Can Congress change requirements for office?

OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
70,919
Reaction score
17,512
Points
2,180
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Requiring tax returns isnt a "security measure" :lol:
How much do you charge trump to live in your head?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Requiring tax returns isnt a "security measure" :lol:
How much do you charge trump to live in your head?
It’s not? I think others would disagree with you there. It gives a look at debts and business relationships
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
70,919
Reaction score
17,512
Points
2,180
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
22,372
Reaction score
18,008
Points
2,415
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Requiring tax returns isnt a "security measure" :lol:
How much do you charge trump to live in your head?
It’s not? I think others would disagree with you there. It gives a look at debts and business relationships
Those who wrote the Constitution disagree with you.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
70,919
Reaction score
17,512
Points
2,180
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
And the subject of this thread is congress adding additional requirements. Requirements that arent outlined in the Constitution.
Do you understand now?
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
3,730
Points
385
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
Looks like they need an amendment. Good luck. :auiqs.jpg:
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
And the subject of this thread is congress adding additional requirements. Requirements that arent outlined in the Constitution.
Do you understand now?
I’ve understood the entire time. Are you now moving from debate to petty insults?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
And the subject of this thread is congress adding additional requirements. Requirements that arent outlined in the Constitution.
Do you understand now?
I’ve understood the entire time. Are you now moving from debate to petty insults?
If a candidate refused to turn over financials and submit to a background check and was elected, would that candidate be allowed to take office?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
It answers it in a round about way. Am I safe to assume the direct answers to my questions would be. Yes you object to the existing financial disclosures. And No you never took issue and never heard of anybody taking issue with the legality of it. Is that correct?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
It answers it in a round about way. Am I safe to assume the direct answers to my questions would be. Yes you object to the existing financial disclosures. And No you never took issue and never heard of anybody taking issue with the legality of it. Is that correct?
Correct but entirely irrelevant. Like I said, there is so much unconstitutional bullshit out there, it is impossible to police it all.

Most candidates don't object because it is politically expedient to not object. Still doesn't change the unconstitutionality of said restraints.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
So, your opinion is that we could set up a registration process that has requirements that would eliminate otherwise eligible candidates and that would be okay? Constitutional?
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
Anyone who was born after the year 1980 will not be registered as a presidential candidate.

Constitutional?

It's the registration process. Not eligibility.

What about a "bacon" registration requirement. Any candidate who does not eat bacon while submitting registration documents will not be registered.

Constitutional?

That's a good (evil) way to keep jews and muslims out of the whitehouse.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
22,372
Reaction score
18,008
Points
2,415
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.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
What registration process? Congress has no registration process to run for President.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
22,372
Reaction score
18,008
Points
2,415
Anyone who was born after the year 1980 will not be registered as a presidential candidate.

Constitutional?

It's the registration process. Not eligibility.

What about a "bacon" registration requirement. Any candidate who does not eat bacon while submitting registration documents will not be registered.

Constitutional?

That's a good (evil) way to keep jews and muslims out of the whitehouse.
I can get on board with banning anyone who doesn’t eat bacon.

cant be trusted.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top