“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.

Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

  • Kinglink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not for the courts to decide.

    Ok, so hey, Biden said something that sounded seditious… I guess we’ll bar him from running for office… oh don’t worry about it, just trust me he said it…

    See why it IS a matter for the courts and not just something random people should be allowed to decide? Or again, do you want this to be wielded as a weapon in the next election against politicians you favor… Because it will. Legally prove him guilty before banning him, otherwise you look like he’s something to fear, and that will only bring more support to his side… but hey, you know I’m sure this will ONLY matter this one election and never be used again or weaponized… That’s exactly how things like this work, right?.. right?

    • AssPennies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you going to ignore the long list of legal scholars he posted? Yeah? Ok, you’re not arguing in good faith.

      • Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Four scholars… I’m pretty sure we can find four scholars to agree with pretty much anything, but go on. Appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, if Biden ever incites an attack on the Capitol with the goal of overturning the election, then we can bar him from office.

          Happy?

        • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually, in law, appeal to authority is how the law fucking works. If there’s controlling authority, great. If there’s non-controlling authority that is particularly well thought out, that authority might be adopted whole cloth, or with some caveats. A law journal article, for example, was the source of the “transformation” standard for derivative works under copyright law.

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except you can’t find four legal scholars that agree with you.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, if there was a requirement for a conviction, 14A S3 would specify it. It does not.