet-setter global elite type is running for president. He's spent so much time traveling around the world, his opponents claim he's ineligible because he hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years. This becomes a major point of disagreement, and they file several lawsuits to have him removed from the ballot.

Is this the proper method for determining his eligibility? Trials in different states, or rulings by state officials? Or should they "let the voters decide?"

 

[ButHerEmails]

High-powered jet-setter global elite type is running for president. He's spent so much time traveling around the world, his opponents claim he's ineligible because he hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years. This becomes a major point of disagreement, and they file several lawsuits to have him removed from the ballot.

Is this the proper method for determining his eligibility? Trials in different states, or rulings by state officials? Or should they "let the voters decide?"

As far as I understand that part of the requirements, it says you had to have lived in the US for 14 years, but it doesn’t say “14 consecutive years” or “for the 14 years prior to running for president”. It just says “14 years”. I could see that being a point of contention for making an argument for said candidates eligibility.

Regarding the “let the voters decide” comment, if I understand correctly, members of the electoral college aren’t required to follow the popular vote of their state. If that’s true, even the founding fathers didn’t always want to “let the voters decide”.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

High-powered jet-setter global elite type is running for president. He's spent so much time traveling around the world, his opponents claim he's ineligible because he hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years. This becomes a major point of disagreement, and they file several lawsuits to have him removed from the ballot.

Is this the proper method for determining his eligibility? Trials in different states, or rulings by state officials? Or should they "let the voters decide?"

The issue has to be litigated. Use the removal and multi-district rules to have one federal case.

 

[NPT]

As far as I understand that part of the requirements, it says you had to have lived in the US for 14 years, but it doesn’t say “14 consecutive years” or “for the 14 years prior to running for president”. It just says “14 years”. I could see that being a point of contention for making an argument for said candidates eligibility.

Regarding the “let the voters decide” comment, if I understand correctly, members of the electoral college aren’t required to follow the popular vote of their state. If that’s true, even the founding fathers didn’t always want to “let the voters decide”.

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

I guess it comes down to the definition of "lived". If that person spends 75% of their time in another country I don't consider them living in the US. If they spend more time in the US than any other country (in other words they jump between other countries) then I don't know what to think.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The issue has to be litigated. Use the removal and multi-district rules to have one federal case.

Would it be fair to turn that into a generic rule, stated thus: For purposes of presidential eligibility, a candidate's appearance on the ballot should be determined on a nation-wide basis at a single, federal trial?

So, individual states shouldn't decide, but we also shouldn't leave it up to the voters. Does that sound right?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Would it be fair to turn that into a generic rule, stated thus: For purposes of presidential eligibility, a candidate's appearance on the ballot should be determined on a nation-wide basis at a single, federal trial?

So, individual states shouldn't decide, but we also shouldn't leave it up to the voters. Does that sound right?

I think the objective is correct. Not sure how we standardize the process of how to get there. Since congress has the authority to define federal court jurisdiction, maybe that is the way.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think the objective is correct. Not sure how we standardize the process of how to get there. Since congress has the authority to define federal court jurisdiction, maybe that is the way.

I'm not fussed about how we do it at the moment. I'm just trying to drill down to a best practices determination.

 

[Ohio Guy]

High-powered jet-setter global elite type is running for president. He's spent so much time traveling around the world, his opponents claim he's ineligible because he hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years. This becomes a major point of disagreement, and they file several lawsuits to have him removed from the ballot.

Is this the proper method for determining his eligibility? Trials in different states, or rulings by state officials? Or should they "let the voters decide?"

I honestly have no idea, but I wonder if his defense would point to where he pays state taxes. Even if you travel and work other places, you still have to declare a primary residency, correct?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I honestly have no idea, but I wonder if his defense would point to where he pays state taxes. Even if you travel and work other places, you still have to declare a primary residency, correct?

I wasn't really looking to litigate the residency issue. I was more interested in how we all think the issue should be resolved.

 

[Ladoga]

High-powered jet-setter global elite type is running for president. He's spent so much time traveling around the world, his opponents claim he's ineligible because he hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years. This becomes a major point of disagreement, and they file several lawsuits to have him removed from the ballot.

Is this the proper method for determining his eligibility? Trials in different states, or rulings by state officials? Or should they "let the voters decide?"

"Justice Story further explained that the fourteen-year residence requirement is not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.16"

 

[ButHerEmails]

I guess it comes down to the definition of "lived".

Hookers & blow on the regular?