Do you think the parts you struck out are extraneous and/or distracting or could otherwise cause resistance against a bill like this?
One of the things I struggled with was the feeling that folks would think these requirements are overkill, so I wanted to try to address that in the whereas part. Do you think people would understand the importance of the measures? The basic idea of these requirements is that a state could confirm eligibility in very straightforward cases, but if there were any wrinkles involving the definition of “natural born citizen” the Constitution gives the responsibility of interpreting to the courts so there has to be a legal bridge for the state to defer to the judiciary.
And based on the fiasco we’ve all observed there has to be a way for the people to force the AG to represent them; it can’t just be left to political discretion because that is precisely the unaccountable crap that has gotten us where we are today.
I don’t know. Maybe there doesn’t need to be anything to explain the vulnerabilities that need to be closed.
The CRS didn’t really talk about security clearances, but did say that the states are responsible for handling eligibility issues.
It is a common misperception that elected officials go through a security check before they are given critical responsibilities but my understanding is that they don’t. That’s based on what people who have had high-level security clearances have told me. Probably would be good to have more solid documentation on that. I wonder if somebody could help me on that. Where would I get definite confirmation of that?
Yes which is why I struck them out. If it's perceived as an attack on the Judiciary for failing to do their job, then legislators with friends in the Judiciary might balk.
I think you need to have as an external argument, why the courts aren't the solution. And there you can recap the difficulty people have had with getting thrown out before the election and then being told it's too late after the election.
I think another external argument is that Congress is not going to ever want to initiate a review of the credentials of a viable Presidential Candidate, because he already has significant popular support and such a move will anger that portion of a legislator's base. But a predefined process that occurs before a candidate is placed on a ballot is neutral, and doesn't require action by congress that would anger constituents.