But they can. In this case, it would be the legislature passing a law stating that, in their state, the SoS has that authority.
The question is that if we have a higher law that says "Only X has authority" can X cede that authority to someone else? I assert, No.
I think they can. I think what the Constitution says is that the federal government is delegating the decision of who can do X to the state
legislatures and doesn't specifically mean they are the only ones who can
do X.
So the legislatures pass laws that the office they delegate such decisions
to must follow. That way the legislature tells the office what they can
and cannot do while doing X, while the legislature doesn't have to get down
in the weeds or get their hands dirty.
If it does litterally mean that only the legislature can ever do X, I have no idea how states would ever get things done. Legislatures are not really
built for making granular, day-to-day case-by-case decisions like these.
Since the U.S. Constitution is above Colorado law and the U.S. Constitution says only the state Legislatures have authority, I assert that the state Legislature cannot pass a law that the SoS has authority since thath would violate the U.S. Constitution.
I think it means the legislature gets to decide how it is done in their
state, and not that only they can do it, but we will find out soon enough.
I don't know
about your state, but here our legislature is not in session the whole year like Congress is, so they delegate things to elected officials who do actually work the entire year.
There's a difference between "We assign this task to you" and "We are giving you some of our authority independent of us".
Ex: Only the Legislature can make laws. Now, if the EPA wants to make up a se
or rules, they can do that, but those rules cannot have the force of law behin
them until the Legislature make those rules law. In many cases, this has not been done.
Remember "We have to pass the law to know what's in it"? The "law" passed was
effectively "We give the Bureaucracy authority to make law", which is unconstitutional.
In the case of Kentucky, the legislature would have passed the law and the
SoS would be following that law. I suspect it is the same in Colorado and Maine also... the law would include a stipulation that the candidates must be (US) Constitutionally eligible to hold the Federal Office in question, and
the SoS may remove any candidates who do not meet those requirements.
So the SoS would not be "making law" here but following it. Now, the
QUESTION is did the Maine SoS properly FOLLOW the law? I think that is
where the courts will find issue with her actions.
In the case of Colorado, the SoS wasn't really involved until the Court
told the SoS that it was their duty to remove a candidate who didn't
qualify to be included on the ballot per Colorado law. In this case, the SCOTUS will decide if they acted correctly, or if they mis-interpreted the Constitutional eligibility requirement (possibly due to lack of
jurisdiction and/or due process).
Government angencies cannot pass laws,
But they, in effect, do. They make rules that have the force of law behind them without the Legislature approving them.
In this case, I don't think they did. The SoS didn't "pass" a law
specifically removing Trump from their ballot. They interpreted a law,
which they are duty bound to follow, that gave them the authority to remove someone who they believe is not Constitutionally eligible to hold office.
The issue is whether or not the SoS properly interpreted and enforced an existing law(s).
In the case of Kentucky, the SoS is not an appointed Bureaucrat. They are a state constitutional officer and are elected.
Same here in Michigan. But the SoS is part of the Executive Branch and constitutionally prohibited from making or changing law.
Correct. But they are also duty bound to interpret and uphold any laws
that relate to the duties of their office. They take an oath to do so.
In our case, the state constitution clearly states that only the Legislature has authority to make voting rules. Yet the SoS changed and added voting rule
without the Legislature.
If that is the case, the Michigan Legislature should take action.
And here in Michigan, at least, the SoS, AG and Gov are all part of the same Elitist group. The Gov dictates to the SoS and the AG refuses to prosecute th
crimes.
Then that is certainly a problem. If someone would file suit against them,
and get it appealed high enough, something might change.
No but I am at least familiar with how things work in my state. There is some Elitist or, at least, good ole D boy stuff that used to go on, and now there is starting to be some equally-stupid UMAGA stuff going on.
Then I suggest reading up on Saul Alinsky since the Elitists seem to be following his playbook. One of the things he espoused was to dress up as your
opponent and do bad things.
Could be, but then I would not expect them to be dressing up as Republicans while becoming vindictive against things that Democrats like, like abortion
and gay marriage. I would expect the Elitist to dress as Republicans and
then embrace these things. Since that is not what is happening, I am
pretty sure it is UMAGA, and not Elitist, crap.
* SLMR 2.1a * Okay, I pulled the pin. Now what? Where are you going?
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)