Did the USSC indicate WHO has the standing to ensure a candidate for office meets the qualifications stated in the US Constitution?
Or were the Founders just supposing the Constitution would be followed by gentlemen with a sense of honor?
More or less. John Adams stated that the Constitution was good for the governing of a good and religious people and inadequate for the governing of any other.
SCOTUS is one of the very few courts that controls its own docket so is free to decide, with or without giving a reason, what cases it will hear on the merits. Over 95% of the applications to SCOTUS are rejected without giving a reason exactly as happened here, so the disposition of this case without a reason is not in the least unusual. (Yes, I am a lawyer).
Yeah. The honor system. You know, like our voting system.
>>Did the USSC indicate WHO has the standing to ensure a candidate for office meets the qualifications stated in the US Constitution?
Or were the Founders just supposing the Constitution would be followed by gentlemen with a sense of honor?<<
This seems to be the crux of the issue IMO. I think that they are letting it go because it is not their venue tbh. Someone has to be responsible to do this, but I never thought the SCOTUS was the one to do it.
The question is WHO is? Can someone answer this question please? I have asked a couple times now. maybe I have missed the reply. Please post or e-mail me.