The companion bill, SB2616, had already passed the Tennessee Senate.
*
This legislation could also be challenged in court, however. Many constitutional attorneys would argue that the proposed residency law would be found unconstitutional if challenged in federal court Their main argument is they predict that the courts would simply point to the precedent of the Arkansas term limits case, which was decided 5-4 with justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.
State Senator Frank Niceley has consistently pointed out that in his dissent on that case, Scalia said, “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each state of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the people in other states.”
They really should have waited until closer to the election to spring this one. You know a judge will declare it un-constitutional (whether it is or not) and put a stay to the law allowing the candidates to be elected/installed. What I find cute is that a lot of people think the Constitution matters anymore under this regime.
ReplyDeleteI bet the carpetbagger that was planning a run for congress is upset. I read something about her before the election. I bet she re-locates to another state to try the waters again.
ReplyDeleteBy the time the challenge to this law makes it to the SCOTUS I fully expect the makeup of that court to have changed and become even more liberal than it already is. And since a law like this makes it more difficult for the commie left to carpetbag and pack political offices with their selected candidates I have zero doubt it will the court will pan this law.
ReplyDeleteWhat upsets me, is that we even have to put laws like this on the books.
ReplyDeleteThe over arching reason being the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the average person. Given the potential problems (we are all living through now), there really should be some sort of means testing for voters. If you're too stupid to draw conclusions and ignorant to understand the issues, you really shouldn't get a say in the matter.
Do you let your dentist make cardiac decisons? Does your mechanic cook your meals? Not that they aren't good people, just not who you want in that role.
At last! Someone like me that believes voting should be restricted to people with at least half a brain! Further limit it to people that have contributed to our society in some way (military service, peace corps, some type of volunteer to help community, etc.) and pass a civics test so you know how our government is supposed to work.
DeleteThe constitution is NOT silent on this at ALL. Read the 10th Amendment "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."
ReplyDeleteThe 10th is VERY CLEAR. What seems to be most misunderstood (or more likely ignored) is our constitution is a limiting document NOT an "empowering" document. The 10th spells it out in no uncertain terms.
“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each state of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the people in other states.”
ReplyDeleteThis is why Scalia had to be killed.