An Election Challenge Part III

Part III

In Part I there was presented an "-atmosphere and background' supportive that the election code and practices of administration of elections which provide undue restrictions upon candidates , with processes unchallenged, and thus maintained.

In Part II, there is a specific set circumstances leading to "removal from the Primary ballots"- of one candidacy by means and methods that not only removes the candidate's name from the ballot but prohibits him from registering, under separate party or unaffiliated, and further participation in the General election to be held on November 7, 2008.

In Part III, the Petitioners are not asking the Court to "interpret state law"- but to apply the same measure of facts that created controversy that resulted in the removal of the "name from ballots"- as not compatible and acceptable under the Equal protection clause, prohibited by the limitations of the reserved rights upon the States, and contrary to the fundamental due process right of judicial review..

In the United States there exist concurrent powers. These are powers held by both the states and the federal government. These powers also have limitations and restrictions under the Constitution.The powers may be exercised simultaneously within the same territory and in relation to the same body of citizens. This is contrasted with delegated and reserve powers. Some of the concurrent powers enjoyed by both the federal and state governments are: the power to tax, make roads, protect the environment, create lower courts and borrow money.

The foundation of the states' concurrent powers is a trusim: the Tenth Amendment to the United States:

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.

Amendment X, United States Constitution

The rights granted to the States are no more than a showing of a relationship between

a national government in a declaratory manner allaying fears against a centralized tyranny. By inclusion in the Constitution, it offered no more nor any less than the states exercise those powers fully, but not in any prohibition.

" The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." Raich v. Gonzales, Opinion of Justice OConnor in dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas.

This delicate relationship between the federal and state governments, and the judicial branches thereof, are basic to our system of Federalism. And there is strong interest to ensure that the rights of the States, as individual states with the traditional autonomy to administer elections for the Federal and state offices free to interpret state laws

governing elections, and maintaining the core functions for the general welfare and peace without interference by the federal courts.

Justice O'Connor in New York v. United States modeled a classic structure:

States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead "leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6