Replies

You said — “So.........if the states WON’T do it........you are saying that SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution in regards to whether a candidate is qualified for the office of the President? If they won’t do this, in my opinion, they are useless.”

I didn’t say that the states won’t do it. I’m saying that the states will and can do it, given that they have a state law in place that pertains to the vetting process for President of the United States. They have not done it before, because there is not a state law in place for the vetting process for the candidate for the office of President of the United States.

There’s one thing that you can’t do in this regard — and that is you can’t *require* that the state vet the candidate in a way that *requires certain proof* from the candidate (or he won’t be put on the ballot) — because if the state tried to keep someone like that off the ballot — absent a state law to that effect — the state would get sued and a judge would force them to put the name on the ballot. That’s what would happen.

So, it’s not that the states *won’t* do it — it’s that they can’t do it without the proper law being in place.

—

And in regards to the Supreme Court of the United States, they will only act upon cases brought before them, and only act in the way and manner as the case *itself* presents itself to the justices. They are not going to “step out” and go further than what the case is — before them.

I, for one, question whether the Supreme Court *can address* an issue that is a “states rights” issue, in regards to a particular state’s Secretary of State putting someone on the ballot or keeping them off the ballot or vetting the candidate for President of the United States in regards to his Constitutional qualifications — when that is something *solely* within the province of that state. And so, if someone brings a case to the Supreme Court that is solely within the province of that “states rights” — the Supreme Court should stay out of it.

So, you might ask, where should the Supreme Court intervene (and on what kind of case). It would have to be a case that showed *proof* that a President was *disqualified* and then secondly, at the point of where the Electoral College votes were counted. The case would have to be brought *after* the Electoral votes were counted.

But, it would have to be decided *before* the inauguration, because once the President is in office, the Supreme Court would have to say that the issue was “moot” and that they couldn’t take any decision on it and they would dismiss the case — being that only Congress can impeach and convict a President. Then it goes into the Congress’ hands. But, we know how far that would go, because it didn’t work for Clinton and Obama has a greater vote margin than Clinton did and we have a greater number of Democrats in there now.

Therefore, the Supreme Court really doesn’t have much room to maneuver, under the law and we don’t have any state laws regarding vetting a Presidential Candidate in order for him to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for office.

—

It’s not the Supreme Court that is useless, it’s not the states that are useless, and it’s everyone is refusing to do anything about it — rather — it’s that our *system* has been found to be *defective* in this process and we need to “correct the system” now — to make sure that this does not happen again.

It’s not the first time that our Constitutional system was found to be defective. That’s why we have Constitutional Amendments put into place. In this particular process of having a new President in office, the Constitution was found to be *defective* by means of the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment — so that shows that others saw that they had to *correct the Constitution* in the past.

Now, we see it’s necessary to correct the state laws to make the “process” of vetting a Presidential Candidate for him to prove he can qualify for office — is correct.

That’s where we are at now...