The constitution is the single highest legal authority in the US. No law may be written violating it. It sets the legal basis for the existence of the US government, describes the nature of how it is to be run, and who is eligible to hold office. It esposues rights and processes.
the entire basis of the legal system depends on the us constitution, and it’s amendments, both as the guiderails and the source of authority. So when the 14th amendment, section 3 says that a person who having previously taken an oath to defend the constitution and then leads an insurrection is ineligible; they’re ineligible. There’s really no mincing words on that one.
Unless perhaps, you’re arguing that the insurrection on jan 6 wasn’t in fact, an insurrection. (perhaps you suggest they were just… tourists?). Even though their stated goal was to disrupt and stop the lawful proceedings of congress- specifically counting the votes as cast by the electoral college.
Jacob Chansley served in the US navy, therefore he’s taken an oath to defend the constitution. he particapted (most… LARPishly…) in the jan 6 insurrection.
I don’t disagree with you, but I would make the argument that laws only matter when they’re enforced. If the law says “You can’t do X” and a bunch of goons do X, what happens?
Someone backs down, or violence, probably.
So if the 14th amendment says he can’t run, that only matters if it’s enforced. Do you think it’s going to be enforced?
But he can’t hold the office. Either congress (both senate and reps,) agrees to let him in by a 2/3’s vote or they call the sergeant at arms and go from there.
As for which way that goes… it depends highly on who has power in the next cycle, and you’re right about laws not being enforced, which is why I’m increasingly pessimistic about our future as a country.
There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts:
-he took an oath to defend the constitution
-he participated in an insurrection.
The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are.
They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!”
Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn’t following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.
But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn’t make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word “ruled”, whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.
The prohibition is from holding office, not from running for an election. The primary ballots all have their own state level rules. And I’m pretty sure so are the main elections, too. It isn’t until he tries to take office that it encroaches, is my interpretation.
He should be removed, because he can’t take office and his name is a waste of time, but… Nobody that matters listens to me.
It’s easy to forget that US political parties are not actually the government. They’re just people who get together for common purpose, like a book club or a softball team. Those parties can run whomever they want in their primaries, and the states have no role until it gets to putting people on the real election ballot. At that point, if someone puts in their name and they’re too young, not a citizen, not a human (looking at you Idyllwild), or otherwise ineligible, it becomes the job of the state not to put them on the ballot, regardless of whether they’re sponsored by a party or not.
I agree. He shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t mean lawyers and judges agree.
the ballots and election process are largely left to the states. (Baring violations of the CRA, etc,)
Keep in mind, at the moment, it’s state supreme courts and their rules they’re voting on (as deciddd by MN Supreme Court , recently. The judge made a very wink-wink-hint-hint note in his ruling saying it “may” not be the same case in the main election)
Of course, we want him to be ineligible. Yet, there’s zero legal authority that has ruled him ineligible.
Keep dreaming that it’ll happen. We’re truly in the “Twilight Zone” of retardedville.
The constitution has zero legal authority.
Huh. TIL! Edit: 1, 2, 3.
The constitution is the single highest legal authority in the US. No law may be written violating it. It sets the legal basis for the existence of the US government, describes the nature of how it is to be run, and who is eligible to hold office. It esposues rights and processes.
the entire basis of the legal system depends on the us constitution, and it’s amendments, both as the guiderails and the source of authority. So when the 14th amendment, section 3 says that a person who having previously taken an oath to defend the constitution and then leads an insurrection is ineligible; they’re ineligible. There’s really no mincing words on that one.
Unless perhaps, you’re arguing that the insurrection on jan 6 wasn’t in fact, an insurrection. (perhaps you suggest they were just… tourists?). Even though their stated goal was to disrupt and stop the lawful proceedings of congress- specifically counting the votes as cast by the electoral college.
Jacob Chansley served in the US navy, therefore he’s taken an oath to defend the constitution. he particapted (most… LARPishly…) in the jan 6 insurrection.
I don’t disagree with you, but I would make the argument that laws only matter when they’re enforced. If the law says “You can’t do X” and a bunch of goons do X, what happens?
Someone backs down, or violence, probably.
So if the 14th amendment says he can’t run, that only matters if it’s enforced. Do you think it’s going to be enforced?
It does t say he can’t run.
It doesn’t even say he can’t be elected.
But he can’t hold the office. Either congress (both senate and reps,) agrees to let him in by a 2/3’s vote or they call the sergeant at arms and go from there.
As for which way that goes… it depends highly on who has power in the next cycle, and you’re right about laws not being enforced, which is why I’m increasingly pessimistic about our future as a country.
You seem to have missed the key word, “ruled”, but nice rundown.
There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts:
-he took an oath to defend the constitution -he participated in an insurrection.
The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are.
They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!”
Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn’t following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution.
But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn’t make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word “ruled”, whether you think a ruling is necessary or not.
deleted by creator
No, we’re not.
The prohibition is from holding office, not from running for an election. The primary ballots all have their own state level rules. And I’m pretty sure so are the main elections, too. It isn’t until he tries to take office that it encroaches, is my interpretation.
deleted by creator
It’s easy to forget that US political parties are not actually the government. They’re just people who get together for common purpose, like a book club or a softball team. Those parties can run whomever they want in their primaries, and the states have no role until it gets to putting people on the real election ballot. At that point, if someone puts in their name and they’re too young, not a citizen, not a human (looking at you Idyllwild), or otherwise ineligible, it becomes the job of the state not to put them on the ballot, regardless of whether they’re sponsored by a party or not.
I agree. He shouldn’t be. But that doesn’t mean lawyers and judges agree.
the ballots and election process are largely left to the states. (Baring violations of the CRA, etc,)
Keep in mind, at the moment, it’s state supreme courts and their rules they’re voting on (as deciddd by MN Supreme Court , recently. The judge made a very wink-wink-hint-hint note in his ruling saying it “may” not be the same case in the main election)
deleted by creator
Don’t worry about it too much. All a libertarian ballot is going to do is take votes away from the Republican candidate.