Reply #20: A couple of questions... And unlike some, I actually read beyond the first paragraph.

[jobycom]

(DU is Democracy, too, but sometimes at its most embarrassing. People offer opinions on posts they obviously haven't bothered to read or understand.)

First, nice post, and thanks for all that.

Second, you seem to be saying that Congress shouldn't have the right to review the qualifications of the elected candidates at any time, because even though the Constitution puts restrictions on who can be president, the people can choose who they want. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the president to be chosen by "the people," or by popular election. The Constitution also gives Congress, at least the Senate, to decide a candidate is unqualified and to refuse to ratify him as president. (20th Amendment, at least). It even gives Congress the power to choose someone else if both president and VP are unqualified, presumably in terms of the couple of restrictions the Constitution puts on presidential eligibility (age, citizenship, etc). Since Biden is qualified, the 20th Amendment says that he would act as president until a qualified president is chosen, if Obama were disqualified. Presumably, the only way a "qualified" president could be chosen at that point would be in the next election.

So, my question is, are you saying that Congress shouldn't have this right of ratification, even though the Constitution grants them that power? Or are you only talking about Congress being allowed to discuss and vote on an election before the Electoral Collegehas even been counted and submitted? The latter I can agree with, since the choice and qualifications of the Electors is a state issue, and they really don't have any restrictions put on them by the Constitution. What I'm saying is that it seems to me that the Electors can choose whomever they want, based on the state requirements now that they choose the candidate elected in those states, and that Congress's only role in this should be that once the Electoral votes are presented to the Senate, the Senate can then decide issues of qualifications and disqualifications.

That's important because at that point the Electors have chosen, thus the president and VP have been selected, and Congress could then only disqualify either of them on one of the Constitutional qualifications--meaning in this case specifically they could only disqualify Obama if his BC turned out to be forged, or actually if someone could prove he actually was born in Kenya (if that is interpreted as violating the "Natural Born" clause, which is a different argument and not as simple as you present it).

Anyway, I'm asking if you are saying that Congress's Constitutional role in the second case--once the Electors have chosen--should be disallowed, and if so, isn't that a more dangerous undermining of the Constitution than anything else you've mentioned? If Democracy can override that issue, then it can also override the 14th Amendment, or the 1st, simply by vote.

Third point, would Jesse Jackson Jr's "Right to Vote" amendment end a lot of these problems, by requiring that the president by elected, rather than giving the states the options to use other means of choosing their Electoral votes?

I'll hang up and listen. :)