You think that campaigns should base their nationwide convention strategy on a relatively recently enacted Ohio law that campaigns from both parties have repeatedly not been in compliance with without issue?'Professionals' would set their dates properly so these scrambles would not be necessary.
'Professionals' would set their dates properly so these scrambles would not be necessary.
Yes, this is all very simple. If a conviction is needed then Davis and Lee were eligible. There is no escaping this ironclad logic.
Yes, they created a Calvinball requirement that exists nowhere in the Constitution, the text of the amendment, or any law. This is sort of my point, after all. If you take SCOTUS' opinion as correct that means the people who wrote the 14th amendment intended Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to be able to become president of the US in 1868 absent a second action to explicitly disqualify them. It would also presumably mean that no state can enforce the 35 year age/natural born citizen requirements and only Congress may do so.Didn't SCOTUS indicate that it would be up to Congress to rule someone ineligible based on the 14th Amendment insurrection clause?
I think Brovane was hinting that Ohio couldn’t preclude Biden being on the ballot because SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can legislate eligibility.Yes, they created a Calvinball requirement that exists nowhere in the Constitution, the text of the amendment, or any law. This is sort of my point, after all. If you take SCOTUS' opinion as correct that means the people who wrote the 14th amendment intended Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to be able to become president of the US in 1868 absent a second action to explicitly disqualify them. It would also presumably mean that no state can enforce the 35 year age/natural born citizen requirements and only Congress may do so.
I personally think that idea is ludicrous, which is of course why you never see anyone actually defend it. You just end up with hand waving like @pcgeek11 did where they declare it's somehow magically different in ways they refuse to specify.
Like does anyone honestly believe that in 1868 lawmakers viewed the guy who repeatedly led an armed invasion into the US was not disqualified from the presidency for engaging in insurrection and that Congress needed to pass a resolution saying so? Really?
Right, which I think is a self evidently ludicrous claim for the reasons above.I think Brovane was hinting that Ohio couldn’t preclude Biden being on the ballot because SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can legislate eligibility.
I think Brovane was hinting that Ohio couldn’t preclude Biden being on the ballot because SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can legislate eligibility.
I really wish this had been discussed at oral arguments - 'Trump is arguing that President Biden can have you all taken out back and shot if he feels like it.'I think this implies a level of consistency in the conservative majority on the court that doesn't exist when there is an outcome they want.
The only thing that's keeping them from saying Trump is immune is the fact that if they ruled so Biden could legally air strike the building.
Oh I agree. I don’t expect SCOTUS consistency across political parties.I think this implies a level of consistency in the conservative majority on the court that doesn't exist when there is an outcome they want.
The only thing that's keeping them from saying Trump is immune is the fact that if they ruled so Biden could legally air strike the building.
Which is why I still think the the ball is Biden’s court. Since they are dragging their feet on ruling against Trumps Immunity which is good for Trump let Biden pull some presidential immunity shenanigans and see how fast they decide to rule against it. Either outcome works in the Dems favor.I really wish this had been discussed at oral arguments - 'Trump is arguing that President Biden can have you all taken out back and shot if he feels like it.'
Oh I agree. I don’t expect SCOTUS consistency across political parties.
Which is why I still think the the ball is Biden’s court. Since they are dragging their feet on ruling against Trumps Immunity which is good for Trump let Biden pull some presidential immunity shenanigans and see how fast they decide to rule against it. Either outcome works in the Dems favor.
@Jon-TOhio Senate passes GOP-led Biden ballot access bill without Democrats' support
Ohio lawmakers convened on Tuesday for a special session to address President Joe Biden's ability to appear on their general election ballot in November.abcnews.go.com
You go to a drive through and they give you a chicken sandwich instead of the fish sandwich you ordered, you proceed to see the manager who corrects the situation.
The Ohio situation should have never existed. There are supposed professionals who are supposed to take care of this stuff, they failed at the most basic part of their job. That is not competence.
Let me guess. You are the kid who puts the wrong sandwich in the bag and has to have the manager correct your mistake and you think you should now be employee of the month
New York does it in a weird and stupid way where they appear on the ballot under each party. Since the votes are for the person and not party they get credit no matter which one you pick.I guess the play there was to try and displace any other potential Libertarian candidate from being on the ballot? How would it work if he'd gotten the nomination, would he show up on ballots twice, once under GOP and once under Libertarian? At least the Libertarians aren't quite the rubes he hoped they were.
Yup, I was very upset that wasn't part of the argument.I really wish this had been discussed at oral arguments - 'Trump is arguing that President Biden can have you all taken out back and shot if he feels like it.'
New York does it in a weird and stupid way where they appear on the ballot under each party. Since the votes are for the person and not party they get credit no matter which one you pick.
presumably so - same way voting for both Trump and Biden on one would.does this mean that voting for two Trumps on the same ballot, one for each party and exactly what you'd expect 98% of Trump supporters to do (More Trump is better!), would disqualify all of those votes (and maybe the entire ballot)?
....I uh, think maybe we should dedicate some energy and money to making this happen in most states.