John Dean Nails It: "Governor Palin Does Not Qualify Under the Implicit Constitutional Standards"

John Dean nails Palin’s lack of qualifications.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080905.html

Consider this parallel: Does anyone believe that if John McCain were president and had selected Governor Sarah Palin under the Twenty-fifty Amendment to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, Congress would have confirmed her? Not likely. In fact, it is even less likely that McCain would have even attempted to do so, for he would have embarrassed himself.

While the Constitution does not expressly set forth qualifications for the vice-presidency, it strongly implies them --- and Palin falls short.

*************************

The Twenty-fifth Amendment Suggests the Primary Qualifications for Vice Presidents:
Be Equipped to Serve as President Starting, if Necessary, on Day One

Governor Sarah Palin Does Not Qualify Under the Implicit Constitutional Standards

When Nixon selected Ford to be his Vice President, and Ford selected Rockefeller, the government was divided, with the Democrats controlling Congress. Yet a Democratic Congress approved both Ford and Rockefeller to be Vice President based on inter-branch comity. Surely no one would argue that Sarah Palin is in a league with Ford and Rockefeller when it comes to experience.

Nor does Palin possess anything close to the experience qualifications of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, or the President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Indeed, I feel confident that Palin could not get confirmed for any of the top presidential succession posts, namely the posts of Secretary of State, Treasury and Defense. Palin's lack of qualifications have been widely noted. Newspapers from her state have raised questions of her qualifications.

Recently, I was in Alaska, just after Palin's name was first floated as a possible McCain running mate. Although I am not a Democrat, I gave a keynote speech at the Democrats' state convention. During my visit, a senior Democratic Party official said to me that he sure hoped McCain would select Palin, because based on his observation of her record Alaska, he opined that, : "She's screwing up Alaska big time, and she could probably assure defeat for McCain." His wish may be coming true.

much more at:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080905.html

From his keyboard to God's modem!

We knew nothing of this person in the lower 48, hell who knows who the governor is of North Dakota?

I would have to look that up too.

she's just the fall gal.

The fundementalist base cares only about abortion. Nothing else matters.

the highly partisan Republican-controlled Congress of 2004 would not have confirmed him as President.

Very inconvenient, I'd love it if we heard NO comparisons to him until November 4 because they can only hurt.

Heard someone going on about how thoroughly Kerry vetted Veep candidates in 2004 on the news last week. Hung my head and thought "I hope no one says the obvious...".

He's just politically too hot while the scandal is fresh now. He has a law degree was a US Senator and has done a tremendous amount of work for the poor that we should be proud of. So he cheated on his wife? That is not the end of a political career anymore. Hell there's one Senator now who was arrested for soliciting gay sex in bathroom and another who was caught up in a prostitution ring. He didn't break any laws.

Kerry's judgement was fine then and nothing to Hang your head about. John Edwards is laying low not to be a distraction from Obama now but he is hardly a non-person because of an affair. Puh-leeze!

