I suppose that is true. But if this is the path you and dems want to go, I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification. Think states like Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, just not having the Dem candidate on the ballot ever.
In 2020 if Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn’t have Biden on the ballot, Trump wins.
One is the legal use of the 14th amendment and the other is just for the fuck of it.
What you’re effectively saying is Republicans are such children they can’t run another candidate that didn’t support insurrection and will instead illegally remove opposition to their god emperor.
What is the difference between “legal” and “just for the fuck of it.” The legal system is just a process. The facts, justice, etc don’t factor into it. As long as those states follow their process, removing a candidate from the ballot for any reason whatsoever is perfectly legal.
After all, you said that “state control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.” So why does a state need to allow any given candidate onto their ballot?
What is the difference between “legal” and “just for the fuck of it.” The legal system is just a process.
Yes, a legal system is a process and you follow the process to be legal and not “just for the fuck of it”
Are we going to ask if mayonnaise is an instrument now?
After all, you said that “state control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.” So why does a state need to allow any given candidate onto their ballot?
What’s your argument? That we should allow foreigners and teenagers to run for President because no-one can be trusted to enforce the requirements to run?
Nonsense. Disqualifying Trump for his oath-breaking is not materially different to disqualifying a 34 year old or a foreign national.
So how does this “disqualification” take place?
The procedures are set by state elections laws.
States rights eh? Nice. I can’t see how that would be a problem when we are talking about electing the president of the United States.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. State control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.
I suppose that is true. But if this is the path you and dems want to go, I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification. Think states like Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, just not having the Dem candidate on the ballot ever.
In 2020 if Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn’t have Biden on the ballot, Trump wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_state_legislative_elections
One is the legal use of the 14th amendment and the other is just for the fuck of it.
What you’re effectively saying is Republicans are such children they can’t run another candidate that didn’t support insurrection and will instead illegally remove opposition to their god emperor.
Talk about the party of law and order.
What is the difference between “legal” and “just for the fuck of it.” The legal system is just a process. The facts, justice, etc don’t factor into it. As long as those states follow their process, removing a candidate from the ballot for any reason whatsoever is perfectly legal.
After all, you said that “state control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.” So why does a state need to allow any given candidate onto their ballot?
Yes, a legal system is a process and you follow the process to be legal and not “just for the fuck of it”
Are we going to ask if mayonnaise is an instrument now?
I literally never said that.
What’s your argument? That we should allow foreigners and teenagers to run for President because no-one can be trusted to enforce the requirements to run?
They’re going to do that anyway. There’s no point in playing the appeasement game.
Pretty sure the SCOTUS can agree that he committed insurrection and the 14th amendment would bar him from holding office.
Sounds good, when SCOTUS gets on that and has a trial and makes a judgement, then and only then, should he be removed from state ballots.
scotus could just decide not to do anything at all