CRJ 330 Law and Courts: Summer II 2020

Student’s Name

Institution

Submission Date

CRJ 330 Law and Courts: Summer II 2020-Age limit Regulation for Running Public Office

Critical Analysis Activity 1

Question 1

Following the regulation of barring people with 60 years and above from running for public offices, Montana’s state senator has a lot of reasoning to portray to challenge the constitutionality of the existing law. First, the state senator will have to prove that his experience is an asset that can help run the county affairs. The limitation of vying for a seat at the age of 60 years and above can be reversed if the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that his skills and experience in running the public is something that citizens would need in solving issues affected them. Hence, the senator can argue that his experience can bring a greater good to help the people in his region.

Also, the senator has to prove that the current regulation does not specify concerning re-election. A loophole may exist in the new Montana regulation concerning running for public offices at the age of 60 and above. For example, the constitution may have failed to indicate on the matter of re-election and those who attain 60 years of age while in office. In this case, if the senator can prove that he attained 60 years while in office and that the regulation does not clarify on that, he may get a re-way by the court to commence on vying for the re-election.

Question 2

The best argument for the former non-minority member is that, at the inception of the New York Political Party to promote political power for minorities, membership was open to all. The condition for becoming a member of the newly formed party indicated that "membership in the party was open to any voter who pledged to vote only for candidates nominated by the party.” In this case, the former non-minority member can argue that his dismissal from the party was unfair because the only condition of becoming a member was that one had to pledge his/her loyalty to the party and vote for the candidate endorsed by the party. Since former non-minority member meets this minimum requirement, he can prove that his dismissal was unfair and unconstitutional based on the party's policies.

In its defense, New York can argue that the party was formed primarily for the minority groups. In its conceptualization, New York wanted a party that can boost political say of the minority grounds. Hence, being a non-minority member, the claimant does not have a right to be a party member is a group comprising only the minority people.

I think the Former non-minority member may prevail because the formation of the part and admission of members does not stipulate that only minority members can join. In fact, the terms of being a member only require one to have loyalty and ensure to vote for the person endorsed by the party at a political content.

Question 3

a)

GET THE WHOLE PAPER!