Replies

Well, I find that empathy sometimes helps. If you were on the Supreme Court and someone asked you the overrule the decision of a majority of electors based upon a clause in the Constitution that is so intrinsically uncertain and indefinite that it lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation, how would you feel about intervening in the electoral process? Would it matter that the Constitution clearly provides that presidents are to be selected by electors and that there is no textual support for judicial review of the electors' decisions? Would it matter to you that any Supreme Court decision is likely to be based upon an opinion that is not unanimous (like, say, 5-4)?

I trust the Founders and the Founders trusted the electors to select our presidents. The electors are every bit as capable as Supreme Court justices in interpreting and applying the Constitution's eligibility provisions. The standards aren't particularly complicated. Reasonable variations in interpretation are minor variations. Every interpretation that I have heard respects the need for a president to have a close political connection to the United States by heritage and by experience (the residency clause). There just isn't anything to get that excited about.

Ted Cruz - 2016

Would it matter that the Constitution clearly provides that presidents are to be selected by electors and that there is no textual support for judicial review of the electors' decisions? Finally, the voice of reason.

I oppose judicial interference with the Presidential election process. Nothing is more political than elections, and as per Article II Section I and the Twelfth Amendment, the duty to give us a President resides with State legislatures and Congress.

Federal courts can no more legitimately interfere with the vote of State electors than they can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable. Unfortunately, all liberals and too many Freepers have fallen into a rat trap concocted these past 80 years that any dispute must be settled by a branch of government unaccountable to the people. It simply isn’t true and Scotus cannot legitimately “fill in” when some people become disgusted with the other branches.

But unlike the President, the Constitution is silent as to ambassador qualifications. So who or what body is responsible for keeping an unqualified individual out of the White House?

The responsibility can only be with the parties charged with giving us a President: State Legislatures which are responsible for the appointment of electors, the electors themselves and perhaps the Senate which counts the votes. That is why it was not unimportant for the Senate in 2008 to find that McCain met the Constitutional requirements. Our Senate must ultimately count the electoral votes and that Senate decided McCain was qualified. Very simple, and no court can interfere with State electoral votes, nor the Senate in its duty to count the votes as directed by the Constitution.

The place to stop Constitutionally unqualified candidates is our State legislatures. These are the institutions our Constitution charged with exercising electoral judgment.

Here is what I took away from reading the resolutions.

I think those lawmakers seeking to amend Art. 2 were not anxious to have to go to the SCOTUS after the fact, but to do away with the entire issue ahead of time so as to prevent anyone from appealing to SCOTUS to block Arnold S. or any future candidate with a similar citizenship handicap.

So, no - going to SCOTUS after all is said and done, votes counted, is not ever likely to happen. That’s the whole “We the People” / will of the people angle here. There is no actual vetting for Presidential candidates except by the people. If they don’t vet thoroughly, as in the case of obama, tough crapola, you get stuck with what you voted for. “Nobodys’ fault but yer own” kind of a thing.

So, those that seek the Art. 2 amendment don’t want this to go to SCOTUS, because there is a damn good chance that SCOTUS will rule to restrict the Presidency to those born here. Then the progressives would have to do a long and messy battle to change or challenge the ruling. Lets face it, it is primarily the left who want to open the US Presidency specifically to allow naturalized people to run. The left have more means to install a chosen mole than our Forefathers could ever have imagined. Yet they claim the exact opposite is true. And they keep saying “it’s for the children”.

Makes ones blood run cold to read some of that stuff. Such deep and devious people mean no go for this country.

Labor Day Pop Quiz:

What terms are used to refer to these different classes of citizenship by the US Government:

1]Both parents US citizens and birth on American soil: ________________________

2]Both parents US citizens in the military/government service and birth on foreign soil: _________________________

3]Both parents US citizens and birth on foreign soil:
________________________

4]Neither parent US citizens but birth on American soil: ________________________

5]Only one parent US citizen and birth on American soil: ________________________

6]Only one parent US citizen and birth on foreign soil: ________________________

7]A naturalized citizen: ________________________

8]A person undergoing naturalization: ________________________

9]Children born to a person undergoing naturalization: ________________________