Congress certifies the election through a 'negative affirmation' process. Meaning if they do not assert and successfully challanged the election, then the election stands.
If they feel they made a mistake, they have a remedy, and that remedy doesn't entangle the U.S judicial system and SCOTUS into a political cat and dog fight. Oh, and that remedy is impeachment.
In other words, they could find someone born with foreign allegiance owed to be eligible or not.
USCON A1 S8 4th clause:
To establish an [SIC] uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
What is the difference between "Uniform Rule" and "Uniform Law"? Here apparently the USCON distinguishes between the two? I say a "rule" is something less than a law, but more than a procedure
You’re ignoring my post to you. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the responsibiltiy of determining eligibility of elected CONGRESS members, but where does it similarly give Congress that authority for a PRESIDENT?
The certification of the electoral vote is certification that each state’s electoral votes was duly counted and the final result was such-and-so.
Here are the direct words of the 12th Amendment pertaining to this: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President... and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed”
The 20th Amendment says that a President elect who has failed to qualify as of the start of the term shall not “act as President”. A person cannot be President elect without having the required majority of electoral votes, so the failure to qualify cannot be because they didn’t have enough electoral votes. As long as they have those they are to be President. But they cannot ACT as President if they are disqualified. The QUALIFICATIONS to be President are thus independent of the electoral vote that CHOSE one as President. The QUALIFICATIONS are that they be a natural born US citizen, at least 35 years old, and have resided in the US for at least 14 years.
Nowhere in either the Constitution or its 12th or 20th Amendments is Congress given the responsibility to determine whether the President elect has QUALIFIED. In order for it to be a political question, as you have claimed, the Constitution has to specifically say that a political body is tasked with the job. The Constitution specifically tasked Congress to determine eligibility of its members. Where does it similarly task Congress with determining the eligibility of the President? If it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t do it, and this CANNOT be a “political question”.
All cases and controversies resulting from the Constitution are automatically the responsibility of the judicial branch unless the Constitution specifically gives the task to somebody else. So unless you can come up with specific words where the Constitution gives the task to somebody else, the judiciary is the proper place for the qualifications of the President elect to be decided.
Of course you are correct.
No matter what "high crimes and misdemeanors" the man has been shown to have committed; no matter the proofs presented, only the Congress has the constitutional authority to remove him.
IOW, if 500 sheriifs and 500 prosecutors got him into some court and that court were to find him guilty of anything, any trial or its outcome wouldn't mean a damn thing. The House must impeach and the Senate must convict, or that fellow ain't goin' nowhere. When it comes to a sitting president, that's the way it works.
Simply not going to happen. Right, Wrong, and the Law don't intersect here.
If I recall correctly a lot of the New Deal stuff FDR treated as law and in his province of authority was declared unconstitutional by SCUSA and the laws and acts were vacated. Also, it is my understanding that the Framers intended such balancing actions of powers by the three branches. With that understanding I believe the Congress has a primary obligation to remedy acts that are beyond doubt outside the boundaries of the Constitution.