Article 2 of the Constitution empowers electors to vote for our president. A majority of electors is required. The same Article provides electors with directions as to qualifications - age, citizenship and residency requirements. Just read it. It's all laid out for the electors.
What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates. If you are suggesting that electors might make a mistake, you are really suggesting only that you might disagree with or disapprove of their analysis, findings and decision. Please keep in mind that your proposal to create an extra-constituional role for the Supreme Court (screening and approving candidates) would carry with it the same risk in that you might very well disagree with Supreme Court analysis, findings and decision. There just isn't any constitutional way to ensure that you will not disagree with the decisions made by whomever is constitutionally empowered to make the decision.
Our Constitution empowers voters and their electors to select presidents. Our Constitution empowers the Congress to remove presidents through an impeachment process. You might prefer that the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to perform (or supervise) those functions, but at present it does not.
One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court. If the justices want to disregard public records (birth certificates) or to question their accuracy, how are the justices to even begin to investigate and determine the location of births where there are no competent witnesses (other than the candidate) living? Should they hold a trial in the Supreme Court and hear witnesses? Should they empanel a jury to find facts for them? Or, should the findings of fact be made by some local judge or jury and the Supreme Court just adopt those findings if they like them? How does the Supreme Court resolve factual issues of paternity and parental citizenship (if the court feels that those facts are relevant to a candidate's qualifications) when, as is often the case, all witnesses to the candidate's conception are deceased or unavailable?
I don't like your proposal. I don't think that a judge, a petit jury or a small group of judges would be better than voters and their electors at resolving inherently doubtful issues like birth locations and paternity.
In post 1473, I tried to illustrate the problems with your proposal. Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.
Fifty-seven straight elections without anyone ever really "knowing" for certain where any of the candidates were born or "knowing" for certain who might have been the candidates' real fathers demonstrates that we don't need the Supreme Court to screen candidate qualifications. Our system works.
Those who maintain that they "know" the true facts and "know" that the voters and their electors were twice mistaken in thinking Obama qualified would be well advised to prepare for 2016. If they think Cruz or any other candidate is unqualified, they should make their pitch to the voters because, under our Constitution, the voters and their electors decide. The Supreme Court can't and won't help. What must the justices do to be more clear about that?
What we have been seeing for some 57 straight elections is the system that was manifestly intended by those who designed the procedures for picking presidents. The system may not be perfect, but it works.
I admire a good imagination, but honesty is more important here. There are no "directions" for electors on the qualifications. The eligibility requirements come two paragraphs after talking about the job of the electors. The paragraph in between talks about the responsibility of Congress to determine the time and "chusing" of electors.
What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates.
The judicial power authorized by the Constitution applies to: all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. Is there some part of "all Cases" you don't understand??
One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court.
Institutional limitations?? Sorry, but the excuses here are getting ridiculous. Is there not an inherent institutional limitation on the Congress when the majority party is the same as the party of the president??
Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.
Nonsense. The removal of a president takes the same form as a judicial trial. The only difference is that the responsibility is specifically designated to the Congress. Unfortunately, we already know this is a flawed system because of inherent political bias. I'm not wasting time on the other excuses. And that's all they are: excuses.