Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: justiceseeker93
All it really would take is number 2. (voiding any electoral votes cast for such a candidate in any presidential or vice-presidential election. And the states are free to require proof, rather than just a signature attesting to eligibility. Both parties will then support a proof for ballot access requirement in the several states. Several states are or were on the way to doing that anyway.

No weakening of federalism required.

But even all 3 would not be a weakening of federalism. I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law. That law would just be enforcing the eligibility requirements of the Constitution as per the last of the powers delegated to Congress in Art.I section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

105 posted on 04/22/2012 3:10:17 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato; BillyBoy; GreatOne; Red Steel; David; All
And the states are free to require proof, rather than just a signature attesting to eligibility.

You are correct to say that the states are legally free to require proof. They will not do on their own volition in the present political environment, however. As long as Obama's political fate might be in the balance, we've seen cold feet everywhere, even among Republicans, when the issue comes up in the state legislatures. Nah, no one wants to be branded a "birther", because the next things you'll be called are "racist," "demented," "paranoid," or any combination thereof. Some Republicans might also be thinking that such legislation might negatively impact Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal at some point in the future.

I don't think it would even take an amendment. It could be done by law.

It could be argued either way as to whether the "necessary and proper" clause is applicable to enforcement of the constitutional eligibility requirements for the presidency and vice-presidency. For all their wisdom, the Founding Fathers laid out no specific means of enforcement of those requirements, perhaps relying solely on the good faith of prospective candidates to abide by such requirements. They did not explicitly delegate such an enforcement power to Congress.

113 posted on 04/22/2012 4:08:47 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson