Replies

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?

I gave a bad reference. But a little effort with google and bing and you'll find all you need. Instantiate means "bring into existence" [paraphrased]. It just means that certain responsibilities are born from a given enumerated power or the consequences thereof.

Example of instantiated powers of the President as a result of an enumerated power.

The pocket Veto. To neither approve nor disapprove of a bill while Congress is adjourned effectively kills the bill and removes the veto override ability of Congress.

Recess appointment. The Constitution say's the President can make appointments while Congress is in recess. Common reasoning tells us its so that the President always has the ability to appoint and is not impeded by Congress being in recess. Yet Presidents use this as a tool to make appointments without advice and consent (for at least a year) and it's perfectly Constitutional because it is an instantiated power.

AMENDMENT XX Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Section 3

and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.