I.
Impeachment is a POLITICAL process, LEGAL matters are Judicial.
Impeachment is a political act of the Legislative Branch.
Conversely eligibility is a legal matter determined Judicially.
If eligibility were a political matter then there would be no set standard and the mandate of Article II § 1, cl 5 would become an arbitrary and shifting standard - a party controlling the Legislature could with impunity install ineligible persons in the Executive. Article II § 1, cl 5 would be surplusage.
II.
Article II commands that an ineligible person shall not be President. A person who is not President can not be impeached.
Article II does not distinguish between ineligibility prior to an election or after, a person failing to meet the requirements is at all times legally disqualified.
Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is. If the Framers intended an exception they would have written one.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.
III.
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
IV.
The Legislature has no power to interfere with a Judicial determination of ineligibility.
There is no Legislative role, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5. There is no requirement that the Legislature impeach, to allow such would obstruct the purpose of Article II § 1, cl 5.
To allow an ineligible person to remain in Office on the premise that the Legislature has not impeached would be an improper interference with the Judiciary and an improper combination between the Legislative and Executive Branches.
V.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from Office.
In my humble opinion, impeachment and trial is the only JUDICIAL process that can impact whoever is elected President under the provisions of the 12th Amendment. The person who receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”
It is obvious that once the person who has received a majority of the votes of the Electors takes the Oath of Office, that individual is the duly elected President of the United States and the Courts have ruled exactly that position.
Furthermore, the 20th Amendment addresses the process of choosing a president if the President-ELECT “failed to qualify.” There is no more President-Elect after someone takes the Oath of Office.
The Constitution mandates that a “TRIAL” be held in the U.S. Senate with the Chief JUSTICE presiding and 2/3rds of the Senators must find the impeached individual to be GUILTY of “High CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS.” To deny the judicial ramifications of impeachment is foolish.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to TRY all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be CONVICTED without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
JUDGEMENT in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party CONVICTED shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.”
So let's hear no more about the French writings of Swiss philosophers like Vattel. "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is."
Until the Constitution is changed, the voters and their electors shall continue to apply the same standard that has always been used - "natural born citizen." "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is."
A suggestion to preserve one's sanity - accept the results of our Constitutional process.
Ted Cruz - 2016
. . .
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
It should be obvious that I disagree with that. See post 445: "In short, the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify a presidential candidate just because a majority of its members believe that the candidate is ineligible."
If you insist on segregating the decision-making universe into "political questions" and "legal questions" and insist on treating them as two completely distinct and separate fields (which you appear to do), then without departing from that structure I would say that either (1) the Supreme Court is not empowered to decide all "legal questions" or (2) the eligibility questions are not purely "legal questions." However, the dichotomy you propose is just not justified.
And, obviously, because I disagree with your analysis, I do not find myself forced into your conclusion that a Supreme Court can in effect remove an "ineligible" president because he really isn't a president if he wasn't eligible to begin with.