[Sibre Fan]

Re: “The Constitution doesn’t have a “methodology” prescribed, but merely says what the candidate must *be*...”

I take some issue with that. While the Constitution does not explicitly address that particular issue (NBC), it does have the “methodology” for confirming the eligibility of a President. First, the states determine who electors are and they vote (left to states to determine how to determine electors and how they vote). Second, Congress either confirms that vote or rejects it. I know many people here take issue with that, but I think McCain had this right when he made this argument.

[nufsed]

The secretaries of State have the responsibility to place qualified candidates on the ballot. ST thinks that means they can't see the birth certificate because the constitution doesn't specificallt mention that. So she assumes that the founders intended to not have the clauses of the constitution enforced without more laws to describe methodology for each.

You must allow an A for persistence despite it being explained to here by half a dozen or more posters.

My earlier question is where in the constitution does it autorize the president to transfer troops by plane? ST cannot answer that simple question.

[Star Traveler]

Yeah, you’re right for those things you note. I was constructing my statement a bit more narrowly than that, as you have noted, by reference to the NBC... :-)

I was talking about how everyone else had framed this issue in that the “Constitution” was not being followed. And, of course, they were saying that on the basis of the three requirements specified. So, that’s the area I was talking on...

But, I will probably still keep saying it that way, because if I started including the other things you’re mentioning, while correct, they’ll be “off topic” of this particular issue...

Thanks for pointing that out...