I’m talking about the difference between a technical requirement and the benefit that requirement is supposed to produce. The purpose of the “natural-born citizen” requirement was supposed to be that this type of person would feel a natural loyalty to the country.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose. I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements. I think the Founders obviously intended the Electors to determine eligibility in their College.
Since the EC has lost its original purpose of actually electing the President, the function of determining whether a person is constitutionally eligible defaults, I’m afraid, to the actual Electors, which are now the voters themselves.
IOW, the Constitution provides no mechanism, other than the voters, for determining eligibility. If that isn’t important to a majority of the electors, there is no constitutional remedy.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president. The judicial branch is already much more powerful than the Founders intended. Giving them the power to overturn elections is a really, really bad idea. It would potentially turn every election into an extended court battle.
Tell George W. Bush who lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the Electoral vote and was elected president that the Electors don’t choose the president! :-)
In contemporary times, candidates are vetted by: (1) having to campaign for a full year and do reasonably well in more than twenty primay election debates and 53 primary elections and or party caucuses to win a major party nomination; (2) clear placement on the state ballot by the Chief Elections Official, usually an elected Secretary of State, in 50 states plus the District of Columbia; (3) do reasonably well in three nationally televised presidential debates; (4) raise, at a minimum, half a billion dollars; (5) capture at a minimum, 60 million popular votes; (6) garner 270 electors; (7) have your electoral votes counted and certified by both Houses of Congress where any one Representative and any one Senator can submit to the President of the Senate a written objection to your electors. (8) Take the Oath of Office.
(9) Withstand any legal challenges to your eligibility that may be filed (Obama has had 226 legal challenges; 92 state and federal appellate court rulings and 27 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States for a total of 345 legal challenges).
Succeed at each stage of the above and you too can be president.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose.
It is not up to us to judge whether a constitutional requirement is effective or not. It is our duty to adhere to it until it is nullified. We don't get to decide to enforce the parts we like, and ignore the parts we don't. We are obligated to enforce it all, even if it is ineffective.
I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
If you believe in observing ineffective constitutional provisions, then why waste time by bringing up it's ineffectiveness? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements.
This is nonsense. It is axiomatic. If the Constitution stipulates a requirement, it doesn't need to explicitly state that it will be enforced. Non irrational people recognize this as an inherent aspect of any constitutional law.
And who's duty is it to enforce it? Every American citizen, and especially office holders.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president.
This would not even be a proposal had the court moved quickly to address the issue prior to the election, or even prior to the assumption of office. That they did not, is also the fault of the courts.
The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.
Part of the problem is that very few people nowadays has a good understanding of what was intended when they wrote "Natural born citizen" in Article II. The 14th amendment has so badly polluted the principles involved that people nowadays can't tell the difference between a naturalized at birth citizen and a natural born citizen.
Since that is quite obviously not the case, the provision has failed in its purpose.
It is not up to us to judge whether a constitutional requirement is effective or not. It is our duty to adhere to it until it is nullified. We don't get to decide to enforce the parts we like, and ignore the parts we don't. We are obligated to enforce it all, even if it is ineffective.
I do believe we should observe even ineffective constitutional provisions, but let’s not pretend they’re effective when they’re not.
If you believe in observing ineffective constitutional provisions, then why waste time by bringing up it's ineffectiveness? It sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
The Constitution makes no provision for a candidate to certify his eligibility per the requirements.
This is nonsense. It is axiomatic. If the Constitution stipulates a requirement, it doesn't need to explicitly state that it will be enforced. Non irrational people recognize this as an inherent aspect of any constitutional law.
And who's duty is it to enforce it? Every American citizen, and especially office holders.
The proposed remedy by some, having a court overturn a presidential election, is IMO much worse than enduring 8 years under a possibly technically-ineligible president.
This would not even be a proposal had the court moved quickly to address the issue prior to the election, or even prior to the assumption of office. That they did not, is also the fault of the courts.
The people who really dropped the ball are the 50 Secretaries of State who oversee elections. *THEY* should have been the first line of defense, and *THEY* should have demanded proof of natural citizen status before allowing this guy on the ballot.
Part of the problem is that very few people nowadays has a good understanding of what was intended when they wrote "Natural born citizen" in Article II. The 14th amendment has so badly polluted the principles involved that people nowadays can't tell the difference between a naturalized at birth citizen and a natural born citizen.