Release of tax returns as a requirement

[onenote]

26. The fact that you like to make up your own version of the law doesn't make it real law.

No, Congress cannot enact laws that go beyond what the Constitution mandates. The qualifications stated in the Constitution for who can become president are not minimum standards that Congress can decide to exceed. Congress can't say that the age standard is a "minimum" standard and thus Congress can specify that someone has to be 52 years six months and 3 days old to be president. Congress can't take the requirement that someone be a natural born citizen and add to it the requirement that no one can run for president if they ever lived outside the United States or a requirement that they not only be a natural born citizen but have been born in one of the original 13 states. Why? Because the stated qualifications are the exclusive qualifications, not the minimum qualifications.

Turning back to the cases you and I have cited, you have ignored a key statement, made at the very beginning of the majority opinion in Thornton: "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." The fact that the particular case before the Court involved the Constitutional qualifications to be elected to the House and Senate rather than President is immaterial -- the point is the same: the Constitutional requirements for election to federal office cannot be act by a mere legislative act. It requires a Constitutional amendment.

As for Bowen, your reliance on that case also is misplaced. It was a case in which Alan Keyes (why do crazy repubs seem to be the big supporters of your positions on this issue?) led a fight to force California to investigate whether Obama was qualified to be President. The Court ruled that there was no provision in California law requiring such an investigation and that the Constitutional structure, particularly the 12th Amendment, vested the authority in Congress to make the determination as to whether someone elected to serve as president met the specified CONSTITUTIONAL requirements for such service. But nothing in the 12th Amendment, or the 20th, or any other provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to enlarge, reduce or otherwise modify the eligibility requirements specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Finally, your reliance on the War Powers Act as some sort of precedent supporting the notion that Congress can re-define the eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution is somewhat perplexing. First, the constitutionality of the WPA has not been decided by the SCOTUS. Second, there are arguments about its constitutionality from both sides of the debate -- some argue that it is an unconstitutional limitation on the the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Others state that it is unconstitutional because it is in derogation of the constitutional provision conferring authority to declare war on Congress. But in either case, the argument is that it is in furtherance of some specific power given by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress authority to impose new eligibility standards on the office of the President.