“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.

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

      Bullshit. Otherwise you could just accuse your political rivals of crimes to prevent them from running.

      You need to go back to internet lawyer school.

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can you show me in any part of the constitution where it says any civil punishment or penalty requires a conviction? Can a right wing DA accuse Hillary of the same crimes and remove her eligibility to office?

          Not without a conviction.

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

            District attorneys are probably not the people at the state level who determine ballot eligibility. Secretary of State would be likely, there are other election officials who could enforce constitutional law in this context.

            People who are under 35 years of age are also disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States. Nobody needs to be “convicted” of being under the age of 35. If someone under the age of 35 meets all other prerequisites to run for president, they should not be allowed on the ballot, because it says so in the Constitution. No court case is required, no conviction is required, no accusation of any crime is required.

            The same applies to people “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

            Excellent work ignoring my question and retorting with a question that doesn’t even make any sense. In case you happened to miss it:

            Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

            Edit: Oh wait, I think I see what you’re asking now. Are you asserting that disqualification is a civil penalty? It’s not. It’s not a penalty. There is no “right” to aspiring to or holding office.

            • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself. Someone too young to run for president would obviously be unconstitutional, so there is no need to make a law specifically for that. But what you don’t apparently understand is that Trump hasn’t committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far. You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren’t guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are. He can’t be disqualified yet.

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

                Tha constitution is the basis of law, not law itself.

                There are some things which are “Constitutional law.”

                But what you don’t apparently understand is that Trump hasn’t committed any of the things he has been accused of until he is convicted in a court. Regardless of the fevered dreams of the media and the far left, he is innocent of the charges so far.

                Having acted in a specifically defined way and being convicted of a crime are two different things.

                You could be on video robbing a bank, 20 eyewitness to the crime, cash in your possession when arrested, and you aren’t guilty until 12 people on a jury say you are.

                This is the only true thing in your comment.

                He can’t be disqualified yet.

                Yes he can, because it’s not about being accused of a crime and being either convicted or acquitted. It’s about having participated in a specifically defined behavior, and being disqualified from office because of it. As I have previously explained, people do not have a “right” to asipre to run for or hold office. Certain people are disqualified from holding the office of President by the Constitution, for reasons which are unrelated to criminality.

                Trump may also be criminally convicted of actions related to “participating in isurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” but that’s a completely separate issue.

                And since you mentioned “the fevered dreams of the media and the far left,” I’ll remind you that three of the four legal experts I cited above are super right wing.

                I’ll ask a third time:

                Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?

                  • Nougat@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It is self-executing. It has the same enforcement mechanism as the part in Article II which states that only people who are over the age of 35 can hold the office of President.

                    And it’s not “Blue state” reasoning. The reason this all came up was because of the paper The Sweep and Force of Section Three, written by two Federalist Society (way way way conservative) guys. It’s long, but it’s in relatively clear language.

                    Let’s see how you decide to dodge ask number four:

                    Can you show me which part of the 14th amendment, section three, requires a conviction of any kind?