“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
    11
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trump is, along with many co-defendants, disqualified from holding any civil or military office.

    Want to prove that? Last I checked he’s not been found guilty of any crime?

    Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation? How about we respect the judicial proceeding and stop trying to jump the gun, before it’s made into a political maneuver?

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The amendment does not require formal conviction of a crime, and after the Civil War it was used extensively without formal convictions.

      And obviously we’d support that if Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden tried to stage a coup. Would sort of insane bozo would still support a candidate after that?

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

        The sort of insane bozo that is every member of the GOP. If the Dems ever try to regain power in my state, I am going to loudly demand ranked-choice voting and non-partisan redistricting as state constitutional amendments. I care more about the possibility of a representative government than I do about permanently cementing my party’s dominance forever.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should definitely respect the judicial process.

      … But I’d absolutely support this if Biden or Hilary were in the same situation.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation?

      It’s funny how you guys think we’re as devoted to Democrat politicians as you are to your chunky messiah.

      We’re devoted to democracy, to the Constitution. Not to any individual politicians.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The right always acts like it’s some big gotcha “what about Biden/Hillary/whatever”. They don’t realize that most of the left has little emotional attachment to “their” politicians and if anything, a lot of Democrat politicians are simply adequate. Sometimes they’re straight up the lesser of two evils.

        But even when politicians are beloved, I don’t think the left is nearly as fanatical of unwilling to change their minds. Eg, Obama in 2008 was huge. He had a massive cult following and I remember being really hopeful for him myself. But he ended up being kinda lackluster. The ACA was an improvement over the then-status quo, but as a Canadian, I always viewed the ACA as a laughably half hearted attempt at reform. And oof, the warmongering? Nobody on the left shys away from hiding that unfortunate fact about Obama.

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

          The right treats their political leaders like they treat their pastors - with reverence and deference. The left occasionally has an Obama that captures imaginations for a while, but at this point everything is so fucked that most lefties just want pols that don’t use hate and fear, and that will avoid entering into wars that have no honest justification. You’re correct, though. One of my greatest joys of the Biden admin is simply NOT HEARING THE PRESIDENT every day. Or relaxing a bit because we’re back to our normal level of US fuckery, rather than malicious, hate-dripping drivel fuckery shot out the tiny little asshole mouth of Trump. Would I like concrete change? Sure! Is there a damn thing I can do about it? Nope! I live in a gerrymandered-forever state and I have zero hope of things getting better, though I will keep voting even though my vote doesn’t matter for anything at all, despite people who vote like me being vastly greater in number than the red fucks.

      • Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you were devoted to democracy and the constitution, then you’re remember that in this country there’s a presumption of innocence, as well as right to a trial. But I mean you must know that since you’re so devoted right?

        And thinking I’m a Trump supporter because I simply want him to legally be found guilty before we bar him from public office… I guess if you aren’t completely on your side, then you must be an enemy, kind of a shitty way to live your life, but you do you.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know the Constitution is a real document that you can actually read, right? It’s not just an idea or a metaphor. The 14th Amendment makes zero mention of a trial.

        • xT1TANx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I watched it live. I don’t need a court to tell me what I already know. And neither should you. If the evidence wasn’t so damn clear it might require subpoenas or evidentiary rulings to find out the truth but we do not need any of it. He’s on tape working to overthrow the election. Why do YOU need more?

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is no “right” to aspire to elected office, or to hold one.

          And disqualification from office is not a criminal punishment.

        • tastysnacks@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The constitution isn’t a law. All laws I’ve read describe the punishment for breaking the law. The constitution does not. The government can’t limit speech (within bounds). The government can’t limit guns (within bounds). The government can’t allow insurrectionists to run the government.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re telling you that it isn’t written to require criminal guilt determined by a court.

      The entire south seceded. Those people were not tried, and in fact were given blanket pardons. But they still couldn’t hold office again.

      This is a political process. It will be political, same as an impeachment.

    • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trump was literally dancing during the insurrection and there is a video of it. Dude was gleefully happy about one of the darkest days in American history.

      It’s not jumping the gun, you just have your head in the sand.

      • Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is. I’m sorry your opinion of this shit doesn’t matter. Legally he’s allowed to run for president, the minute he’s not he should be stripped of it. It’s not your decision it’s the courts.

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not a court’s decision, it’s a matter for the official deciding who is eligible to be on the ballot, following the constitution. Of course it can be challenged in court, like just about everything else.

          • Kinglink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just remember that when a Democrat gets removed because some official decided who was eligible…

            You clearly don’t see the red flag or the future problem, but I’ll keep repeating it in the hope some piece of it will get through to one of you.

            • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              IT IS IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION, DUDE. READ IT. Oh, let’s just ignore that we have a 1st Amendment (or 2d Amendment, if that floats your boat more), and fuck the 4th and 5th Amendment too, since the Rehnquist court forward has fucked them both so hard. The 14th Amendment was broadly written to keep insurrectionists from gaining power. The court CAN be involved, to consider challenges to an election official’s act or lack of action. But no court is initially involved.

              And if a democrat was an insurrectionist, they SHOULD be prevented from taking office. And if a fuckhead election official decides to call a Dem an insurrectionist for no reason at all? Their act would be subject to judicial scrutiny.

            • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If an insurrectionist Democrat gets removed as per the constitution, good. Typical Republican thinking that I’m backing a team.

              Anyway, the problem is current, is addressed by the 14th amendment and is, once again, not a court’s decision.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it is true that either of them “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” then yes.

      • Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again that’s for the courts to decide, not random posters on the internet.

        Once He’s convicted, you’re correct. But no what “Nougat thinks” doesn’t matter.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not for the courts to decide. If it were, there would be a court-based requirement in the amendment. There is not.

          It is a disqualification from office, just as being under the age of 35 is a disqualification from the office of president. No court ruling is required.

          Edit: Other people who agree with me:

          • J. Michael Luttig, conservative former judge of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
          • Laurence Tribe, legal scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard
          • William Baude, legal scholar and professor of law at University of Chicago Law School, Federalist Society
          • Micahel Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished university chair and professor of law at University of St. Thomas, Federalist Society
          • milkjug@lemmy.wildfyre.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            In case it wasn’t clear enough, the Federalist Society is THE (with capitals T,H,E) society for republican jurists and their members are movers and shakers of the world. I’m not from the US but the influence of US policy permeates into every aspect of life everywhere.

          • Kinglink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            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
              2
              ·
              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
                3
                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.

                • 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.

                • 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?

                • 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.