Long-time Chicago columnist and blogger Dennis Byrne has this op-ed in the Chicago Tribune of August 11. His point is that no one is in charge of determining whether candidates for federal office meet the constitutional qualifications.
Of course, the Constitution does give Congress the authority to count the electoral votes, and precedent permits Congress to refuse to count electoral votes for candidates for president or vice-president who do not meet the constitutional qualifications. This precedent was set in 1869, when Congress refused to count the three electoral votes for Horace Greeley. Congress felt the votes were void because Greeley had died after the November 1868 election, but before the electoral college had met in December.
Byrne’s column would have been stronger if he had mentioned the patchwork state of the law, when a presidential candidate who is clearly not eligible files to be on the ballot. The Socialist Workers Party has several times nominated under age 35 candidates for President. About half the states in which the party has petitioned print the name of such a candidate on the ballot anyway, under the theory that the true candidates are the presidential elector candidates. The other states have a different policy.
His point that “no one is in charge of determining whether candidates for federal office meet the constitutional qualifications” is simply wrong. Congress is in charge, as spelled out in the Constitution. For President/Vice President, Congress can refuse to count the electoral votes won by an unqualified candidate. For Senators and Representatives, the Constitution clearly makes each chamber responsible for determining whether its members meet the qualifications and they are perfectly entitled to refuse to seat anyone who does not.
Cases asking courts to substitute their judgements for what is clearly Congress’ are moot and should and will be thrown out. The issue is not the standing of the plaintiffs, but the proper role of the judiciary vs the legislature.
#1 JUNK
The judicial power regarding qualifications is in the COURTS.
See the Powell v. McCormick (? spelling) case (circa 1969) in the party hack Supremes — Congress attempted and failed to get rid of Powell even though he had the constitutional qualifications.
Counting ballots is a totally separate function.
For Prez ballot counts – see the infamous Bush v. Gore (2000) case in the party hack Supremes.
Congress counting congressional ballots is an exception to the judicial power in the courts — along with the Congress impeachment process — another exception.
READ the Constitution and look for the exceptions (generally for historical disaster reasons in Anglo-American legal – political history).
P.R. , A.V. and more separation of powers NOW — to lessen the chances for even worse EVIL powermad monsters in the various governments.
#2 Who knows what the hell you’re talking about, but let’s look at the reprehensible Bush v Gore. The fact is that decision did not bring the process to an end. It only stopped the vote count in one state. Congress still had the right to override the Court by simply rejecting Florida’s electoral votes. That would have given Gore the election. Of course, the Republicans controlled Congress, so that didn’t happen. But if the Dems had controlled Congres, they might have decided to throw the Florida results out, and the Court decision would have been irrelevant.
Sorry – no time to write 1,000 plus pages about various election stuff.
The timebomb 12th Amdt only is about counting the alleged gerrymander Electoral College Votes from the gerrymander State regimes (along with DC – 23rd Amdt).
*** the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the [State/DC] certificates and the [Electoral College] votes shall then be counted; ***
NOTHING about having the party hack Congress rule on the qualfications of any Prez/VP candidate.
—-
As to Bush v. Gore — since the Nov. 2000 election for Prez in the FL regime was blatantly unconstitutional (NO definition of a *legal* vote in FL – a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1) there were NO legal Electoral College votes in Florida — i.e. a failure to comply with the SAME day in Art. II, Sec. 1, para. 4 —
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
The MORON party hack Supremes ignored the same day language.
NO FL ECV = Gore should have been elected by a majority of the *legal* ECV in the other 49 States and DC.
Attack the EVIL MORON lawless party hack Supremes and their MORON clerks.
And when the state certificates are opened any member may object, providing that said objection must be in writing and signed by at least 1 Representative and 1 Senator. No objections means the votes stand and Congress accepts that the winning candidates are qualified and actually got the most electoral votes. Properly made objections, based on qualifications, vote counts or anything else are then evaluated by the Congress.
There is no judicial oversight of this, just as there is none of impeachment.
The objection stuff is NOT in the 12th Amdt — as anybody with half a brain can detect.
NO time for constitutional law MORONS — who get their alleged knowledge out of a cracker jack box.