• KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    A single federal judge can say that there needs to be a conviction of being an insurrectionist or rebel, and that ends this discussion in its place. There are plenty of things that aren’t written in the Constitution that judges have made up rules for. Doing this also sets a nice bright line rule that judges love.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, in this case they would. The Constitution notes three requirements to hold the office of President. The President must be at least 35 years of age, a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. If someone were to file a suit claiming that a candidate wasn’t a natural born citizen, or that they hadn’t lived in the USA for the required 14 years, then it would be up to a federal judge to handle that case. Not the individual states. The 14th Amendments simply adds to that list of requirements that the individual must not have engaged in insurrection, etc. after having sworn an oath to the USA.

        State’s can and do make their own requirements to be on the ballot but this issue will, in the end, need to be resolved at the federal level.

      • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If the secretary of state is acting outside of her (federal) constitutional purview, Trump can sue in federal court and challenge it. State officials aren’t necessarily considered states which bar federal jurisdiction. But if Colorado had enacted a law that prevented Trump from being on the ballot and the secretary of state was the one defending it, Trump wouldn’t be able to sue in federal court.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Secretary of State is the ultimate arbiter of who gets on a state ballot in most, if not all, states. I don’t know how that could be successfully challenged. It’s part of one of their primary functions.

          • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The “ultimate arbiter” who still needs to act within the extent that the constitution allows. If the secretary of state started banning black men from being on the ballot, that would be outside of their scope and could be challenged in federal district court.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              What section of the Constitution would require Trump to be on the ballot? Quote it please. Because the 14th Amendment suggests he doesn’t belong on it.

              • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment (first paragraph) both deal with due process. A federal judge could say the state official is acting outside of the Constitution by not giving him due process.

                You’re also allowed to reply without downvoting. I don’t know why you think that does anything, but this isn’t Reddit.