The states determine how the Electors are chosen. As gonzomax stated, the Constitution describes the eligibility requirements to be President.
And no one is trying to preempt that right. However,
-
The House and Senate have systems in place for determining if an elected member of their body is eligible. There is no system in place for President-elect. As was explained during to original Birther debate pre-election 2008, Congress can rule on the eligibility of an elector, not the president-elect.
-
In fact, there is not a system in place other than a lawsuit by someone with standing which is apparently very difficult to find.
-
you and gonzomax are giving a non-sequiter. It is true that a state cannot have a requirement for Federal office more strict than the Constitution as California found out when trying to implement term-limits at the Federal level. Based on how Congress dealt with elected officials that were underage, I would suspect that if a state said no one could run if they were under 35 would be unconstitutional because that is a correctable requirement. Not being an NBC is not. So stating that someone needs to be an NBC to run for Presidient in the state in no way violates the Constitution bacause the states are not changing the definition of eligibility.
-
If you want to be pedantic about the Constitution, the state legislature determines who the electors are (upheld in the whole Bush/Gore/Fla debacle). In fact, this is why Faithless Elector laws are Constitutional - the states can pick electors based on their guaranty that they will vote the way the popular vote has chosen. The interstate compact that some speak of would have a state’s electors required to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. So why is it unconstitutional for a state to require Electors to vote for someone whom the state has established as eligible for the office?
So again I ask, why is it wrong to determine if someone is eligible for the office they are running for? And apparently for gonzomax and monty, how does checking if someone is eligible change the eligibility standards? Is there an observer effectin politics?
Well gee, local governments actually run the elections. Every township, city and village run the elections. So why don’t we allow every single precinct make the call on elligibility ?
Forget the states. Go all the way with the ridiculous premise.
That is just an asinine statement. Elections for President are under the auspices of a Secretary of State or other state official. Face it, you cannot come up with any valid reason that a state should be banned from checking on the eligibility qualifications of a candidate.
You have implied that somehow checking the eligibility in effect changes the eligibility and have not addressed any other point that I made so rather than a fallacious overstatement, how about addressing this one simple question: in a statewide election (and no matter how you twist it, a presidential election is 50 statewide and 1 Federal district election), why should a state not be allowed to ask a candidate to establish eligibility for the office they are running for.
Or how about this question, would it be unconstitutional for a state to require an elector to vote for an NBC for President. Why? And if so, then are faithless elector laws and this interstate compact also unconstitutional?
Or how about this. There are cases of NBCs openly running for President. Can a state constitutionally prevent their electors from voting for that candidate?
Ralph Nader was on some ballots as a candidate for US President in 2004, and blocked in other states. This seems to be a recent precedent for each state managing it’s own part of a nationwide election. Ralph Nader 2004 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
“Faithless Elector laws are constitutional”? Says who?
There are restrictions to parties. For instance in some states it is required in order to appear on the ballot, you have to have gotten 3 percent of the total votes in the last presidential election. That is not a problem for the Dems of Repubs. It is a difficult hurdle for some parties like the Greens and the Libertarians. In some states they have to gather thousands of signatures. Not a problem for the main parties.
But the birth certificates and eligibility is determined by the parties. The states can force 3rd parties to jump through hoops. But they did not reject Nader because of any personal information. His party could not get the signatures or meet some other requirement. The state did not, nor could they make a decision on their own whether Nader was qualified legally to run. That is not in the power of the states.
Yet again you present no proof or justification for this statement. Why are states not allow to require a candidate to be eligible for the office that they are running for as long as the state does not add more eligibility requirements beyond that in the Constitution? Just answer the question.
SCOTUS says.
Ray v. Blair in 1952
Oh and it also implies that state electors are just that, representatives of the state and not the federal government so that states can hold their electors accountable for their votes.