The Iraqi forces are routing the invaders at Baghdad International Airport. They are killing their bodies and eating their flesh...
Keep talking Baghdad Bob. lol.
Congress can declare a President disqualified to hold any office of honor after they have convicted him in impeachment. That’s a power specifically given to them.
It has nothing to do with somebody failing to qualify for the Presidency in the first place, though, and just shows the difference between what Congress IS specifically allowed to do, versus what is never specifically assigned to them to do.
Again, for about the 20th time, show me where the Constitution gives similar specific authority for Congress to declare a President elect ineligible to be POTUS.
I’ve already shown you the statute that shows Congress does NOT have the authority to reject electoral votes simply because they think the person being voted for is ineligible. So the counting of the electoral votes, which is assigned to Congress in the Constitution, has NOTHING to do with them determining eligibility or giving any kind of approval for the President elect but only Congress acknowledging that the electoral votes were certified by the States.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/instantiation
Then read:
Reasoning with Law -- By Andrew Halpin
Congress can declare a President disqualified to hold any office of honor after they have convicted him in impeachment. That’s a power specifically given to them.
Not enumerated. Instantiated. Sometimes an enumeration (actually quite often) also instantiates.
By enumerating Congresses duties, The U.S Constitution has instantiated certain other duties that result as a direct consequence.
So every time you thought you posted your proof and my refutation, you provided an example of an instantiated power that for political reasons, you cannot recognize.
Every time you feel like arguing this, please go back and re-read everything I've said because I have nothing else to add except:
You forfeited the argument for calling me a Liberal shill. You've proven that your argument is driven by political belief rather than simple reading comprehension and logic 101.
Oh, and remember that Judicial Review outcome of Marbury vs. Madison where the SCOTUS assumed the power of judicial review -- did so on the basis of instantiation. Are you advocating that SCOTUS instantiated another duty as a direct result of a previous instantiation? While not an unreasonable stance, in this particular case, it would impede State and Congressional enumerations.
However, instantiated powers [as opposed to enumerated] are expected to be impeded because they are often born of political consequence. Which is the case of the Birther movement.