I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.
The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.
Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.
Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.
But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.
Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn’t win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.
So…. You can point me to where the constitution actually says thst?
No? Okay. So it doesn’t say that.
It implies that. And yes, every state has historically kept ineligible candidates off the ballot. But nobody has contested this. Nobody has argued this in court. So now that it is a crisis, it’s going to the relevant courts.
That relevant court is the US courts- not the state courts like Mn. State courts are concerned with upholding their respective state constitutions, which probably say even less about it.
It’s really for SCOTUS to decide, and they’re not going to decide until it’s neccessary. Because they don’t want to set new precedent unless they have to.
The constitution is a legal document that has over 200 years of being interpreted by courts. Legally, it says a lot of things that it doesn’t explicitly say, and those things are the result of something called “arguments”.
In my comment, my first words were “I would argue that”. This is because I am making an argument that the constitution recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
If I meant, “the constitution explicitly states that”, then I would have used that language, instead. You can tell that by the way I used that exact language in my second paragraph.
You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
In court, they made the argument in court. Which is now what they’re doing… yes?
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal…. doesn’t make me right. (Who am I kidding fries+frosties is awesome).
For better or worse, this is the process we’re stuck with.
I would argue that the constitution not only recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. It almost requires it.
The constitution explicitly states that people like Trump who participated in an insurrection are ineligible for office. This is similar to other requirements for the office. For example, you must be a natural citizen over 35 years old, etc.
Constitutionally, each state chooses how to run their own elections. However, that freedom does not give them the power to go against the other parts of the constitution.
Traditionally, states will not put people on presidential ballots who do not meet the requirements to be president.
But do they have to do that? I would argue that the case with Trump proves that, going forward, they do have to exclude ineligible candidates for president. Because Trump is the first ineligible candidate who is leading in polls.
Every state election he might win is a constitutional crisis. Each state has the duty to follow the Constitution and ensure that Trump doesn’t win the presidency. The current method for doing this action is removing him from the ballot.
So…. You can point me to where the constitution actually says thst?
No? Okay. So it doesn’t say that.
It implies that. And yes, every state has historically kept ineligible candidates off the ballot. But nobody has contested this. Nobody has argued this in court. So now that it is a crisis, it’s going to the relevant courts.
That relevant court is the US courts- not the state courts like Mn. State courts are concerned with upholding their respective state constitutions, which probably say even less about it.
It’s really for SCOTUS to decide, and they’re not going to decide until it’s neccessary. Because they don’t want to set new precedent unless they have to.
The constitution is a legal document that has over 200 years of being interpreted by courts. Legally, it says a lot of things that it doesn’t explicitly say, and those things are the result of something called “arguments”.
In my comment, my first words were “I would argue that”. This is because I am making an argument that the constitution recommends Trump be removed from the ballot. You know, similar to how somebody made an argument that the constitution guarantees that people are allowed to marry between races, and so now that’s what it says. But you can’t point to the part where it explicitly says it.
If I meant, “the constitution explicitly states that”, then I would have used that language, instead. You can tell that by the way I used that exact language in my second paragraph.
In court, they made the argument in court. Which is now what they’re doing… yes?
I could just as easily argue that it says dipping french fries in frosties is illegal…. doesn’t make me right. (Who am I kidding fries+frosties is awesome).
For better or worse, this is the process we’re stuck with.