You’re correct. “It won’t change.” Unless the people of this country demand that the Constitution be upheld. How the people can do this is the question. Is it only through the vote? I don’t believe so.
You said — “You’re correct. “It won’t change.” Unless the people of this country demand that the Constitution be upheld. How the people can do this is the question. Is it only through the vote? I don’t believe so.”
No, you’ve got the wrong thing out of my statement. What I said *would not change* was the Supreme Court’s practice of making “no comment” on their denials. That is not going to change. That was the meaning of what I said.
You’ll remember that you said that the Supreme Court should give us the “reason” for their denial. I said that they won’t do that, because they never do that, and they won’t change the process that they’ve been doing all along. Therefore *that* is the thing that won’t change.
HOWEVER, on the matter of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirement for taking office — this *can change* — with no problem (I think...).
All it will take to change this (so that it doesn’t happen again) is for the states to put a law into effect for their Electoral College votes (and the popular vote, too) that says that a candidate must be vetted and proven to be qualified for the office of President of the United States before that candidate can be placed on the ballot.
That is the change that can happen and happen easily, I think...