Yeah. I'm talking in words of 'faith' folk here. Edwards might have a career as a Republican, but Demcorats just don't welcome back people who grandstand about their 'southern Baptist values' to explain why he simply can not support GLBT equality, while simultaneously having an adulterous affair AND boldly lying about that afffair. What? His religious dogam is supposed to dictate my life but not afffect his own behavior? Puh-leeze!
How you can defend this hypocrite is beyond me. Edwards was in no way compelled to spout off about his high Baptist sexual morality when asked about my rights. No one put a gun to his head and made him spew lies about how holy he is, and mind you, how holy he is compared to GLBT people. He did that by choice. He has yet to make any attempt to make penance for that wrong. He has not apologized, for example, for using our community as a smokescreen to hide his own philanderings. A big psuedo Baptist smokescreen. Of his own free will and lawyerly training, Edwards stood up and claimed to be so invested in the sanctity of marriage that he could not bear to see his holy Union marred by other couples having rights. He did that to get elected.
Expalin please how you see any of that as righteous. Be specific. John and Elizabeth did harm to the political goals of good Democrats and he directly spoke against my family. Neither of them has apologized for standing in the way of those fighting for rights merely for political gain.
Maybe you are comfy, like the GOP, with having known liars and reprobates in office. Most Democrats are not. John Edwards the liar and slander monger, has no marrieage at all compared to mine. He cheats and lies to his wife and kids. We don't do that crap. Been together longer than John and the Beard, and no 'affairs' or any of that crap that Edwards is so into.
John and Elizabeth are not good people. Good people do not sling mud at political allies to defend against others learning the truth about thems. Good people, who do wrong, they come forward and make it right. Those two are steeped in excess money, steeped, and yet, every night GLBT youth are sleeping on the street, going hungry, and all because their parents share the Edwards' 'family values'. They could afford to house them all, in LA and in NY and all over the place. They helped put those kids in peril, and thus far, they have taken no action. Not so much as owning up to the full context of his lies against the GLBT community.
Now understand, if Edwards had been an honest man, playing around, flying his freak flag, I'd never in a million years judge his private life. But act like Rev Snotbox, judge my private life as being subject to inequal law, and honey, no one has the right to do that and also run around humping random legs. He says God says I must be less than equal. God. What kind of miserable fuck can say such a thing while reeking of his own deceptions?

My original response was to a post that implied that Kerry had bad judgment to pick him as a VP and the implication that because of his affair, his political career was over. I disagreed with Jon's affair reflecting bad judgment on Kerry's part, he made a very normal decision at the time based on the information available to him. I still stand by my assertion that his career is not over and I disagree with you that Democrats "just don't welcome people back" and point you in the direction of Bill Clinton who still draws adoring crowds as he did at the height of the Lewinsky controversy, an affair that had a much bigger impact on the country and the party at the time.

I never defended Edwards or supported him at all in my post other than stating the fact that he is, on paper,then and now, qualified for V.P. Personally, I was not aware that he hid behind his religion to deny human, equal rights to the GLBT. Most politicians do so it's hard to differentiate. Other than Howard Dean and Kucinich I can't think of a prominent Dem that supports full equal rights. They all hide behind religious terms and say the word marriage is still only for opposite-sex unions. Clinton and Obama unfortunately too. I do not feel that Civil Unions are equal. I think it's a form of separate but not equal. Until there is marriage for all, one term for everyone then it's still two worlds. Logistically there are thousands of laws on the books with the word marriage. Why create a new set of laws trying to duplicate them when just by changing one law (who can marry) and you'd assure that all would be equal? The only reason to create another term is to ride the fence of the issue to gain voters, achieve some sort of compromise with Homophobes, make them feel more comfortable with it. I hate this about Obama, I cringe when he says it, but I hope that it is a baby step towards full equality that will be achieved not a moment to soon. They are all hypocrites about this- fearful politicians not taking a true stand and it's so disappointing. But we can't vote for Republicans so what can we do? Obama has spoken in a way about GLBT issues better than most to people who need to hear it so I have hope for him.

Is Edwards a screaming hypocrite? Absolutely. Am I furious at BOTH of the Edwards, John and Elizabeth, about it? You bet your ass I am. I was a an Edwards supporter this year, I appreciated his efforts to talk about the poor, especially about NOLA, and I thought that he was a nice decent guy. I may have even sent a few bucks to him. When I found out what a liar he was, how he could cheat on her after all of those years when she needed him most I was sick with fury and amazed at my naivete. I never will totally trust my judgment about a politician again. I will forever be angry that knowing that he had had this affair that they still chose to run for president. What if he actually became the nominee and then the secret was revealed? They would have taken down the whole party and most certainly given 4 more years to the Republicans. They gambled on the Country's future and all of our lives. It is the most selfish thing imaginable and he will definitely never have my support again for this.

Edwards most definitely gets added to those Hypocrites that preach about the sanctity of marriage while making a mockery of it personally. It most assuredly throws out all credibility if he ever utters anything against supporting full marriage rights based on religious reasons. When the Democratic Party stops trying to get bigots votes and stands on true principles it will be a better day for us all. Progress moves entirely too slowly.

Wish you peace!

