I like that idea. In the off years, you could make it an optional day of service(with pay), or the person can skip work, and just have an unpaid day off.
My best friend's mom lives in NC. She was going to be out of town on election day, so she asked for an absentee ballot, and jumped through all the hoops to get one sent to her (proof of absenteeism, etc). For some inexplicable / inexcusable reason, they didn't tell her about early voting at that time. Once she got the absentee ballot and found out about the hoops to get it sent back and counted (multiple witnesses, etc), she did some more research and found out about early voting, so that's what she did instead.
Based on that, and other electoral shenanigans that she saw (not even in NC-9!), she says that next time, she's going to put a sign on her yard, offering free rides to early voting.
The relevant clause of Article II, Section I reads:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nothing more about who is eligible for the office.
Again IANAL, but that cause seems to apply to persons who are "eligible" to the office of POTUS (i.e. those who are merely candidates for the office, as opposed to those candidates who are ultimately successful, and go on to become "office holders".) Do the financial disclosure requirements apply to candidates for the office? If so, how do those requirements pass constitutional muster? Have they ever been challenged?
If this has all been cut and dried in the past then yeah, it seems like adding tax returns to the financial disclosure requirement would be no problemo. But the constitution doesn't say anything like "No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, who has not submitted personal financial information and tax returns for the previous ten years."
I just wonder (out of ignorance, perhaps) how and by what mechanism we're getting past that seeming discrepancy.
On edit: I have the same concern when discussing potential legislation imposing Congressional term limits. It adds another qualification to the offices, and those qualifications are exclusively delineated by the constitution, as far as I can tell.
The Arrogant Worms! See Carrot Juice is Murder
No more pantsuits! True ladies wear dresses!
And macaroni has elbows!!1!1
Birkenstocks? I weave my footwear out of yoghurt.
I like that idea. In the off years, you could make it an optional day of service(with pay), or the person can skip work, and just have an unpaid day off.
You only think that's a joke.
I read "vole" and "beer", and immediately thought of vole fights at Quark's.
My best friend's mom lives in NC. She was going to be out of town on election day, so she asked for an absentee ballot, and jumped through all the hoops to get one sent to her (proof of absenteeism, etc). For some inexplicable / inexcusable reason, they didn't tell her about early voting at that time. Once she got the absentee ballot and found out about the hoops to get it sent back and counted (multiple witnesses, etc), she did some more research and found out about early voting, so that's what she did instead.
Based on that, and other electoral shenanigans that she saw (not even in NC-9!), she says that next time, she's going to put a sign on her yard, offering free rides to early voting.
I’M THE DRUMMER!
Are you trying to pick up Robyn? ;-)
Yes, I'd like to see a federal holiday called "Civic Fucking Duty Day, Asshole" to fall on the first Tuesday in November of every year.
'Course after that, Republicans would probably try to move elections to Mondays, first chance they get.
ACK! VEGGIE Rights!!!!1!!1! Who speaks for the innocent carrot? The oppressed eggplant? The ostracized asexual Sweet Potato??
The relevant clause of Article II, Section I reads:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nothing more about who is eligible for the office.
Again IANAL, but that cause seems to apply to persons who are "eligible" to the office of POTUS (i.e. those who are merely candidates for the office, as opposed to those candidates who are ultimately successful, and go on to become "office holders".) Do the financial disclosure requirements apply to candidates for the office? If so, how do those requirements pass constitutional muster? Have they ever been challenged?
If this has all been cut and dried in the past then yeah, it seems like adding tax returns to the financial disclosure requirement would be no problemo. But the constitution doesn't say anything like "No person shall be eligible to the Office of President, who has not submitted personal financial information and tax returns for the previous ten years."
I just wonder (out of ignorance, perhaps) how and by what mechanism we're getting past that seeming discrepancy.
On edit: I have the same concern when discussing potential legislation imposing Congressional term limits. It adds another qualification to the offices, and those qualifications are exclusively delineated by the constitution, as far as I can tell.
~hugs~
I think they should move election day to Saturday. Or it should be an official paid day off federal holiday on the first Tues. of November.
> If the American voter actually paid attention to the issues
FTFY
Or maybe a biennial NASCAR super-event?
The cut of your jib, I like it.