Yeah, heaven help him if he goes hiking the Appalachian Trail. 
Doesn’t that also apply to anywhere in West Virginia?
Doesn’t seem like an impeachable offense to me. In this day and age, your ability to perform the duties of your job aren’t as limited by where you happen to be at any given moment than they used to be.
Under this theory, why does he have to be in West Virginia? Can he not get emails and text messages anywhere in the world?
I can see three very good solutions:
-
Require each governor starting with the next one to actually keep their primary family home in Charleston - if they have kids then the kids must go to school in Charleston, the works. But you can’t slap a new requirement on an incumbent governor.
-
Change the law to suit modern reality.
-
Ignore the whole thing as insignificant.
AND, the most important part of what I’m saying: as long as they consistently do any one of the above, it doesn’t matter which one, and if it matters to anyone else, unless they themselves are running for governor then it’s them with the problem.
I don’t see a separation of powers problem. I just see an issue with standing. For it to go to court, some actionable harm needs to be alleged. And, without a case, the courts have no power to do anything.
That said, if there was an actual harm caused by the breaking of a legal requirement, I could definitely see the court being able to issue an order, and it would apply equally to everyone: the head of the executive branch is not above the law.
In that case, my response would be “if the legislature thinks the law is outdated, then they should vote to remove it.” As long as it exists, the judicial branch can make a decision compelling someone to follow the law.
Why not?
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” ~ Chief Justice John Marshall: Marbury v Madison
Seems to me the W.Va. constitution constitutes law so why is it not in the purview of the courts to decide what it means if it is vague?
Mind you I agree this is a silly law and seriously outdated and the person bring the lawsuit is just being a nuisance but if it is the law, no matter how dumb, then why shouldn’t a court interpret it?
The same reason you (personally) shouldn’t be prosecuted for every single thing you’ve ever done that was legally questionable.
Sure…and a DA will decide whether or not to file case against me. But if they do decide to do so then a court needs to sort it out.
Because in certain matters, the courts have decided that certain things are “political questions” that are best left to the other branches of government.
For example:
The Court has said that it won’t touch this one. That a “Republican Form of Government” is to be decided by Congress because, in part, getting involved in this question will cause tremendous separation of power issues.
I think likewise, telling the Governor where he must place his head at night or which couch he sits upon would be equally invasive. Again, it does not mean that he is above the law. The Legislature may impeach and remove him from office if it believes his conduct is sufficiently egregious.
This is what makes no sense to me. The court just decided it won’t hear certain cases.
Imagine California changed its constitution to institute a monarchy and named Nancy Pelosi as queen for life which will then inherit to her children.
You are telling me the Supreme Court would say, “Nope, we don’t do republican form of government questions because reasons…sort it out yourselves.”
I can certainly understand the court not imposing a government on California in such a case but I think it is perfectly reasonable for the court to tell California the government it has does not pass muster under the US constitution, come up with something else.
If the citizens of California had no recourse to the courts what recourse would they have? Insurrection?
If a court did that, then the remedy is meaningless. Justice could go to the DMV, change his address to the Governor’s Mansion and still stay every night in Lewisburg. That would be A ruling, but one that satisfies nobody. Best just to stay out of it, no?
The Constitution is based in large part upon the idea that people will follow democratic norms and be reasonable in their own self-government. It has been suggested that the Supreme Court should get involved in proportionality for criminal punishment lest a state provide life imprisonment for parking tickets or that an overturning of Roe would allow for a one child per family policy.
If we have people enacting that kind of stuff, we have larger problems than those of constitutional interpretation. I don’t think that in any parallel universe that California will enact such a scheme. If it does, then changing the political question doctrine to allow Court supervision of California would be the least of our worries.
Saying that a court should not get involved in a gubernatorial residential requirement is not even in the same ballpark as dismantling a monarchy.
No one said it was. But you used “republican form of government” as an example of something the Court would not touch. So you are the one who said that they would not intervene if a state chose to set up a monarchy.
You brought it up, and now you’re saying it’s not relevant.
I still say the argument is merely one of standing. Anything else in the constitution is fair game. They can choose not to go after something, but then that’s just their choice.
There are no separation problems as long as the Court only does what it is allowed to do, and doesn’t try to take on powers that are constitutionally given to the other branches.
The court has the power to, as the consequence of a case, compel any citizen to follow the law. If the law is one that the people don’t support, then the proper remedy is to have the legislature repeal it, not claim there is a separation of powers problem when the Constitution says no such thing.
How does that work. My understanding is you owe tax to the state you work in, not reside in. If you live in Carson City NV and work in So Lake Tahoe CA you pay California state taxes.
It would impact physical presence states if you are telecommuting. Most states tax on where the work was actually done. If you’re telecommuting, that would be the state in which you reside. If you claim residence in Texas, then no taxes due.
It’s actually really complicated depending upon your state. The base is usually something like this. You pay taxes on all money made out of state to that state. You also pay taxes on all of the money you earn to your resident state. Typically, the state you reside in gives you credit for taxes paid in another state. So for instance, if you’re in New Mexico and you work in Texas, you would not pay any Texas state taxes because Texas doesn’t have an income tax, New Mexico though would tax you on your entire income. It also complicates due to reciprocal agreements. For instance, my state is West Virginia and we have reciprocal agreements with every bordering state that our residents don’t pay any taxes to those states if they work there and pay all of their taxes to us. Similarly, their residents don’t pay any WV state taxes and pay all of their taxes to their state of residence. This only applies to our 5 border states, so if someone from say North Carolina works in WV, they would owe WV state tax, and likely North Carolina would allow them to deduct what they paid WV from their North Carolina tax bill.