The Supreme Court has ruled that for the legislative branch qualifications other than those in Article 1 are unconstitutional so the same reasoning would apply to the executive branch.
See my my #8.Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Article II Section 1)The Constitution does not even require that a popular vote be conducted in a given state in conjunction with the selection of that state’s electors. Nebraska (and one other state, IIRC Maine) elects one elector in each CD in the state, and two electors statewide (rather than all statewide, as in the other 48 states). And how can a court presume to say who must, and who cannot, be on a ballot that is not even required by the Constitution???This provision could, if we had honest representative government, be enforced by the states against a presidential candidate who, as Secretary of State, was a principal in two organizations - the Clinton Foundation and her marriage to Bill - which accepted serious money from foreign governments. Money which might, SCOTUS' preference for Campaign Finance Reform over the First Amendment notwithstanding, find its way into Hillary’s campaign.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Of course, in a country in which such a person could without consequence violate security regs wholesale concomitant to flouting the Freedom of Information Act . . .