For every job I have ever taken, I have to complete an I9 verification. This means drivers license, Social Security card etc. Since the Constitution of the United States requires the President to be a natural born US citizen, does he still have to complete this form?
Lets say for some reason he puts off digging up his Birth Certificate for 3 days, would he then be removed from office? My WAG would say no, but does anyone know for a fact?
Sgt Schwartz
[QUOTE=Sgt Schwartz]
For every job I have ever taken, I have to complete an I9 verification. This means drivers license, Social Security card etc. Since the Constitution of the United States requires the President to be a natural born US citizen, does he still have to complete this form?
Lets say for some reason he puts off digging up his Birth Certificate for 3 days, would he then be removed from office? My WAG would say no, but does anyone know for a fact?
Sgt Schwartz
[/QUOTE]
No. The requirement to produce an I-9 is federal law, but the President’s position is created by the Constitution, which is superior to simple federal law. It would be tantamount to saying that Congress can pass a law to remove the President. Congress has a chance to weigh in on whether the president is qualified as a US citizen when they accept the electoral votes. But once he’s in office, he may be removed only by impeachment.
Now, could Congress say, “Submit your I-9 form or we’ll impeach you?”
Sure. As long as a majority of the House and 2/3s of the Senate was on board.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Now, could Congress say, “Submit your I-9 form or we’ll impeach you?”
Sure. As long as a majority of the House and 2/3s of the Senate was on board.
[/QUOTE]
And (if the POTUS want to challenge their request instead of just being a nice guy and complying) the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for them to do so.
[QUOTE=Si Amigo]
And (if the POTUS want to challenge their request instead of just being a nice guy and complying) the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for them to do so.
[/QUOTE]
No, the issue of impeachment is beyond the reach of the Supreme Court. It’s a political question, not justiciable. If Congress chooses to impeach the President for wearing bad ties, or being a Red Sox fan, they may.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No, the issue of impeachment is beyond the reach of the Supreme Court. It’s a political question, not justiciable. If Congress chooses to impeach the President for wearing bad ties, or being a Red Sox fan, they may.
[/QUOTE]
That may be a stretch, Bricker. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” should like include a crime of some sort, even though Perjury was a bit of a stretch. I suppose they could Impeach and Remove for a DUI. But since the Constitution does limit the authority of Congress to remove only in the case of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then SCOTUS should be able to rule on what is a “or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
From Wiki “For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following a vote to approve impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon.”
Note the term “Several commentators have suggested…” not “it has been ruled that…”.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
That may be a stretch, Bricker. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” should like include a crime of some sort, even though Perjury was a bit of a stretch. I suppose they could Impeach and Remove for a DUI. But since the Constitution does limit the authority of Congress to remove only in the case of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then SCOTUS should be able to rule on what is a “or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
From Wiki “For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following a vote to approve impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon.”
Note the term “Several commentators have suggested…” not “it has been ruled that…”.
[/QUOTE]
Some of those commentators were US Supreme Court justices. It HAS been ruled that impeachment is a political decision, and the courts cannot rule on whether an impeachment is valid. The Supreme Court, in fact, has said exactly that in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Some of those commentators were US Supreme Court justices. It HAS been ruled that impeachment is a political decision, and the courts cannot rule on whether an impeachment is valid. The Supreme Court, in fact, has said exactly that in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
[/QUOTE]
Oh, and just because they’re Supreme Court Justices, I suppose that makes their opinion more relevant than DrDeth’s, huh? 
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Some of those commentators were US Supreme Court justices. It HAS been ruled that impeachment is a political decision, and the courts cannot rule on whether an impeachment is valid. The Supreme Court, in fact, has said exactly that in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
[/QUOTE]
Not quite. Here’s what WIKI has on that "In this case aUnited States federal judge named Walter Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon, and then report to the body as a whole. Nixon contended that this did not meet the constitutional requirement that the case be “tried by the Senate.”
Justices White, Blackmun and Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing this area for review. While they found that the Senate did in fact all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases where the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process, such as “a cointoss”. The majority held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch, which performed its role appropriately. The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy, and interfere with post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions which the Constitution explicitly allows."
SCOTUS in fact, by hearing the case, decided that they could decide on whether or not an Impeachment was Constitional, as in fact, that’s exactly what they did. Note that SCOTUS did find *“that the Senate did in fact all that was constitutionally required” *thus, if a political branch did not do all that was constitutionally required, then that would be up to SCOTUS.
