That’s a real stretch to suggest that imprisoning a duly convicted person is adding to the requirements for federal office. In fact, I would expect that the prisoner was actually on the ballot in the state he was incarcerated in. The state would not be declaring the prisoner to not be elected or the holder of that office. So I don’t see any way that the state is adding to the requirements.
The Supremacy Clause doesn’t apply here. It says that federal laws take precedence over state laws. But there is no federal law in this case. We’re talking about a national vote.
So the principle being argued here is that if a national vote contradicts a state law, the state law is overturned. I’m pretty sure most people would not agree to this principle.
Plus, where in the federal constitution does it say that the President is above the law? That the President can kill people, and is immune from the criminal law?
Because that’s what the argument amounts to: that the founders rebelled against a limited monarchy, and instead opted for an absolute elective monarchy.
The law is not overturned. The president stands convicted. He can go back to prison after 4 or 8 years. The argument is that a single state cannot prevent the elected president from serving. Again, there was no federal law saying that national bank notes could not be taxed. John Marshall implied from the federal structure of the Constitution that a single state cannot frustrate the national will by the simple taxation of a federal function. The prevention of a duly elected individual would be a far greater intrusion by a single state.
Above what law? The law of a single state is what I am talking about. It could be murder, a financial crime, or mopery. No matter, there was no other way for the other 49 states to chime in on that conviction, and the EC voted for that person notwithstanding the conviction.
I respectfully disagree with your comment about an “absolute elective monarchy.” There is no monarchy. It is the will of the people/EC that this individual be president, his murder/mopery known to all. Shouldn’t one state yield in the face of 49?
So you agree with the principle that a national vote can overturn a state law?
I would qualify my agreement with your statement that when a national vote (which we have none, but I will assume it means as translated to the EC) confirms a federal constitutional function such as the election of a president or a law passed by Congress (with members elected by the people) to charter a bank, then state laws which frustrate that process either through taxation by a single state or imprisonment of an elected official by a single state must yield to the overriding federal interest.
With that qualification, yes.
Wow, that is mind boggling.
You’re a lawyer. You must be aware that if a state law violates a federal law (including the Constitution) the proper procedure for making this determination is through appeals to the court system.
There is no procedure where people can get together and vote to overturn a law in another state. And, in my opinion, that’s a good thing.
I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion. We apparently don’t have any common ground on this issue.