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...
SPECIAL NOTICE - CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE - PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS - THE SHORT BIRTH ABSTRACT OF RECORDS ISSUED BY MANY COUNTIES AND BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES. DUE TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING THE BIRTH ABSTRACTS SHOW THE COUNTY OF ISSUE AS THE PLACE OF BIRTH EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA. A BIRTH RECORD FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES MUST BE THE LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES.
That's about ballot access, not eligibilty to hold the office. The Constitution specifies what that is, no law is necessary.
The states do remain free to "vett" people who wish to have that ballot access, but you can hardly say the states have done much vetting, although I guess a few did throw off a guy who admitted to being born outside the county to citizens of the country of his birth. So yes, some vetting has occurred, but even those states did not require proof, they just used the persons own statements of his origins.