IN other words, you are correct that SCOTUS has ruled that the courts may not review an Impeachment- except so far as whatever is “constitutionally required”.
Could the Senate remove the President by a simple majority vote? No, because, in order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. If the Senate tried to do so, do you not think that SCOTUS would rule that the conviction was UnConstitutional?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Could the Senate remove the President by a simple majority vote? No, because, in order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. If the Senate tried to do so, do you not think that SCOTUS would rule that the conviction was UnConstitutional?
[/QUOTE]
Er… you know your previous point is still right there for everyone to read, don’t you?
This is what I was responding to:
I said no, the Supreme Court cannot rule on what is a “high crime or misdemeanor.” That’s made clear in Nixon v. US.
You now come back and say, “Oh, no! I meant things like ‘Did the Senate not have a 2/3 majority!’”
I imagine that yes, the Supreme Court could weigh in on whether Congress did or did not follow the required form. If the Senate opened an impeachment trial without the House first voting articles of impeachment, the Supreme Court would certainly have the authority to note that the Senate’s action was constitutionally infirm.
But this question presupposed the validity of form. We were discussing whether the Supreme Court could attempt to invalidate an impeachment because the issue was not a high crime or misdemeanor. You said that they could, I responded that they could not, and cited the case that lays that rule out, and rather than concede error, you have shifted ground to discuss a different point.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Er… you know your previous point is still right there for everyone to read, don’t you?
This is what I was responding to:
I said no, the Supreme Court cannot rule on what is a “high crime or misdemeanor.” That’s made clear in Nixon v. US.
You now come back and say, “Oh, no! I meant things like ‘Did the Senate not have a 2/3 majority!’”
I imagine that yes, the Supreme Court could weigh in on whether Congress did or did not follow the required form. If the Senate opened an impeachment trial without the House first voting articles of impeachment, the Supreme Court would certainly have the authority to note that the Senate’s action was constitutionally infirm.
But this question presupposed the validity of form. We were discussing whether the Supreme Court could attempt to invalidate an impeachment because the issue was not a high crime or misdemeanor. You said that they could, I responded that they could not, and cited the case that lays that rule out, and rather than concede error, you have shifted ground to discuss a different point.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. You have conceded that SCOTUS can review an Impeachment if said Impeachment does not in fact do all that was constitutionally required. Right? The “high crime or misdemeanor” portion is part of the Constitution, and thus part of what is *constitutionally required.
*
In Nixon, a United States *federal judge *named Walter Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury. owever, in order to remove/impeach a Judge, the “high crime or misdemeanor” requirement does not have to be met. The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office “during good behavior,” implying that Congress may remove a judge for simple bad behavior. Thus, Nixon didn’t even touch on “high crime or misdemeanor” .
Thus, SCOTUS, in Nixon, did rule that they can review an Impeachment, but only to the extent of what is constitutionally required. But in Nixon, “high crime or misdemeanor” was not part of what is constitutionally required, thus Nixon is not a cite one can use to prove that SCOTUS can or can not rule on what is or is not a “high crime or misdemeanor” .
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Not at all. You have conceded that SCOTUS can review an Impeachment if said Impeachment does not in fact do all that was constitutionally required. Right? The “high crime or misdemeanor” portion is part of the Constitution, and thus part of what is *constitutionally required.
*
In Nixon, a United States *federal judge *named Walter Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury. owever, in order to remove/impeach a Judge, the “high crime or misdemeanor” requirement does not have to be met. The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office “during good behavior,” implying that Congress may remove a judge for simple bad behavior. Thus, Nixon didn’t even touch on “high crime or misdemeanor” .
Thus, SCOTUS, in Nixon, did rule that they can review an Impeachment, but only to the extent of what is constitutionally required. But in Nixon, “high crime or misdemeanor” was not part of what is constitutionally required, thus Nixon is not a cite one can use to prove that SCOTUS can or can not rule on what is or is not a “high crime or misdemeanor” .
[/QUOTE]
Did you read the decision? Do you understand the “political question” vs. a “justicable controversy” as laid out in Baker v. Carr?
Would you care to quote the portion of the decision in Nixon that supports your view?
I will be happy to lay out Nixon’s support of mine:
Perhaps you can quote any noted legal scholar or commentator that agrees with your view?
