Talk:United States presidential eligibility legislation

Background agrees with other articles. Talk please

Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction and Impeachment in the United States#Removal and disqualification were in contradiction. Please discuss before adding new contradictions.
Thank you. --Frobozz1 (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what the contradiction is exactly, merely saying there is one without saying what it is is akin to an argumentum ad lapidem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the only place alleging as fact that a President can be ineligible via impeachment or the 14th. In fact the POTUS article now also contradicts this one. You had it nearly perfect with the last accepted version, which was at least factually accurate and accurately represented the WP:MAINSTREAM parts of the citations.

What exactly is the value add of this Bernstein The Atlantic:Ideas article you don't want to let go of?. How can you mash his opinion into an article so it is WP:MAINSTREAM and "directly supports the statement" "A person... could still be disqualified from holding the office of president having... been disqualified from holding further public office subsequent to an impeachment and conviction under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7" I'm genuinely interested. Make that thing worthy of Wikipedia and let's be done with it.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Amen.

• Only minor word-tweak: 22nd makes you "unelectable" not ineligible - it matters.
• Also disqualification by Art. 1 & 14th is not a "could" - ineligibility is binding; only what they are disqualified from is debated.

References

What's not clear about that quote? "This category includes presidents (along with vice presidents and federal “civil officers”) who are impeached, convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, and disqualified for serious misconduct committed while they were in office." -> important bits only: This includes presidents who are impeached, convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, and disqualified [...] -> reworded to avoid close paraphrasing and to meet the flow of the sentence: A person who meets the above qualifications could still not be eligible [...] if they have been disqualified from holding any "office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States" [...] following either impeachment and conviction under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, or [...]. Are you claiming that a president disqualified under the first article (an idea so prevalent during the last impeachment) would somehow not be disqualified? - I mean, the bit about some debate is already there. Your insertion into Article One of the United States Constitution, however, is problematic, because it tells in Wikipedia's voice that the President is not an "office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States"; while the sources we found say that this is debatable, not an absolute fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the WP:SYNTH from the other article and restored to the version from before you inserted this questionable material. Please be aware that Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own conclusions on something. And then, since it's a free for all, let me rebut your argument with a simple quote form the constitution which explicitly says: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:". QED. Anyway, that is a debate for another talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion about that at Talk:Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3,_Clause_7_(Impeachment), to stay on topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own conclusions on something." - You clearly have not read the WP:RS citations I used.

"Are you claiming that a president disqualified under the first article (an idea so prevalent during the last impeachment) would somehow not be disqualified?" I make no claims at all, I only improved the sources to WP:RS standards. And I have tried incredibly hard to break through this pervasive belief that "an idea so prevalent" actually means anything at all. The concept of WP:MAINSTREAM has nothing at all to do with prevalence in the media. The standard, if you follow the link, is clearly what leading experts would agree to. This specifically excludes Op/Ed statements, when reliable sources, such as renowned Constitutional law expert, Senator Matthew H. Carpenter have clearly and precisely defined what the disqualification clause is for. Disqualification has the "sole purpose" of preventing the President from re-appointing impeached officers after removal, and nothing more. This has been repeated in the House of Representatives during the last impeachment, in fact, who also declared that denying any citizen ballot access to the Presidency is a violation of both the 1st and 12th Amendments (not my words). I genuinely believe you don't even open the source citations, and that is frustrating and a waste of everyone's time.

Now you literally went back to an article which cited the Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, and replaced it with a version which has no citation at all. Please? What is this war you are waging to turn WP into a tabloid? The citation was rock solid, secondary sourced, and perfectly quoted. It said in the proper "Wikipedia voice" what the proper authorities - Congress - agree to. Now it has no citation at all, and I wager you intend to throw that tripe from The Atlantic all over WP to pretend this is some Op/Ed churnalism site.
But since we are in discussion, and before I head to a noticeboard, tell me why this source is somehow not "Wikipedia voice" material. The Atlantic, you argue is Secondary source. OK, I will accept for the sake of argument, that he is a lawyer and somewhat informed, even though he is not publishing to journalism standards when he writes this piece.

