Replies

Really?

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”

The Constitution - not Congress - determines eligibility. The Constitution is the supreme law, questions of law are decided judicially.

The only opinion I'm stating is that SCOTUS would duck the controversy. All SCOTUS would have to do is expound on the part of the 20th amendment that says "If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified," and explain that the question of qualification is one for Congress to decide.

I understand your argument, my opinion is that SCOTUS would reject your argument.

The Constitution - not Congress - determines eligibility. The Constitution is the supreme law, questions of law are decided judicially.

I've come to a realization. The constitution is not the supreme law. That would be "natural law"; The philosophy underpinning our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

Our founders did not appeal to the 1787 US Constitution as the authority for what they did, they appealed to the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God.

The Document that CREATED US citizenship, (The Declaration of Independence) was an absolute rejection of British Law, because there was no provision under British law to allow for what they did.

The Declaration of Independence created an independent government, and it was our governing document till the 1781 articles of confederation became the new governing document.

The point is, All authority for all these documents comes from the inherent rights of man as espoused by the philosophy of natural law.