In “Grand Inquests, The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson” by William Rehnquist, who may recall held a somewhat relevant job to this question, he concludes as I do that the Congress, and only the Congress, may decide what a High Crime and Misdemeanor is, and the courts cannot review this claim. (Sorry, no on-line cite here – but I highly recommend a visit to your local library).
While you’re there, you could also read “Impeachment: The Constituional Problem,” by Raoul Berger, Harvard University Press (1973), for some needed insight on the process.
The House Judiciary Committee report in 1974 said as much also – that they were not limited to actual violations of law; they quoted Blackstone, Justice Joseph Story, and Edmund Burke for the proposition that their own judgement, and not the criminal law, should determine an impeachable offense.
On what authority are you relying in support of your view?
Can you show me where, in Nixon, the Justices ruled on ““high crime or misdemeanor””?
Do you have a SCOTUS case of Impeachment/Conviction of a Member of the Executive Branch, where the the definition of "“high crime or misdemeanor” is ruled upon?
As you can see, In Nixon, a United States federal judge named Walter Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury. However, in order to remove/impeach a Judge, the “high crime or misdemeanor” requirement does not have to be met. The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office “during good behavior,” implying that Congress may remove a judge for simple bad behavior. Thus, Nixon didn’t even touch on “high crime or misdemeanor” .
Thus, your cite is meaningless for a SCOTUS ruling on “high crime or misdemeanor” as Nixon did not cover that. Judges are not removed for ““high crimes or misdemeanors” they can be removed for anything that Congress decides is outside “during good behavior”. If you think that Nixon covered “high crimes or misdemeanors” you can, of course, quote here the entire Cite, as that is public Domain. There is no need to keep quoting only the little tads and bits that buttress you opinion. And, your quote below is meaninless- we both agree that the Senate has the sole power to try, BUT that SCOTUS certainly has the authority to rule if that trial has or has not met what is"constitutionally required”. As we have agreed, if the Senate tried Conviction on a simple Majority, SCOTUS would certainly demur. So, SCOTUS has reserved to itself the authority to rule if the conviction meets what is “constitutionally required”, and has not reliquished that authority to Congress in the Nixon dec. And, as we can all see, the requirement that the Impeachment/Conviction for the President be “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” is part of the Consitution, is it not?
And, like Wiki said "For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. Note "Several commentators have suggested not “the Supreme Court has ruled that…” or “Every Judicial expert in the field agress that…”, the sort of wording that you’d expect if the issue was as black and white as you make it out to be.
You have access to more legal search engines than I do- what athorities can you find for your position? So, far, we have nothing but a rather lukewarm “Several commentators have suggested”. :dubious:
Getting back to the OP, if the President-elect doesn’t submit an I-9 prior to being sworn in, how does OPM know for certain that their new Top Boss is in fact who he claims to be?
I consider the OP’s question just as significant as my question last year, Does the President have to show ID?
I’m sure this has been asked before, but while we’re on the topic of subjecting POTUSes to the same thing mere mortals must go through–does the POTUS have to go through a security-clearance background check in order to be allowed to see classified info.? I mean, let’s say the newly elected POTUS has a history of drug abuse, or of sleeping around and telling his many mistresses everything, or has shady friends in some undesirable countries … could he be denied security clearance? “Sorry, sir, but we can’t let you see that … we know you shoot your mouth off as soon as you get one glass of champagne in you.”
Shouldn’t it be up to the individual state to determine whether each presidential candidate (in that state) qualifies for office? How much interpretation are the states allowed as for who qualifies?
Can a state put additional requirements to qualify? Number of signatures, anything else?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
You have access to more legal search engines than I do- what athorities can you find for your position? So, far, we have nothing but a rather lukewarm “Several commentators have suggested”. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Did you not read my post? I provided two authorities (or three if you count the House Judiciary Committee, but I agree that they are hardly a neutral party, so I wouldn’t blame you for rejecting their conclusions): “Grand Inquests, The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson” by William Rehnquist, and "“Impeachment: The Constitutional Problem,” by Raoul Berger.
There are no Supreme Court cases directly analyzing “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as applied to a Presidential impeachment. This is because the Supreme Court, like all federal courts, cannot issue advisory opinions – that is, it cannot give an opinion about an issue that MIGHT happen. It can only rule on an actual controversy after it’s happened. This is because of the “case or controversy” requirement of the Constitution.
There have only been two Presidential impeachments in the history of the US, and neither generated Supreme Court-level controversy about the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” clause.
