Surprise!!

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Congrats on reading part of the applicable sections of the Constitution. Now read the one that actually applies here.

    The part about insurrection. It is already clear based on congressional oversight of the executive branch that he is an insurrectionist. That’s what the bi partisan j6 commission determined. There is no need for the courts here at all as nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted.

    In fact former uses of this law didn’t require a conviction. There’s already case law supporting that fact.

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I understand all that. I believe the issue is how this is handled. Is it up to the states? Is it up to congress? Is it up to the electors? Is it up to the DNC / RNC? Who’s the entity that determines who is and is not on the ballot?

      As I think I understand it, the issue at hand is if a state has the authority to unilaterally bar a ‘presidential candidate’ from a ‘general election ballot’ for this reason.

      Does the state get to determine on their own that the candidate is illegible? What is it in the state’s constitution that says so? Shouldn’t such a fact be established on a federal level to prevent the candidate from appearing on all ballots? These things aren’t clear in the constitution.

      • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        illegible

        The word you’re looking for is ineligible.

        Noticed this in your other comment and thought it was a typo but now you’ve forced my hand lol. Illegible means not legible, as in scrawled handwriting or bad print that is too sloppy to read.