“Sort of blows away Lind’s claim that the issue is a political question, if Congress isn’t even able to deal with it.”
__
Your confusion shows no signs of abating, does it?
Congress is certainly able to deal with it, but the available means are different at different times. Congress has the sole power to confirm the vote of the Electoral College, and it did so, unanimously.
Congress has the sole power to impeach, and it is able to exercise it at any time, including right now.
And the Political Question doctrine has been clearly defined in Supreme Court cases like Baker v. Carr, which Judge Lind cited in her ruling.
There’s no point trying to pretend that these questions don’t have answers. They do, even though you may not like them.
You totally missed what the CRS said. The electoral vote certification is not a certification of the candidates’ eligibility. According to the CRS, only the states can disqualify someone for being ineligible in a presidential election. The certification of the electoral vote - if you believe the CRS - is nothing more than an official counting of what the states have certified as their official votes.
If you believe the CRS, Congress has never had ANY role in mitigating the eligibility issue.
If Obama is the POTUS (which depends on whether the electoral vote was ever lawfully certified, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law) then the only way to be rid of him as POTUS is through impeachment.
But Lakin’s case isn’t about getting rid of the POTUS. Lakin’s case is about whether Obama is authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” - “the President” being the only person authorized by SJ Res 23 to decide what force, if any, to use in the war on terrorism. The 20th Amendment says if he has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Congress has nothing to do with that.
Deciding whether Obama “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 is a case that arises under the Constitution and law, and the federal judiciary is expressly given the responsibility to judge those cases (which existed before and after Jan 20th), according to the Third Article. The only entity able to deal with whether a President elect (someone already certified as the winner of the electoral vote - at which point it is beyond the impact of either the states or of Congress)has “qualified” is the federal judiciary.
The question of whether Obama is Constitutionally allowed to “act as President” and decide at his sole discretion what force, if any, is to be used in the war on terrorism.... is not in any way, shape, or form a “political question”. It is a Constitutional issue that is found in multiple cases within the federal judiciary.
If Lind wanted to say that the cases had not yet been decided so she would wait on the decisions I could respect her. Instead she said it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. Doesn’t matter one bit if the only person the Constitution allows to act as POTUS never authorized additional troops to Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever.
You totally missed what the CRS said. The electoral vote certification is not a certification of the candidates’ eligibility. According to the CRS, only the states can disqualify someone for being ineligible in a presidential election. The certification of the electoral vote - if you believe the CRS - is nothing more than an official counting of what the states have certified as their official votes.
If you believe the CRS, Congress has never had ANY role in mitigating the eligibility issue.
If Obama is the POTUS (which depends on whether the electoral vote was ever lawfully certified, given that Cheney failed to ask for objections as required by law) then the only way to be rid of him as POTUS is through impeachment.
But Lakin’s case isn’t about getting rid of the POTUS. Lakin’s case is about whether Obama is authorized by the Constitution to “act as President” - “the President” being the only person authorized by SJ Res 23 to decide what force, if any, to use in the war on terrorism. The 20th Amendment says if he has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Congress has nothing to do with that.
Deciding whether Obama “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 is a case that arises under the Constitution and law, and the federal judiciary is expressly given the responsibility to judge those cases (which existed before and after Jan 20th), according to the Third Article. The only entity able to deal with whether a President elect (someone already certified as the winner of the electoral vote - at which point it is beyond the impact of either the states or of Congress)has “qualified” is the federal judiciary.
The question of whether Obama is Constitutionally allowed to “act as President” and decide at his sole discretion what force, if any, is to be used in the war on terrorism.... is not in any way, shape, or form a “political question”. It is a Constitutional issue that is found in multiple cases within the federal judiciary.
If Lind wanted to say that the cases had not yet been decided so she would wait on the decisions I could respect her. Instead she said it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. Doesn’t matter one bit if the only person the Constitution allows to act as POTUS never authorized additional troops to Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever.