All things Colorado
Let’s go Nuggets! 2023 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
Go Avs Go! 2022 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
Rules
Said it before and I will say it again. Politicians should be required to live in the area of which they are holding office.
Most states already require it from what I know. It’s just not a big deal, buy or rent a home in the district and you’re off to the races. They live in DC, the home in their district is just a permanent address.
States can’t overrule the constitution, which sets the explicit qualifications for the House of Representatives.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
A state can’t make that more restrictive, by increasing the minimum age, increasing the length of citizenship, or restricting residency within the state.
Nearly all candidates do acquire residency in the district they’re seeking for legitimacy, but it’s not required.
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.
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.
Laws aren't real
She says she is moving to the district because Rifle, Colorado is a shithole.
Wow, didn't think her and I would ever agree on anything.
Difference being she thinks it's a shit hole because they whine about how she "constantly food poisons everyone"
Maybe she can move out to beautiful Limon.
Say it with me, she is a capetbagger. She abandons her district, her home town, and all it's people to jump into a 27 point advantage for Republicans in district 4.
Pathetic carpetbagger.
Lauren Boebert should just seek out OnlyFans at this point.
Why is she always in the news? Because she's pretty? Who TF cares about some lady in Colorado and what her future plans are?
Because she's loud and crazy. It's deliberately her strategy to always be in the news cycle
Well, you are in a Colorado community, so it is a fair bet that we would care about “some lady in Colorado”.
I'm not subscribed to the Colorado Community on Lemmy, I was browsing by "Everything," which is why I wonder why the media/algorithms are giving her so much attention.
You’re not subscribed, but it would do you well to be aware of where you are when you post.
Here are my thoughts in no particular order:
I spent 3rd to 5th grades in Colorado so hi I can belong here too if I want.
Why are you defending Lauren boebert, do you have something going on with her, or wish you did?
Would you really like to argue about this? No one said you are not welcome. Actually, I encourage you to join us.
Because she was previously in a “safe” seat, so she was free to be as loud and crazy as she wanted. The party tacitly supported her (and others like her) because she makes the rest of the party look moderate in comparison. It allows the party to push hard right policies, then go “well at least we aren’t as crazy as Boebert, so this is a moderate bill and the democrats should compromise with us and pass it.”
Do people think she's pretty? 🤮🤮
@LemmyKnowsBest @mawkishdave As the newspapers used to say, "If it bleeds it leads", and she bleeds embarrassment, idiocy and controversy every day. The media loves her because she's a dipshit.
Literally moving the goal posts
@mawkishdave I hear she'll be canvassing door to door
#BoboShitShow #RepublicansAreTheProblem
I wish I lived in that area that would be fun to answer the door for her.