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.
Before you accuse take a look at yourself. We could easily say, “You forfeited the argument by calling us birthers. You’ve proven that your argument is driven by political belief rather than simple reading comprehension and logic 101.”
The link you gave had no definition of instantiation so I looked it up through Google:
Definition of INSTANTIATE
: to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance “heroes instantiate ideals — W. J. Bennett”
— in·stan·ti·a·tion noun
Examples of INSTANTIATE
“his imposing mansion is intended to instantiate for visitors his staggering success as an entrepreneur”
First Known Use of INSTANTIATE
1949
Related to INSTANTIATE
Synonyms
body, epitomize, express, externalize, incarnate, incorporate, embody, manifest, materialize, personalize, personify, substantiate
Antonyms
disembody
Related Words
actualize, concretize, realize; exemplify, illustrate, image, objectify, symbolize, typify
So I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. You specifically claimed that the Constitution authorizes Congress to determine Presidential eligibility through the electoral vote-counting process. I showed you exact language, from the law which codifies the Constitution’s requirement and has been in effect for some time without having been declared unconstitutional, that said Congress MUST accept any electoral votes that are certified by the State. I then asked you to show where the law or Constitution contradicts that and says that Congress can refuse to accept electoral votes because the recipient of the votes is ineligible. And you come up with “instantiation”?
Please explain to me why “instantiation” nullifies what is in 3USC Section 15.
And please tell me why “instantiation” is required, in order for the judicial Power to “extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”. Seems to me that pretty clearly says that the job of the judiciary is to settle disputes over how the law should be applied in specific cases.
Regarding whether you are a “liberal shill”, I doubt that you were zotted because you were such a persuasive conservative. Every one of Obama’s paid agitators takes on the cover of being “conservative”. They’re known as “concern trolls”. It’s called trying to blend in wherever you are so that people will trust you. Van Jones has a doctrine about that.
What led me to call you a troll was your refusal to engage with the information and questions presented. Someone else mentioned your repetitive answers, as if just saying something over and over makes it true. I am more than happy to reason with anybody who will, but you have given no substantial answer to where Congress is ever authorized to reject electoral votes because they are for somebody ineligible. I have shown statutory language saying they have no choice in the matter of which votes to accept, as long as the votes are properly certified by each State. That’s pretty clear language, and the ball is in your court, to show why that law isn’t the real law of this land.
I’ll just add one thing to this. It could be said that Congress could object to electoral votes by saying that they are not properly certified if a State has a requirement that candidates be eligible and yet they certify electoral votes for an ineligible candidate. But lower courts have said that unless the state law requiring eligible candidates actually REQUIRES the SOS to get proof of eligibility, the States CAN’T do anything but accept the candidates’ (or candidates’ parties) claims of eligibility. If the States said that anybody and their dog can be on the ballot, then Congress HAS to accept electoral votes for anybody and their dog, if the State certifies that anybody and their dog won those electoral votes.
In Nebraska, the counsel for SOS John Gale told me that they could KNOW somebody was ineligible and both the candidate and the DNC people who certified his eligibility could be sitting in jail for committing perjury and election fraud for submitting that certification.... and the name would still have to go on the ballot. And 3USC Section 15 means that as long as that jailed person got enough votes in Nebraska, Congress would HAVE to accept those electoral votes. Where, in any of that, is the opportunity for anybody but the courts to ever disqualify an ineligible candidate?