That just shows how far your party has drifted from you, John. Yes, they would argue. And they would have many followers nodding in agreement with a burst of "ditto" scattered about. They will deny like a 5-year old whining "not me!" even when shown videotape from 3 different angles.

They lie with reckless abandon, just pushing air through their larynx to drown out any facts which might be bandied about. It's not so much that they can't reconcile the logic, because there is no need for any. They just blurt out what their emotions tell them they want to be true and they shut their eyes and pray for it to be so. Of course Palin has qualification equal to Ford and Rockefeller. And the economy is fine and the Iraq war is won and Jesus loves them and they can watch video of monkeys flying out of Madonna's butt and abstinence works and Dubya is smart and compassionate and they can quit drinking anytime they want. :silly:

that the VP choice had to be vetted by Congress (when a VP had to assume the presidency). I was sitting there thinking, "Is this right?" But then, I heard it was ... I think it was here on DU that it was spelled out ...

Dean should know better.

The people are free to elect the village idiot as long as he's 35 and a native born citizen.

And if they do, that's what it is.

Nobody ever said democracy is perfect.

bs from Dean.

for when there's a vacancy other than at the end of the term.

having the consent of the people trumps any other criteria.

the 25th amendment could even have required that any replacement veep have a minimum of x years in congress and/or governorship or whatever and it would not be inconsistent with the different requirements for ELECTED veeps. it would not be unreasonable to have different standards for people who get the office while bypassing election.

standards for a VP the short answer is that it didn't. It doesn't say anything about additional standards or provide anything from which an "implied" set of qualifications other than getting a majority of the House and Senate to vote for the person can be conjured.

Moreover, in the Presidential Succession Act, Congress specifically excluded officers from the order of succession if they didn't meet the eligibilty standards in the Constitution. They also said nothing about any other standards, let alone some unstated, undefined, subjective "experience" qualification that is utterly ridiculous to even think exists.

If you read the whole article, you would know that Dean was part of theCongressional committee that wrote the ammendment that put those specifications in the constitution. Almost EVERY law has things that are implied. You're statement is the argument the Pubs like Scalia, Roberts & Thomas always make. If it's not written into the Constitution, it doesn't exist! I doubt that's really your position, is it? If it is, YOU also would support overturning Roe, because the basis behind Roe is that the Constitution "IMPLIES" Privacy Rights!

The standard is not whether the Constitution is all encompassing, but the nature of its omissions.

When in doubt... where the constitution is silent, you chose liberty. That which is not forbidden is permitted.

The rights of the people are not fully enumerated. (ie. privacy)

The restrictions on the people are enumerated in the constitution and in laws adjudged to be constitutional. In this case, the people cannot pick a 23 year old foreign born president. That is a limit on the people's choice in the matter.

Electing who you want, even if a dunce, is a power.

Dean is suggesting that the constitution contains implied restrictions on the people's power, and that is horse-shit. If you start looking for implicit restrictions based on what might be a good idea this will be a police state within a few SCOTUS sessions.

That is not equivalent to Roe, it is the opposite.

check the history books, in the year 2000, and re-elected him
in 2004.

How's that workin' out for us?

SAdly, the electorate has been weaned on Britney Spears,
and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Doncha want a 'hot' president?

I am so sick of blaming politicians when the real blame lies with the electorate. It is anti-democratic to pretend the people are sweet and wonderful but misled by the bad guys.

The people ARE the bad guys, and the Constitution allows the people to express their horribleness.

But, as the saying goes, teams fire the coach because they can't fire the players.

(Any history of Germany in the 1930s says it all. Those folks were not all innocent lambs led astray by a few bad apples any more than we are.)

I am so sick of blaming politicians when the real blame lies with the electorate.

Or, to quote George Carlin (something I do a lot):

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public."

is that if President McCain (Lord strike me dead if I ever type those words again) were to set about replacing his Vice President after the untimely death of Vice President Lieberman (crushed under the weight of his own unmitigated gall), then McCain would have to get confirmation of his new VP by a majority of both houses of Congress.

Under that scenario, can you possibly imagine either the House or the Senate giving approval to Sarah Palin?

The "implied" qualification is that the Vice Presidential nominee should be someone who could be put to a vote by the Congress without members from both parties pissing themselves in laughter.

Is to elect the guy who picked a smart, experienced running mate.

Gobama.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

First, the Constitution expressly states certain objective minimum qualifications for someone to run for and serve as president. That's it. THere is no "implicit" requirement of any other level of qualfication other than to be able to convince the requisite number of voters in states with the requisite number of electors to support you. No one could ever go to court to claim that someone running for or elected to the office of president fails to meet some "implicit" constititutional standard, particularly one that is essentially subjective.

Second, Dean's own arguments fail one after another. Would Congress confirm Palin if her name had been submitted to fill a vacancy in the Vice President's office? Not today, because a Democratic majority would object. But go back a few years when the repubs controlled both the House and the Senate? I have little doubt that they could and would confirm her unless they thought it was political suicide. But that could be said about someone with far more experience than Palin who also was politically untenable to the constituents of those casting the vote. For example, if there was a Democrat in the White House and the repubs controlled the House and Senate, do you really think that they would confirm Dennis Kucinich as VP? And do you think that decision would have anything to do with whether DK was "qualified" to be president?

Third, the fact that there is no requirement that the Speaker or any of the others in the line of succession, other than the VP, meet the minimum objective qualifications for the presidency -- i.e., the speaker could be someone under the minimum age or a naturalized citizen -- further disproves the notion that the Constitution and/or anything else establishes legal qualifications for being VP (or Pres) beyond those expressly set forth in the Constitution.

Sorry, but Dean's just way way off base on this in terms of making a legal argument. THat doesn't mean that Palin is "qualified" to be president in a practical, political sense, but she is legally qualified to be president just as any tom, dick, harry, jane, judy or sue is if they meet the minimum age and citizenship requirements.

More to the point, could a foreign born speaker ascend?

I recall people saying Kissinger was not in the line of succession when he was Sec State because he was foreign born.

I had never thought of the age requirement for a Speaker of the House though. No reason a Speaker couldn't be 25. Unlikely, but not forbidden.

(The President Pro Tem of the Senate is usually about 85 years old)

by specifying that the order of succession specified therein only applies to officers who are "eligible to the office of President under the Constitution." So if the speaker doesn't meet the age or natural born citizen requirements, you drop down the list to the next person and so on until you hit one that qualifies.

and whoever is next in line, or next in line and over 35, come in. Sort of the same way you fall out of your place in line for the British throne if you marry a Catholic. Everybody after you moves up one.

We're way past the point where rational analysis means anything -- if it ever did. The only thing that matters is running someone who can get votes. Palin can get the votes because she's got the wingnuts fired-up. They want a culture war and she can start it -- and probably win it. We're in for four more years in the wilderness because Democrats aren't willing to get in the gutter with them. That's the only way to beat them.

Why do you assume that this woman who can not even do an interview can both start and win a culture war all by her self? What is your evidence? Or is it simply a heartfelt desire?
Why do you think that the average American is going to fall for 'cultrue wars' while they can not pay their bills or go to the doctor?
Tell you what. We are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

for they all about implementation of their radical RW corporatist agenda and absolutely nothing else. :P

When are we going to wake up?

The fundies don'r vote on common sense matter, only their interpretation on what god would do.

:sarcasm:

Excellent article. Of course, it's only the latest in a growing string of authoritative commentaries on Palin's lack of qualifications, and it'll be dismissed by the MSM and the punditry just as fast as all the others.

I can't wait for November!

Reality is irrelevant. Image is all.

A Vice President actually has to be able to do the job.

OTOH Harry Truman didn't have much, but he kicked ass.
Mixed bag.
LBJ- good on civil rights, lousy on Vietnam, most effective and powerful Senator ever
IKE - Possibly the last Republican without his head up their ass.

;-)

Not the RWer papers like Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, but I could expect these papers that I read to consider the issue honestly: Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, Toledo Blade, the Centre Daily Times, and the Youngstown Vindicator.

NY Times would endorse Obama on the climate protection issue, I would think.