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

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

You are telling me my own issue, dumbfuck?
The link says the want to require a president to give up tax returns.
Can you read? Holy fuck

 

[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.

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

35 and a natural born citizen? Is there more somewhere?

 

[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

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

I disagree

 

[TNHarley]

It does not outline the process and requirements to qualify,

yes it does. Hence this thread.

 

[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

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.

35 and a natural born citizen? Is there more somewhere?

lived here for 14 years. Thats it.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

You still dont get it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

The requirements for the the presidency are listed in the Constitution. That fact you do not know is quite typical for a bimbo like you.

 

[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?

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?

To the extent any such measures are used to prevent a candidate from being elected, those requirements would be unconstitutional. After the fact, they may be able to get them, but only after the issues of privilege are litigated.

 

[OldLady]

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.

You still dont get it.

Nope, I don't. I give up trying.

 

[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

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden?

The requirements for the the presidency are listed in the Constitution. That fact you do not know is quite typical for a bimbo like you.

wish i could thread ban your faggot ass

 

[Slade3200]

It does not outline the process and requirements to qualify,

yes it does. Hence this thread.

perhaps I missed it in my research then. What process does the constitution lay out? I only saw eligibility requirements

 

[bripat9643]

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

Not without amending the Constitution

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

How would a document written in the 18th century require something that didn't exist until the 20th century?

 

[bripat9643]

"Senate Democrats are committed to advancing real solutions and fighting to uphold the core tenets of our constitution, which is why we are announcing today that the first bill of the new Congress will be the For the People Act," Schumer said in a statement.

IN other words, they want to ignore any language in the Constitution that Schumar doesn't like.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

The requirements for the the presidency are listed in the Constitution. That fact you do not know is quite typical for a bimbo like you.

wish i could thread ban your faggot ass

WTF did I do? Old Lady is the fucking moron.

 

[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?

To the extent any such measures are used to prevent a candidate from being elected, those requirements would be unconstitutional. After the fact, they may be able to get them, but only after the issues of privilege are litigated.

So if I wanted to run for president but I didn’t want to register or fill out any paper work I just wanted to say I’m running and be included in the election, that’s cool? And if they don’t put me on the ballots I can sue because the constitution doesn’t say anything about paperwork and registration?

 

[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

You are telling me my own issue, dumbfuck?
The link says the want to require a president to give up tax returns.
Can you read? Holy fuck

No cocksuker, I'm asking what requirements of office you assert the dems wish to change.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

God damn, you are a stupid twat! The financial disclosure funds required by the Federal Election Commission do that. You can Google them to your hearts content.

 

[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?

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?

To the extent any such measures are used to prevent a candidate from being elected, those requirements would be unconstitutional. After the fact, they may be able to get them, but only after the issues of privilege are litigated.

So if I wanted to run for president but I didn’t want to register or fill out any paper work I just wanted to say I’m running and be included in the election, that’s cool? And if they don’t put me on the ballots I can sue because the constitution doesn’t say anything about paperwork and registration?

It is if you dont spend over 5 grand on your campaign, yes.
I believe thats what ralph nader did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.