[Political Junkie Too]

If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.

It's too bad that the author only limited his thinking to this final resort, although I do like the thinking around If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?”

However, what of the candidates before the election? Is waiting for a winner the only time to assess qualification? Can we not assess qualification when a candidate announces? What is the purpose of an "exploratory committee?" What is this committee exploring? To whom is it reporting the results of its exploration? Is a candidate's eligibility one of the things being explored?

What about if a candidate accepts federal funding? Is accepting federal funding when unqualified to be president a case for fraud?

What about if a candidate refuses federal funding? Does this remove the candidate from further federal scrutiny unless and until he wins? Is an unqualified candidate who accepts private donations also guilty of fraud?

Are the parties to be expected to provide proof of qualification of their candidates? What about write-in candidates or independent candidates who run without party sponsorship?

-PJ

[Kevmo]

Good questions. I’m glad we have the 20th amendment. I note that this author zeroes in on that, which is what I’ve been doing lately.