The Constitution doesn't say anything about vetting being the responsibility of the Secretaries of State of the several states either. It just lays down a requirement.Which is not surprising since under the original scheme, the states had nothing to do with the actual candidates, they only selected the electors, who then voted for whichever candidate they chose, so why would the states have anything to do with determining which canidates could run? The states roll is limited to certifying the votes of its electors.
The Constitution does say in Article III:
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This is certainly a Case, in Law, arising under this Constitution. It's also a Controversy to which the United States is a party. Thus under the Constitution, the Judiciary of the United States, has jurisdiction.
IOW, This would not be "Judicial Activision", it would be the Court enforcing existing law, in this case, the highest law.
You said (at the end) — “IOW, This would not be “Judicial Activision”, it would be the Court enforcing existing law, in this case, the highest law.”
It seems to me that the vetting process has always been through the individual states (at least from what I’ve seen in the elections that I’ve been involved in). There can be write-ins on the ballot, but also, the individual states have to print names on the ballots and they have requirements that they’ve specified (for example, you have to get paperwork in by a certain time or you’re not on the ballot). So, it only makes sense that it’s the individual state that has always had control over this (again, from all the elections that I’ve been involved in).
All the “qualifying” that I’ve ever seen, has always been done at the state level. So, why is this going to change all of a sudden and become something that the Supreme Court decides that they’re going to vet the candidate, instead of the states?
I mean, is the Supreme Court going to say to the various states, “You’ve been doing it all along, but now we’re taking over the process.” ??
I can’t see it happening — that the Supreme Court is going to step into the business of the states in this matter, which they’ve done exclusively, in the past. It would be like making a law where none existed before, by doing that.
Anyway..., that’s the way I see it. And soon, I think we’ll see — by the results of the cases — whether the Supreme Court sees it the same way I’m talking about — or not. But, it appears the time is very quickly running out for that.
Also, from the way I see it, the date of January 20th is a “magic date” (so to speak) after which one can only see Congress taking any action to remove a President (if they so desired). Now, I’ve actually seen that someone posted that some sheriff (or some law enforcement) could walk into the Oval Office (or the White House) and escort the President out of there and evict him — but that really does sound crazy... :-) It’s when it starts getting down to the level where someone is going to escort the President out of the White House that I know someone has gone off on the deep end...