• What he could have easily said, was "elected as President", or "re-elected" (because Trump was President.) But he generically said, "elected." That can mean Congress, so it fails the "Directly support" requirement. Yes, it is true that if Trump committed rebellion, he would be ineligible to become a Senator under 14th. Bernstein is exactly correct when he said, "In addition to the list of people who are ineligible for reasons of mere demographic chance, the Constitution adds a category of people who cannot be elected as a result of their misdeeds." You can argue that Bernstein is implying the Presidency, and I agree that he is. But Wikipedia is not a place for implied meanings. That is WP:OR. Wikipedia demands "Directly supporting" citations. The exact word or words meaning "Presidency" must be said since congress is also "elected." This specific quote fails WP:MAINSTREAM
• "Unless a dispute is verifiably acknowledged to exist in high-quality sources, it does not belong in Wikipedia" I have been forced to accept this "disputed" status using off-hand references in news articles, but the high-quality sources inside Congress and written inside their Precedents do not agree that there is any debate. Not one Senator or government official has ever interviewed with any news outlet and said, "The President is an officer under the United States" or a "Civil officer." Never once, and they never will. The debate is in academia, as the Professor at Michigan reported in the Reuters article.
• All that aside, did Bernstein actually support this claim that because a person is impeached and disqualified, then they are not eligible to hold the office of the President? Even in a back-hand way? No. He could have easily said that, but he did not say that. Wikipedia requires him to say that with no ambiguity, and no WP:SYNTH. Here is his exact quote (and notice he very clearly and carefully avoids calling the President a "civil officer", which would have been a lie). His quote, with the FACTS inserted; This category [of people who cannot be elected (to Congress under the 14th Amdt.) as a result of their misdeeds(of insurrection)] includes presidents (along with vice presidents and federal “civil officers”) who are impeached, convicted by two-thirds of the Senate, and disqualified for serious misconduct committed while they were in office. I realize you want this to say something different, and you may believe he just chose his words poorly, but he is a very accomplished writer. He could have easily said, "the Constitution adds a category of people who cannot be elected [be/become/be elected as President] as a result of their misdeeds." Now, if he changed one or two words, this would "Directly support" your claim. But he used the generic "elected" word. Bernstein literally doesn't even mention that there is any debate. He very clearly declared that the President is not a civil officer in the way he worded this. If he was an officer, Bernstein would have written this: This category includes presidents (along with vice presidents and [other] federal “civil officers”), or he could simply say "civil officers" like the President and Vice President. But he chose to make three very distinct categories of "A", "B", and "C", which can not be confused. That is hard to swallow for some people. They want to believe these Op/Eds are honest. In the end it doesn't matter what Bernstein believes, he did not "Directly support" the statement you want included, nor did he even mention anything about a debate. This fails the Wikipedia standards of quality and is OR used in this article without WP:ATTRIBUTION. I personally believe he knows the truth, our right to ballot access is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. @RandomCanadian:

--Frobozz1 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are engaging in criticism of a secondary source (by complaining that what Bernstein is saying is inaccurate), based on what is seemingly your own conclusions and interpretations of primary sources. That is WP:SYNTH, as I said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)

05:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Bernstein never said anything that can fit into an article about "eligibility" to hold the Presidency. It has no place in this article and is without question a WP:PRIMARY opinion, in no way WP:MAINSTREAM.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If the only change to solve all of that was to replace "eligible" with "qualified", I don't see why it was worth making up such a fuss about it - we're Wikipedia, not an actual text of law, so minor issues of wording do not have too much bearing here. You seem to be conflating "office" with "civil officer". I am not sure that those two terms are necessarily equivalent, unlike what you claim. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Article is only citizenship based requirements

I added California's legislation to add the release of tax returns as an eligibility criteria. The addition was promptly reverted because this legislation is different from all the other legislation in the article, as all the other legislation discuss eligibility based on citizenship.

If we are going to limit this article only to legislation based on citizenship requirements, then the article title ought to reflect that. Otherwise the California legislation belongs in the article. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was started to document federal and state legislation growing out of conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. None of those initiatives gained traction to become law. The California legislation seems to fall under ballot eligibility not Constitutional eligibility for holding the office of POTUS. Drdpw (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The current title of the article says nothing about the eligibility needing to relate to constitutional requirements. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Plucking a sentence from Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Legislation and litigation, this article is about "legislation aimed at requiring future presidential candidates to release copies of their birth certificates". I think a move to something like "United States presidential candidate birth certificate legislation" would capture the scope of this article and clear up ambiguity about content. Drdpw (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How about "Legislation in the United States on birth certificate requirements for presidential candidates"? It is a little longer than your proposal due to the extra words "in", "on", "the", "for", and "requirements" but I think it's a preferable choice because

1. it puts the words "Legislation in the United States" at the beginning, as opposed to having the word "legislation" at the end. The word "legislation" should be as close to the beginning as possible since the article is about legislation
2. the legislation is not about the birth certificates, but the requirement for candidate to have a birth certificate

