Can Congress change requirements for office?

[TNHarley]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

Can you show me where the Constitution gives them power to change constitutional processes without an amendment?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

After a president is elected, MAYBE. There's still quite a bit of debate on that left to do. It is not a prerequisite and cannot be so without a constitutional amendment.

 

[bendog]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

YOur link says the bill cannot be passed

 

[Slade3200]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

Can you show me where the Constitution gives them power to change constitutional processes without an amendment?

I wasn’t aware that they were changing a constitutional process. Which process are they changing and how are they changing it?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

 

[Slade3200]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

And every bill should be limited to 10 pages, one side, 12-point double spaced Times New Roman font, read allowed 3 times before debate which must be held open for at least 2 hours.

That will stop all the bullshit right in its tracks.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

I would be fine if nothing ever got passed.

Gridlock secures my liberty.

 

[hadit]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden?

It's not. What Congress can do is pass the law, then it will be challenged in court by a candidate and ultimately adjudicated by the SC, at which point it will likely be found unconstitutional.

 

[TNHarley]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

YOur link says the bill cannot be passed

Having votes is not the issue.

 

[Slade3200]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

I would be fine if nothing ever got passed.

Gridlock secures my liberty.

I’m sure you would.

 

[TNHarley]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

Can you show me where the Constitution gives them power to change constitutional processes without an amendment?

I wasn’t aware that they were changing a constitutional process. Which process are they changing and how are they changing it?

The process of figuring out if a person is eligible for the Presidency. They are changing it by wanting more requirements.
Do you understand now?

 

[TNHarley]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

You make a good case for 80%

 

[LordBrownTrout]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

That would be just fine. If a bill is so great, then it should never have a problem getting 80 yeas.

 

[OldLady]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden?

That question is completely irrelevant.
You need to understand what the Constitution actually is.

No, I'm serious. That's not an answer. Tell me what the Constitution IS that forbids it. I'm just interested, not arguing.

The Constitution not "forbiding" something is irrelevant. Our system isnt set up that way.
The Constitution lists specific powers, and ways to do certain things. To change that requires a constitutional amendment.

Are we still talking about tax returns?

We are talking about your question about the constitution not forbidding something.

I dunno. It makes sense to me. We have a law about Presidents not setting policy that profits them personally, yet we've got a guy who wouldn't divest from his businesses and wouldn't give us the information to tell us what his businesses actually entailed.

We've got oodles of rules and laws about how his campaign can accept donations and what the $ can be spent on. That's not in the Constitution either.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

Can you show me where the Constitution gives them power to change constitutional processes without an amendment?

I wasn’t aware that they were changing a constitutional process. Which process are they changing and how are they changing it?

The process of figuring out if a person is eligible for the Presidency. They are changing it by wanting more requirements.
Do you understand now?

They may have an argument that the requirements of a sitting president are not the same as the requirements to be elected.

Of course, the whole presidential privilege angle comes into play if they are trying to apply this to a president after the election.

 

[bendog]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

YOur link says the bill cannot be passed

Having votes is not the issue.

Yeah it is. Unless you want to be Rosa Rosa Dana.

But as was pointed out neither you, nor your link, specifies what "requirements for office" would be changed

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden?

That question is completely irrelevant.
You need to understand what the Constitution actually is.

No, I'm serious. That's not an answer. Tell me what the Constitution IS that forbids it. I'm just interested, not arguing.

The Constitution not "forbiding" something is irrelevant. Our system isnt set up that way.
The Constitution lists specific powers, and ways to do certain things. To change that requires a constitutional amendment.

Are we still talking about tax returns?

We are talking about your question about the constitution not forbidding something.

I dunno. It makes sense to me. We have a law about Presidents not setting policy that profits them personally, yet we've got a guy who wouldn't divest from his businesses and wouldn't give us the information to tell us what his businesses actually entailed.

We've got oodles of rules and laws about how his campaign can accept donations and what the $ can be spent on. That's not in the Constitution either.

But, the requirements to be elected president are VERY specific. Eligibility is VERY specific.

 

[Slade3200]

I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still

Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.

Can you show me where the Constitution gives them power to change constitutional processes without an amendment?

I wasn’t aware that they were changing a constitutional process. Which process are they changing and how are they changing it?

The process of figuring out if a person is eligible for the Presidency. They are changing it by wanting more requirements.
Do you understand now?

The constitution outlines who is eligible to run for president. It does not outline the process and requirements to register, qualify, disclose, get their name on state ballots, etc etc etc. states run elections and have their processes, also congress has their process and regulations. Those are decided by legislatures. Get it?

 

[Slade3200]

As far as the filibuster proof 60 votes majority, I believe the senate has the power to change the rules to a simple majority on any bill that comes through. Neither side has done that because of obvious reasons. IMO, any bill that comes through should have an 80 percent threshold to become law.

Nothing would ever get passed with an 80% threshold. 2/3 is fine. Eliminating the filibuster and doing majority rule is a horrible idea

You make a good case for 80%

Good luck with that