Nonetheless, there is no serious disagreement among legal scholars that the issue of what constitutes a “High Crime and Misdemeanor” is a political question and is non-justiciable.
I have provided you cites that support this point. I’m asking, again, if you have any cites to the contrary.
[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Shouldn’t it be up to the individual state to determine whether each presidential candidate (in that state) qualifies for office? How much interpretation are the states allowed as for who qualifies?
Can a state put additional requirements to qualify? Number of signatures, anything else?
[/QUOTE]
No. The states are precluded from legislating in this aream which the Constitution reserves for the federal government. We learn this from a case styled U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). This case arose in reference to a then newly-passed provison of the Arkansas State Constitution that forbid an otherwise eligible Congressional candidate from being elected if he had already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Supreme Court held that Arkansas’ attempt to add additional qualifications to those already laid out in the federal Constitution:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Did you not read my post? I provided two authorities (or three if you count the House Judiciary Committee, but I agree that they are hardly a neutral party, so I wouldn’t blame you for rejecting their conclusions): “Grand Inquests, The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson” by William Rehnquist, and "“Impeachment: The Constitutional Problem,” by Raoul Berger.
There are no Supreme Court cases directly analyzing “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as applied to a Presidential impeachment. This is because the Supreme Court, like all federal courts, cannot issue advisory opinions – that is, it cannot give an opinion about an issue that MIGHT happen. It can only rule on an actual controversy after it’s happened. This is because of the “case or controversy” requirement of the Constitution.
There have only been two Presidential impeachments in the history of the US, and neither generated Supreme Court-level controversy about the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” clause.
Nonetheless, there is no serious disagreement among legal scholars that the issue of what constitutes a “High Crime and Misdemeanor” is a political question and is non-justiciable.
I have provided you cites that support this point. I’m asking, again, if you have any cites to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]
THose aren’t cites you linked to, they are books/articles you are offering for me to find and read. Maybe they back your point, maybe they don’t. Without quotes from those work, you are using an “argument from authority”, not a cite. Come on dude, you know the difference.
Yes, I know that thy have never removed a President, which is one reason why there are no definitive Court decisons on “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Which means- *there are no definitive Court decisions on that issue. *But the President is not the only Officer in the Executive branch and the “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause applies to them all, not just the President.
But what is important is that the “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause does **NOT **apply to the Judicial branch, thus your cite of Nixon is meaningless as Nixon did not touch on “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” didn’t apply for that removal of a Judge. Thus, Nixon is not a valid cite for what “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” means or doesn’t mean. Come on dude, you know better than that.
I have provided you with cites- and Wiki does give you a nod: but it’s a damn lukewarm nod “*Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense.” * I expect that the articles you mention are amoung the “several commentators”. Thus, it does seem that the weight of *non-citable opinion *in this matter is on your side. But that’s different from your claims that there has been a definitive SCOTUS ruling on this issue- as there hasn’t been, as you pointed out above. Nixon is not at all definitive on the issue of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as Nixon doesn’t even touch on “other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Nixon is not at all definitive on the issue of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as Nixon doesn’t even touch on “other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
[/QUOTE]
You are about the only person on the planet that feels that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is dispositive as to this issue.
I notice you haven’t discussed the general rules concerning justicibility outlined in Baker v. Carr yet. They do not particuarly lend support for your view either.
You’re right – all you have is my claim that the Rehnquist book says what I say it does. Shockingly, the entirety of the world’s written resources are not yet available on-line. I waste a lot of time here, but even i cannot justify the time needed to key in, verbatim, a couple of paragraphs from a boo in my collection to prove my point.
Since this is GQ, and since you and I have been down this road before – not impeachment specifically, but the general road of your belief that your uninformed opinion on legal issues is indistinguishable; no better, or worse, than anyone else’s, frankly, I don’t see a payoff.
If the average reader is not swayed by my points offered thus far, he’ll have to go through life believing this question is unsettled. I am reasonably convinced that YOU will be unswayed, regardless.
Ok, that makes sense. But a state does get to impose some restrictions on who appears on their presidential ballot, right? Some number of residents’ signatures, or nomination by a party, etc.
Could a state refuse a candidate because it has determined that he doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements? For example, could a state refuse a 22-year-old presidential candidate? Or, is the state required to accept him and leave it to Congress to refuse to accept Electoral votes for him. Or, is it up to the Chief Justice to refuse to swear him in? I wonder where the enforcement of the Constitutional requirements is done.