How the Constitution May Screw Rand Paul for 2016

[DonViejo]

Michael Tomasky

He’s up for reelection in 2016, and under Kentucky law, he can’t seek two offices. His solution? Ignore the law. That might not be so easy.

Rand Paul has a little-discussed problem. Yes, he’s riding a wave. Yet another new poll brings happy tidings, putting him at the top of the GOP heap in both Iowa and New Hampshire (although still well behind “undecided”). He keeps doing these clever things that titillate the Beltway sages, like coupling with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker (ooh, he’s black!) on sentencing reform. All this, you know. He’s a shrewdie, we have to give him that.

But here’s what you maybe don’t know. Paul is up for reelection in 2016. One assumes that he would want to hold on to his Senate seat. If he ran for president, he would hardly be the first person hoping to appear on a national ticket while simultaneously seeking reelection, although the other examples from the last 30 years have all been vice-presidential candidates: Paul Ryan in 2012, Joe Biden in 2008, Joe Lieberman in 2000, and… trivia question, who’s the fourth?

For those, it hadn’t been a problem. But it is for Paul, because under Kentucky law, he +cannot run for two offices at the same time. The law has been on the books in the Bluegrass State for a long time. Paul quietly asked that it be changed, and the GOP-controlled state senate acquiesced this past session. But the Democrats have the majority in the lower house, and they let the bill expire without voting on it. I would reckon, unless the Kentucky state house’s Democratic majority is possessed of a shockingly benevolent character unlike every other legislative majority I’ve ever encountered, it won’t be rushing to pass it.

Paul has said that he’d just ignore the law.

We should stop and pause to appreciate that: Rand Paul, of all people, arguing that states don’t have the authority to dictate the rules for federal elections. Yes, Mr. States’ Rights insists that this is the province of the federal government!

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/18/thanks-to-states-rights-rand-paul-might-not-run-for-president.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Laws are for 'the little people'. nt

[IronLionZion]

2. Mr. States Rights should resign from the Senate

and run for president and lose in a historic landslide.

[n2doc]

3. Poor poor baby n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. This should be loudly broadcasted, both, ...

in Kentucky, and nation-wide, as it if foreshadowing of the kind of president he would be ... "RP does like a law, he will simply ignore it."

[Cosmocat]

5. right

if he is the constitution/law loving person he makes himself out to be, he steps up and lets go of his senate seat to run for President.

[BobbyBoring]

7. Yeah! That's the ticket!

Get him out of the senate. Unless the Dems run Al Sharpton, Randy is unelectable. Hell, Al could even beat him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. But his not doing so ...

can lead to a Debate "Zinger" of epic proportions:

Debate topic: Anything related to laws or law and order ...

RP: "Blah, Blah, Blah ..."

Debate Opponent: It great to hear your respect for the law ... When did you develop it? Isn't it the law of Kentucky that one can't run for two offices, at one time? Are you announcing that you will be suspending your candidacy?

[former9thward]

17. At the link it says the exact opposite.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I didn't see that. eom.

[former9thward]

19. A court challenge is not exactly ignoring a law.

Paul kept open the possibility of mounting a court challenge, if necessary, if he decides to have his name on the Kentucky ballot for both races.
"We haven't really decided, but that is an option," he said.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. So how does that counter ...

His inability to run two races ... If he has to file suit to do so?

[former9thward]

22. The OP said he just was going to ignore the law.

Well clearly he is not. He feels the law is unconstitutional and will file a challenge to get it overturned. I think he has a point. Generally the Constitution has precedent over federal elections and both the President and U.S. Senator are federal elections. If there is nothing in the Constitution about not running for two offices at the same time, and there is not, the state law will probably be overturned.

[greatlaurel]

6. That is interesting.

I hope Kentucky does not change the law for him.

[talkguy365]

8. Archaic Law.

The working class is not asked to give up their job for a chance at receiving a promotion.

[Wounded Bear]

10. So are laws against murder...

They've been around awhile, too.

[talkguy365]

11. Apples to oranges.

Paul's team will work hard to find a loophole. Knowing lawyers they'll find one.

[BrotherIvan]

12. Um..wouldn't it make sense?

Let's say hypothetically he won both , wouldn't the people who voted for him as Senator have been duped?

[talkguy365]

13. A good question for the people of Delaware.

They experienced a double win campaign for VP and Senator Joe Biden.

[Jim Lane]

14. Kentucky Democrats should reconsider

I think the Democratic Party and the country as a whole would benefit from a Rand Paul candidacy in the primaries -- and would benefit even more if he were to win the Republican nomination.

Paul as a contender for the nomination gets his followers fired up about his libertarian approach, gets them angry at the GOP establishment, and makes them more likely to cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate in 2016.

I really can't see him winning the nomination. The polls are misleading because he's probably nobody's second choice. Even if he's the initial leader, as other, more conventional Republicans drop out, their supporters will switch to someone similar. Among Bush, Christie, Cruz, Huckabee, Kasich, Perry, and Ryan, for example -- just to dream up one possible clown-car composition -- almost all the people supporting one of those candidates would, upon that candidate's withdrawal, go to one of the others on the list, not to Paul.

If, however, he were to get the nomination, that would be a real boon to the Democrats. Paul would be one of the weakest possible GOP candidates in the general election.

[Hoppy]

15. The only way this bites Aqua-Budda-man in the ass is if the dems

file suit to get his name off of the state ballots.

[former9thward]

16. Your link says he would challenge it in court.

Nothing about ignoring it.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. He could get around it by registering that critter on top of his head as one of the candidates?

[davidpdx]

23. Just to play devil's advocate here for a second. I'm in no way on Paul's side,

but there is an interesting question afoot. Presidential candidates have to first form an exploratory committee and then once they reach the threshold they have to file the paperwork with the FEC. Is that the point where he would be locked out of running for senate?

It seems like many of the presidential candidates campaign well before the primaries and then drop out once they find out that there isn't a chance in hell they'd run. Say Paul dropped out after Iowa. Kentucky's primary isn't until May (if I remember correctly it is the same day as the Oregon primary). The question would be then, when is the filing deadline for Kentucky to run in the Senate.