Can Congress change requirements for office?

[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.

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"
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?

That would depend on what the process requires. Disclosures and security checks are quite different than making a requirement that the candidate serve in public office to run for prez or that a candidate must be a millionaire... stuff like that

No it doesn't depend on what the process requires.

 

[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.

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"
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?

That would depend on what the process requires. Disclosures and security checks are quite different than making a requirement that the candidate serve in public office to run for prez or that a candidate must be a millionaire... stuff like that

No it doesn't depend on what the process requires.

Ok, thanks for your input

 

[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.

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

Do you recall when that NAZI douchebag mayor of Portland refused to allow Trump to send in the National Guard? Did you whine about that?

Do you ever have an opinion that isn't utterly hypocritical.

So a Nazi was limiting the power of the government. Interesting. Do you see the problem with your statement?

The NAZI mayors were allowing the citizens of Portland and Seattle to be annihilated. How is that limiting the power of government? The one thing government is supposed to do is protects its citizens from predators. That's the only thing NAZIs like you object to it doing.

 

[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.

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

Do you recall when that NAZI douchebag mayor of Portland refused to allow Trump to send in the National Guard? Did you whine about that?

Do you ever have an opinion that isn't utterly hypocritical.

So a Nazi was limiting the power of the government. Interesting. Do you see the problem with your statement?

The NAZI mayors were allowing the citizens of Portland and Seattle to be annihilated. How is that limiting the power of government? The one thing government is supposed to do is protects its citizens from predators. That's the only thing NAZIs like you object to it doing.

the actions of the mayor were exactly opposite of what Nazis would do. Anarchist would be more accurate but I wouldn’t expect accuracy from a person like you

 

[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.

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

Do you recall when that NAZI douchebag mayor of Portland refused to allow Trump to send in the National Guard? Did you whine about that?

Do you ever have an opinion that isn't utterly hypocritical.

So a Nazi was limiting the power of the government. Interesting. Do you see the problem with your statement?

The NAZI mayors were allowing the citizens of Portland and Seattle to be annihilated. How is that limiting the power of government? The one thing government is supposed to do is protects its citizens from predators. That's the only thing NAZIs like you object to it doing.

the actions of the mayor were exactly opposite of what Nazis would do. Anarchist would be more accurate but I wouldn’t expect accuracy from a person like you

Nope. Just look up Krystalnacht. What did German mayors do then?

 

[OKTexas]

"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.

Funny how those sweet little bill titles never accomplishes what the name implies.

.

 

[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.

Funny how those sweet little bill titles never accomplishes what the name implies.

.

The intention of the Bill is normally exactly the opposite of what the name implies.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

10th Amendment. Congress can't add to the Constitutional qualifications to run for president. It would require an amendment to alter the qualifications.

.

 

[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?

10th Amendment. Congress can't add to the Constitutional qualifications to run for president. It would require an amendment to alter the qualifications.

.

Okay

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That's not true, the president and VP are exempt from conflict of interest laws.

.

 

[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.

That's not true, the president and VP are exempt from conflict of interest laws.

.

You sure? I wonder why?

 

[OKTexas]

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's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

No, disclosure of certain information other than one's identity and ability to qualify for president is adding an eligibility requirement.

So, background checks and disclosure of all attorney-client communications could also be required before one could run, according to you, right?

Anything is possible if a law is passed and if it doesn’t conflict with existing law. Attorney client communications are protected by law so I’d expect that not to pass or to be challenged

Privacy of tax returns are also protected by law.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That's not true, the president and VP are exempt from conflict of interest laws.

.

You sure? I wonder why?

Because anything they would do that would help the country as a whole would help them as well. Just think of tax reductions, if a presidents taxes are cut by that bill should they be unable to sign it?

.

 

[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.

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's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

The US hasn't been a free country for almost 90 years.

 

[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?

It's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

The US hasn't been a free country for almost 90 years.

Awwww you poor oppressed baby. I feel so bad for you. Hang in there, you’ll get through this if you stay strong!

 

[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.

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's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

The US hasn't been a free country for almost 90 years.

Awwww you poor oppressed baby. I feel so bad for you. Hang in there, you’ll get through this if you stay strong!

You'll be saying "Awwww you poor oppressed baby" when they march you off to the Gulag.

 

[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?

It's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

The US hasn't been a free country for almost 90 years.

Awwww you poor oppressed baby. I feel so bad for you. Hang in there, you’ll get through this if you stay strong!

You'll be saying "Awwww you poor oppressed baby" when they march you off to the Gulag.

Haha. Is that what they’ve been doing for the past 90 years?

 

[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.

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's a free country, you can do that if you wish. Then the courts will determine the outcome.

.

The US hasn't been a free country for almost 90 years.

Awwww you poor oppressed baby. I feel so bad for you. Hang in there, you’ll get through this if you stay strong!

You'll be saying "Awwww you poor oppressed baby" when they march you off to the Gulag.

Haha. Is that what they’ve been doing for the past 90 years?

That's what Democrat Reich minions do, NAZI. You have revealed your cloven hoof. Dem Nazis have openely demanded that they want to "deprogram" people simply for being Republican.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

Any proposed changes to the constitution should be decided by the people through a referendum, not by a handful of money grabbers.