I understand and agree.
Kevmo asserts that because there is no further law defining the terms of the Constitutional prohibition against quartering of soldiers in private homes, there likewise need be no law setting out a process for verifying the qualifications of a presidential candidate.
The 3rd Amendment reads No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Although there is no clarifying court ruling* or law further defining conditions, the amendment clearly leaves an opening for laws to be enacted.
*Actually there is one court ruling, Engblom v. Carey.
Pretty simple logic.
***I thought so.
You said — “If you cannot actually qualify, then you are prohibited holding the office. Pretty simple logic.”
That statement is *theoretical* and it depends on the “facts on the ground” to be able to carry it through like you want and thus become the “real”.
Three examples:
Chester A. Arthur (21st President) - He was not qualified to serve, so by the definition given he’s “prohibited holding the office”. The only problem? He did hold the office. What happened? The “facts on the ground” did not make it clear and he was able to hold office. Leo Donofrio outlines all the evidence as to why he was not qualified to hold office.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (current Governor of California) — He’s not qualified to serve as President. He won’t be able to get into office *because* the “facts on the ground” (concerning his qualifications) are *known* and known by a very large number of voters. He can’t go back and say that he’s qualified, because too many have the facts and know the facts and it can very easily be proven. So, in this case — the “facts on the ground” make it so that he is “prohibited holding the office”.
Barack Obama (President on January 20th) — Unknown if he’s qualified to serve as President (no court evidence has been approved or acted upon by a court of law, thus far, and so, “unknown”). Now, there are assertions from paperwork submitted and filed that he is qualified, so the party is “making the assertion” that he *is* qualified and he certainly is making the assertion that he *is* qualified. He’s not saying “I’m ignoring the Constitution and I’m going to do what it says I can’t.” No, that’s not his stance. His stance is “I am qualified per the Constitution.”. So, there are not “facts on the ground” that make it so that anyone has been able to “prove the case” that Obama is not qualified. Thus, his assertions stand and he will be sworn in as the next President of the United States.
I hope that makes it clear what is happening here and in each of those three examples...
What we have going here is (1) the “real” — and then (2) the theoretical. So far, all those who want to have Obama either prevented from holding office or removed from office (if he does get into office) — they’re all operating on the “theoretical” — not the “real”. Until the “theoretical” — becomes — the “real” (by court accepted evidence that they *act upon*) — it will remain in the “theoretical” and nothing will happen.