It seems states can’t decide eligibility, so it would take an act of congress to determine my kid ineligible right?
Your kid is ineligible because they presumably aren’t old enough. Nor is your dog, even ignoring all else. This is a ridiculous premise but doesn’t even do a good job of making the point you’re trying to make.
The court specifically said states don’t determine eligibilty. So a state can’t stop my kid from being on the ballot. By thier ruling congress has to do the determination. Of course the kid is ineligible, but procedurally, congress has to say it. My point is that that is absurd.
Sounds like a good method to gish-gallop your way to having a bunch of ineligible candidates on the ballot. Congress surely couldn’t rule upon them all (which is a roundabout way of saying I agree with you).
Can you imagine if they put Elon Musk on the ballot? “Well, he’s technically ineligible, because he’s not an American-born citizen, but Congress hasn’t ruled, so oh well!”
This ruling doesn’t just do away with all of the pre-existing eligibility requirements.
Not committing Insurrection IS a pre-existing Eligibility!
Okay, but Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection. And yes, I agree that that is ridiculous, too, but that’s a separate matter to bitch about. States shouldn’t be able to just unilaterally declare someone guilty of a crime without due process, either.
Agreed! I am FULLY READY to Bow Down to whoever can pull off a successful insurrection EVEN if it’s their second third or fourth try as long as they’re able to Delay the Legal Process long enough!
Nothing in the ammendment says he has to be convicted. A court did determine he participated, and frankly that ruling is what the Supreme court should have confirmed or denied.
Like not committing insurrection?
There is a really high lower aged limit, right? I don’t think your dog can even get that old.
But the ruling says states can’t determine eligibility, so no matter how dumb, congress has to be the one to say so.
You kid can only run if his embryo was frozen for 35 years before implantation.
Nice, I love that take.
Egghead for president!
The constitution lists the following 3 criteria for running for president.
- Be a natural-born citizen of the United States
- Be at least 35 years old
- Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
Your kid could run if / when they meet these criteria, but not your dog.
The constitution also defines citizen as “persons”, which would further disqualify your dog.
Yes, but todays ruling is that states can’t determine eligibility. Socongress has to say my kid is too young or my dog is not a person.
Yeah, kinda. Except that the laws already exist. So somebody ineligible could fight to be on the ballot (or somebody else could fight to have them removed), which would result in a court case. Which is what just happened.
If SCOTUS had decided to hear Trumps immunity arguments sooner rather than later than there would be a chance of him being ejudicated of insurrection before the election. Until that verdict, he remains eligible since Congress failed to impeach him when they had the chance.
In dog years they are qualified if born in this country.
Without reading the ruling, I suspect that this hinges on how you determine ‘insurrection’. Since congress hasn’t made a determination that insurrection occurred in the first place, and Trump hasn’t been tried by any federal court for insurrection, states can’t go off and define insurrection for themselves in order to bar a candidate from holding federal office.
And, TBH–assuming that we come out of this election with a democracy rather than miniPutin–that’s probably a good thing. It would be entirely foreseeable for e.g., Texas to say that Biden had committed ‘insurrection’ for refusing to illegally close the border or something.
Well, they didn’t touch the word insurrection. They just said states can’t determine eligibilty. Which is way to broad. I agree, that any contested ruling should be decided federally though. But Colorado rules he participated in an insurrection. The court should be answer that question specifically. Let the states start the process, let the Supreme court get involved if needed. And the amendment already gives congress the ability to allow eligibility specifically for insurrection if they want to vote to. So built in checks and balances.
Since people didn’t read the body, I updated the title. I am saying my kid can demand to be on the ballot, and the STATE can’t stop them. Congress must determine that my kid is too young… and that my dog isn’t a citizen or person. Its procedurally ludicrous.
Everything, including what states can’t do is clearly outlined in the Constitution. States violated sec 5 of the 14th amendment so SCOTUS ruled accordingly
The words I have read is that “Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability”. Do you have some part that says states can’t apply the stated restrictions? I haven’t seen any text that says that.
So what do you do with the self-executing portions of the Constitution? “Any person found to have engaged in insurrection shall not hold any office…” He’s been found by the courts to have engaged in insurrection. States can’t enforce the Constitution?
The really asinine thing about this is that STATES DON’T EVEN HAVE TO HOLD ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE
All the Constitution actually cares about is that each State send a slate of Electors chosen in a manner left up to the legislature of that state. The state legislature can just fucking appoint them if it wants! It is only the States themselves which have chosen to impose a requirement on themselves via their state, not Federal constitutions to choose those Electors by popular vote.
This Supreme Court ruling was quite possibly the most twisted, illogical one in history. The Supreme Court has now revealed itself to be wholly illegitimate.
