Replies

Just as how the states have plenary power to decide the method of choosing Electors, Congress has plenary power to declare what "failure to qualify" means.

Since SCOTUS ruled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress could not expand the standing qualifications stated in the Constitution, it is doubtful that Congress can expand the qualifications in the constitution for president beyond what they are. The exact language in the Twelfth Amendment is "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify..." At first glance, it would appear to mean they elected a president who did not meet the constitutional requirements of office. However, that is contradicted by what follows. My interpretation of that language is that it refers to a presidential election thrown to the House which is deadlocked, but the Senate elects the VP.

And what comes with plenary power is the wisdom and consent of the governed to exercise it. If the fear is of a tyrannical Congress that declares all opposite party candidates to have failed to qualify, the people would not support that abuse of power. But if the states methodically prove that a coordinated, systemic plot to undermine election integrity resulted in the wrong candidate winning,

Congress clearly has the power to adjudicate contested Congressional elections, subpoena evidence and witnesses, etc., but I read no such Congressional power in the Twelfth or Twentieth Amendment. You need to invoke the Guarantee Clause to support this argument IHMO. The problem remains that the state legislatures hold the plenary power in appointing presidential electors, but they have been extremely hesitant to revoke the certifications of their governors or other executive branch officials.

I believe the people would support Congress using whatever constitutional tools are at its disposal to correct the situation.

And if SCOTUS decides to finally address the matter that the presidential electors were not certified in accordance with the legislature's standing statutory law, the people will support that as well. Congress as a political institution isn't very popular.

Since SCOTUS ruled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress could not expand the standing qualifications stated in the Constitution, it is doubtful that Congress can expand the qualifications in the constitution for president beyond what they are.

Generally, I would agree with you, as I said in the first sentence of the post you replied to.

In it's plainest meaning, it would mean that it was discovered that a candidate was younger than 35, not a resident for 14 years, or not a natural born citizen, since those are the only qualifications cited in the Article II.

However, I would add an additional qualification to be President from the 12th amendment:

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;

We can argue over whether that is a "qualification" or it is something else, but I'm clearly siding in the camp that it is a qualification. I'd be interested in hearing your argument that it is something else.

If it is a "qualification" to be President, and if the states have proof that the results of their elections were corrupted to the point that they can no longer stand behind the outcome, then that becomes evidence of "failure to qualify," no matter how long it took for the fraud to be discovered.

That is... unless you have some other reason why "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President" is not a qualification to be President.

-PJ