You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #90: You can fail to qualify in the states. And that happens sometimes. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. You can fail to qualify in the states. And that happens sometimes.
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 11:21 PM by Land Shark
but not here.

Rights without remedies are all over the place. There's no "clear textual commitment" here of power to the Congress. There's no action verb there connecting congress with the word "qualify." The states are the only entities that actually run elections, there are no federal election workers.

Look at the amendment history for the 20th, there's no indication in there of any intent (at the cornell site) of any intent to broaden congressional power to judge anything, it only speaks of speeding up the transition of administrations, and having the new congress be in place in the unlikely event that any issue "devolves" upon the House.

Now the people would never elect a "5 year old". Like I said in the OP, i think this question reveals attitudes about trusting or not trusting the people/democracy. The five year old example is just ridiculous. But ANY QUALIFICATION PROVISION presumes that the people can't be trusted to elect a proper president without such a guide, and the guide is this: 35 years old, citizen, resident of a state.

If I didn't trust the people to elect a president, these are not the limitations i'd come up with.

Qualifications are still operative even if they only play out in the political realm. There is a remedy in the political process, which is bashing the candidate that's too young. That plus a campaign is a considerable check and balance, in practice insuring that nobody except governors, senators and representatives have been considered qualified for the office in recent years. Again, the real qualifications are in the minds of the voters, collectively, and they've been fairly high.

I'm going to go to bed soon, but if you'll indulge me, what's your analysis of the congress (certainly the Senate) knowing fully of this general issue, and just saying nothing and then taking advantage of the opportunity to re-decide the election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC