Replies

I stand corrected on the Constitution listing requirements for members of Congress. I’m dealing with quite a bit in my life right now and it’s been a while since I was able to look at the Constitution. Thank you for setting me straight on that.

The statutes associated with the 209th Amendment allow Congress to decide whether the electoral votes are properly certified (that the states, which are in charge of elections, obeyed their own rules and properly sealed and certified the electoral votes) - not to decide what constitutes Constitutional eligibility or to decide whether a certain person is eligible, as is specifically mentioned regarding the legislative branch’s monitoring of their own members’ eligibility.

And Congress’ certification of the electoral vote is a sick joke. NJ allowed on the ballot a guy who wasn’t even a US citizen, and Congress did nothing to say that NJ had violated their own election laws. In Bush v Gore Congress supposedly took up the legality, but it was SCOTUS who decided that and Congress couldn’t do anything but obey the Supreme Court, which is specifically given the duty to decide cases where a state is a party.

If Trump, Grayson, Hillary, or whoever files a lawsuit it is not Congress who should interpret and apply the Constitution; it will be the courts - just like it was the courts which gave the legally-binding decision in Bush v Gore. And if the courts make a decision Congress just has to accept it, or be in contempt of court. If the Constitution gave that job to Congress, then SCOTUS and all the lower courts should have ruled that the case was not justiciable because it is a political issue. They didn’t on that, so it’s duplicitous for them to try it on the Obama eligibility cases. But then, Obama was “special” (threats by world Islamists do that to people; we can see that all over the place right now as Muslims have rape-fests in Europe and law enforcement, chancellors, and everybody blames the victims instead of the rapists.) Obama was “special” so the courts changed their tune from what they said in Bush v Gore. But since Cruz isn’t so “special” maybe they’ll go right back to how things were before the “special” foreign enemy combatant showed up.

The checks and balances were carefully planned by the Founders; the 20th amendment was not about messing with that balance so that the legislative branch had ANOTHER check over the executive and judicial branches. If Congress can interpret the Constitution and decide who gets to be POTUS that throws the whole balance out of whack. That was not the intention of the 20th Amendment, which was to deal with instances where the nation might be without a qualified POTUS.

Funny how the courts recognized that in Bush v Gore (that the 20th Amendment does NOT mean Congress interprets the Constitution in Presidential elections) when they DIDN’T say that the legality of the election was a “political issue” specifically assigned to Congress to handle.

The flakiness of the judiciary and the willingness of judges to flip according to political agendas makes Trump’s point for him. To put all our eggs in the basket of a judge of Grayson’s choosing, or Hillary’s choosing (remember the “Magnificent Eight”?), etc is suicidal.

I really don’t want to do battle with you either. Actually, the whole thing just makes me tired. This country wins the Darwin Award; I don’t know why I love her so much.