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

To: Cboldt

Well, in cases where the sole power is lodged in Congress, you are right, no checks/balances exist. Seems like Amar is saying judging the qualifications of President is like impeachment. It’s their sole power. Courts don’t get to take a shot at it. At least conceptually, that makes sense and is familiar terrain for us in constitutional government. The question is, is that what the text of the constitution provides? Does it clearly make Congress the sole judge of this?

And if it is clear that this is Congress’ sole power, then, he would be right. Other bodies making that disqualification would be unconstitutional.

thank you for your reply. your diligence / knowledge on this important issue is noted and appreciated.


35 posted on 01/27/2016 2:49:24 PM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: ConservativeDude
Booting a president for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is different from ascertaining the qualifications. Plus, in trial on impeachment, Congress is limited in remedy to removal from office and a ban on (federal) office. If there be a crime, for real, that gets tried in a court of law.

If Amar is right, Congress could seat Vladimir Putin (in suitable disguise of course, so as to fool the people), and there is no remedy, no check.

The constitution doesn't say Congress shall be the sole judge of qualifications, that's for sure. It dictates the outcome on a finding of disqualified, that's all.

40 posted on 01/27/2016 2:56:22 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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