Well, that’s part of it, but the really nauseating thing is the guy who squeaked by past her.
You also said that you will change your view on what is constitutional as you see fit, so your distinctions don’t really add up to anything other than “I’ll make whatever argument I find convenient at that moment.” (Not your words, my summary.)
Is there any reason to believe that you will not simply switch your interpretation of the Constitution based on what you feel is most beneficial to your pre-formed opinion on any particular subject?
What makes you think so?
Your summary is false.
Is there a reason to believe that you won’t do something you have been falsely accused of doing?
Regards,
Shodan
Just so we have a template to guide us in drafting the amendment language, please point us to the Constitutional amendments which authorize states to:
-
Refuse to list candidates on the ballot if they fail to present X number of signatures
-
Refuse to list candidates on the ballot if they fail to file paperwork by Y date
-
Refuse to list candidates on the ballot if they had previously tried and failed to win a political party’s nomination in that election
More to the point, he lost a lot of other people’s money. He took a real estate empire with nearly a half billion that his father built and bankrupted it by with three times that amount in debt as a result of over-borrowing with interest rates that were higher than the returns on his property’s value. He blew not only through his family fortune; he screwed his investors and left banks with so much bad debt owed to them that they had to find a way to cut deals with him to get at least some of that money back. They realized that his brand had just enough value to do that, and Donald Trump then came back with his reality TV show.
Because no state requires a candidate to prove they meet the requirements of President to be on the ballot. My google-fu is failing me but I know there are examples of ineligible candidates on states’ ballots.
A “right” to abortion was found in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. That gives just as much reasoning against the repeated states’ attempts to ban abortion via shitty laws that would even force rape victims to give birth.
But hey, pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like. Just like a “real American”.
State law nearly always requires the candidate to swear an oath or affirmation confirming that the candidate meets the requirements for office. Example.
Would Donald somehow be prevented or physically unable to comply with these requirements? Do they discriminate against him in any way? Can his pudgy fingers not operate a fax machine?
Exactly. That’s why it’s bullshit to claim that this is an attempt to keep him off the ballot. No it’s not – this is no more onerous (and probably less so) than a requirement that one fill out an application, pay the $50 application fee, and get 1000 signatures. It’s a mundane thing that anyone can do rather easily.
That’s not the point. The point is that a state probably cannot constitutionally add ballot qualifications, and that it’s bad policy to do so even if it could.
I guess we’ll see, but I don’t think it’s the federal government that decides things like applications forms and fees, signature requirements, and the like. If states can say “you must have 1000 signatures”, why can’t a state say “you must provide your tax returns”?
You might consider reading the relevant SCOTUS decisions on this matter. You’d probably find the answers there.
Thanks for all those links! What a helpful post!
If I had the faintest of hopes that he’d actually read them, I would have provided some.
How about showing them to the rest of us?
Very little to go on** regarding the relevant law** being litigated in the Supreme Court, chances are that even the hope that the supreme court hacks will side with the president is in doubt.
I like how another poster’s laziness is somehow my fault. 
nm