RE: One of the Constitutional issues concerns WHO SHOULD DECIDE whether a candidate has the qualifications to be president.
Suppose there is a person, who as a baby, was brought to the United States by ILLEGAL parents. Suppose we have such a person who was made a US citizen eventually due to some executive order. Suppose further such a person grows up and became a popular politician.
Suppose further that electors ( of whatever party ) choose him to be a candidate for Presidency.
Don’t laugh. In California, illegals have already been appointed to official city government commissions. See here:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-officeholder-20150804-story.html
Illegal immigrants are now allowed to practice law in both California and New York.
See here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/justice/california-immigrant-lawyer/
and here:
https://www.rt.com/usa/266944-immigrant-lawyer-death-threats/
Suppose further, Principled conservatives file a lawsuit preventing such a person from running for President, arguing that only natural born citizens are qualified.
Don’t tell me the Supreme Court should rule that it has no power to overturn the decision of electors no matter how wrong they are....
If this is the case, it is possible that we might have lost the very meaning and intent of the Constitution.
Don’t tell me the Supreme Court should rule that it has no power to overturn the decision of electors no matter how wrong they are....
Suppose the Supreme Court should decide that the Supreme Court should decide who can and cannot run for president (even though the Constitution directs that electors should select our presidents) and suppose further that the Supreme Court mistakenly decides (by a 5-4 decision) that a fully qualified candidate from an opposing party is not qualified and cannot run for president. You seem to believe that Supreme Court justices are incapable of error or mischief. Justices often disagree with one another. How can that be if they are by nature free of error?
Since everyone is capable of error, there is no way to guarantee that human errors will never occur no matter who makes a final decision. The fact that someone who is exercising a constitutional power might make a mistake does not mean that the power should be seized by the Supreme Court. I trust that the voters and their electors will do at least as good a job as the Supreme Court at accurately measuring the qualifications of presidential candidates. But, it doesn't really matter who I think would do a better job. The important thing is that I think the Constitution has placed this power in the hands of electors. For more than 50 presidential elections, the electors have chosen our presidents and I can't say that they've made any constitutional errors in performing that duty.
I don't believe that the Supreme Court has ever believed that it has the power to disqualify presidential candidates. I think that they have very sensibly avoided the role that you want to give to them.