Replies

Courts have removed ineligible persons from ballots and from office.

The courts have never disqualified a candidate for President. The Constitution specifically provides that presidents are to be chosen by Electors, not judges.

The particular eligibility requirements for the Executive differ from those of other offices, but there is nothing that sets that office apart from others as regards determination of eligibility by the Judiciary when a case is brought.

What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts. Further, there is no practical reason for doing so. There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

So, when you vote for a President, do your job and consider the qualifications of each candidate. The courts will not and cannot help you. ;-)

> What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick.

The electoral process is a political process defined by law.

> There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts.

Electors have no authority to decide questions of law. There is no transfer of duties to courts. To the contrary, you wish to transfer courts’ duties to Electors.

> There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

“Worthiness” is not the question, being legally eligibility is the question and such questions are exclusively within the purview of the Judiciary.

“What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts. Further, there is no practical reason for doing so. There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

So, when you vote for a President, do your job and consider the qualifications of each candidate. The courts will not and cannot help you. ;-)

To amplify the points being made above, a federal judge ruled and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to overrule the following:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitutional mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.
The process for removal of a sitting president— REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of the CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.”—
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09: