Sure they do. If Miley Cyrus wins a majority of the EC in 2024, then someone has to object that she is not at least age 35. It just doesn’t come from the ether.
And if she wanted to claim that her birthdate has been reported wrong and that she is 36 years old, she is entitled to use the court system to present her claims.
This is also similar to Trump’s abuse of the Emoluments clauses, which he totally disregarded while enriching himself. He violated that in multiple ways, but there is no statute to enforce it, so what could anyone do about it?
I am far less concerned about hanging Trump and his allies than I am ensuring he can’t run again for any federal office. There must be some way to have him declared ineligible based on the Emoluments clauses, I just can’t figure out a way to do it. Time is of the essence since it’s unlikely the Dems will maintain control of Congress much longer.
I disagree. Congress, in this situation, would not have to take any action. We don’t need a law saying a twenty-nine year old can’t be President; we already have that law - Article II, Section 1.
And then when Miley shows up on January 20, 2025 to take the oath of office and she is refused, she could then go to court to argue that she was really 35. You seem to be saying that things just happen and nobody can say or do anything about it.
Yeah, as far as the Constitution itself is concerned, Trump is now ineligible to hold office. And so what? What happens if half the country elects him anyway? The Constitution doesn’t prevent things from happening. It just says what shouldn’t happen. It’s up to us, everyone, to make sure those things don’t happen.
Responsibility is hard. 
With great responsibility comes people backing away at great speed.
No, I am not saying things just happen. Constitutional amendments are not spontaneously generated. They are enacted by Congress and ratified by the states. But one that process is completed, they’re actual laws. They don’t need any further action by Congress to make them real.
Miley Cyrus is not eligible to be President in 2024 because she is too young. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President in 2024 because he is not a natural born citizen. Donald Trump is not eligible to be President in 2024 because he gave aid or comfort to insurrectionists. These are all based on existing laws; none of them need a new law to be enacted by Congress.
Now it is true that the country might just decide to ignore the law and allow an ineligible person to serve as President. If Miley Cyrus shows up an Inauguration Day and nobody wants to point out she’s too young, she might become President. There is precedent; Henry Clay was elected and sworn in as a Senator in 1806 despite the fact that he was only twenty-nine years old and was therefore ineligible to serve as Senator.
We can hire Orly Taitz. She’s already got all the paperwork done. We just need to cross out Obama’s name and write in Trump’s.
Could it be possible that some people in places of power, judges and so forth, may tend to believe that in two of these circumstances the evidence and the law is stronger than in the third?
What parts of the Constitution do you think count and what parts do you think don’t?
All of them. But you don’t just to declare that someone violated a provision and say “That’s it. Debate over. I win.” The other person gets a shot at making the case that your opinion may not be factually or legally accurate. That applies to Donald, Miley, and Arnold equally.
The Constitution is open to a lot of interpretation. That’s why the Supreme Court exists.
Mutatis mutandis.
This is not what I have said.
If somebody is ineligible to President based on faulty information then they certainly should have opportunities to offer the correct information. Barack Obama is a good example of this. There were people who said he was ineligible to be President because he was born in another country. Obama was given the opportunity to present the evidence that he was born in the United States.
If Cyrus or Schwarzenegger or Trump have evidence that they are eligible, they should have the opportunity to present that evidence. What they should not be able to do is what you said, declare “That’s it. Debate over. I win.”
You have said this. It has not been found by a court, Congress, or any body with any standing to say it. It involves complex legal and factual questions in which, with respect, your position does not come close to supporting.
If Trump is elected in 2024, he does not need to disprove this; someone on your side needs to prove this rather remarkable proposition.
Yet you declare it as a fact brought down by Moses.
I’m very open to a debate on this subject. But you don’t seem to have one. You just keep saying there is nothing to debate.
If I am winning this argument it’s because nobody is offering a counter-argument. I’m not declaring myself the winner here; I’m just standing out in the middle of the field waiting for another team to show up.
Let me repeat what I posted earlier:
Had Trump taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution? Yes, quite publicly on January 20, 2017.
Did an insurrection against the Constitution occur? Yes, on January 6, 2021.
Did Trump give aid or comfort to those insurrectionists? I think the evidence is yes.There’s the necessary steps. Trump is constitutionally unable to hold any office in the federal or state level unless Congress chooses to pardon him.
Tell me which of those things you think isn’t true and we can discuss it.
Why do you think the “truth” matters? We’re talking about law.
I’m not looking to play semantic games. I’m assuming if you’re arguing about the nature of truth, it means you can’t present a better argument. I believe in legal circles, this is known as pounding the table.