Where is Matt? (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

---

United States presidential eligibility legislation → Legislation in the United States on birth certificate requirements for presidential candidates – Seems that this article was broken off from the article about Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. At the time, the only eligibility legislation was about birth certificates. In 2019, California passed legislation adding public release of tax returns to the criteria for eligibility. Although struck down by the courts, it would be perfectly legitimate to add to the article California's legislation on tax returns, unless the article name is changed. The proposed move is therefore to keep the article in line with the original article from which it was split. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Add "proposed" to the title (regardless of the other aspect): If I understand correctly, none of the described proposed measures are current law. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, none of the birth certificate proposals became law. It is a non-issue now. Drdpw (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Concur with the change, included adding "Proposed." Weazie (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think the word "Proposed" is necessary. Legislation does not mean that it passed into law. Just means it was introduced (same as "proposed"). Where is Matt? (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• The ordinary meaning of "legislation" is law or the writing of law. The word certainly doesn't say something did not become law. We should choose a title that makes it clear, without needing to read the whole article, that none of these various actions discussed at length in the article led to any current active law. Putting "proposed" or "attempted" in the title would help with that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The proposed title is too long, and I don't see why we should limit this article to just proposed birth certificate requirements. Also support adding "proposed", unless any form of legislation is actually passed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The scope of this article is presidential eligibility legislation. The specific issue at the time was natural-born citizenship. That and age, must be at least 35, along with a 14-year U.S. residency requirement are the only presidential eligibility requirements. The California measure was about restricting ballot access, not about ensuring that only constitutionally eligible persons appeared on the ballot. Drdpw (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see the difference between "presidential eligibility requirements" and "[eligibility for] ballot access". All the legislation in the article is about ballot access. Where is Matt? (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose someone could theoretically win the national popular vote (or especially the electoral college vote) without having their name printed on the ballots in some particular state. Most of what is described in the article are actions at the state level, and a state obviously cannot make a law that dictates who is eligible to hold a federal office, although the state may be able to manipulate the balloting process within its own state. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Where is Matt? makes a good point that, whether asking for a birth certificate or tax records, they are both forms controlling ballot access. (But birth certificates tend to prove eligibility, while tax records do not.) Perhaps a new section could include the failed tax-records law, with a title something like "Other Limits to Ballot Access"? Weazie (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• This Rfc move request is about changing the article title not about changing the scope of the article. Given the OP's comments, perhaps they should have considered a an Rfc move request to change the title to something along the lines of "United States presidential ballot access legislation". Drdpw (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is not an RfC. Requests for comment ("RfCs") have different rules, policies and procedures. This is a Requested move (RM). estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• It may be worth mentioning that the section entitled 2009 proposed federal legislation is not about ballot access. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose:Per WP:CONCISE and Estar above. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The current title is fine, and can include other things as appropriate.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about California law on presidential candidates

Should the article include California Senate Bill 27 (2019) regarding ballot access for presidential candidates? See Section 4 of this version of the article for context on a proposed inclusion, which would replace the "See also" section. Where is Matt? (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I added a 'See also' link to that article on 13-11-2023, along with a description. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I see the RfC has been modified. There is no reason to replace the see also link (added to the article a day prior to the RfC post), which accomplishes the original intent of the RfC. Drdpw (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not 2007GabrielT (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include in article. Summoned by bot. Since the title of the article refers to any eligibility legislation, and given that it is written to give good context for any such laws, it makes sense to include all such laws, as proposed in [1]. Given the title, it doesn't make sense to include a bunch of birther laws that didn't pass, but exclude the tax returns law that did. If not, then the article should probably be renamed to something specific to defeated brither laws. 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvls (talk • contribs)

Ha! I just see that such a move was proposed and failed. Given the consensus to keep the title, it seems clear that we should now add the other things that fit under the title. 21:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvls (talk • contribs)

You allude to a broader issue with this article and its subject matter. The article was created to chronicle birther legislation, attempts to codify in state law the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. As none became law, and the issue is no longer, the general notability of this article is questionable. Further, there exists a list of state ballot access laws at Ballot access. The California statute, linked-to in the see also section of this article, is included there. Drdpw (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The third line below the section header "Background" has the following text:

* be a [[Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)|natural-born U.S. citizen]] of the United States;

One of "U.S. citizen" and "of the United States" is unnecessary. Thus, replace that line with:

* be a [[Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)|natural-born citizen]] of the United States;

Thanks in advance. -- 76.212.74.243 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) (comment edited at 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC))

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)