See the 22nd amendment, the only time the requirements for eligibility to hold the office has been changed, it requires a constitutional amendment.
No, what you did was cite one part of the constitution as sacrosanct and ignore another. The framework of our nation clearly lays out the qualifications for office, that can’t be changed outside the amendment process. To illustrate it without involving another constitutional prohibition I’ll ask this, can Texas make the requirement to be on their ballot that the candidate must be a Republican, or a business owner?? Try and hide behind the 14th now.
You are confusing two different issues. Said state law isnt dealing with the ability for a candidate to be elected, only who the state electors SHOULD elect.
I cite as an example. The constitution doesnt say anything about having so many signatures to appear on a states ballot and yet there those laws are in each and every state.
I think you underestimate just how little the courts are truly restricting to how a candidate gets on the ballot and how the state chooses its electors and has them pledge to vote in a certain way.
Many of these older folks have daughters and granddaughters and great granddaughters and those women are going to have to grow up and fix this mess.
Many will be film makers and politicians and musicians and athletes and business leaders. I would love to see the documentaries in 50 years as these women are interviewed about their grandparents and great grandparents and how off track they were during the era of the con man (that happened right after our 1st minority president when people tried to take the country back to the 1850s). It will be brutal. I bet some of those families are already estranged.
If the law says you can’t vote for a person who hasn’t submitted tax returns, it adds a requirment no in the constitution.
No again. Because the 14th affords that if one party has a candidate, then any other party duly registered would be allowed to have one.
No on the business owner as well because the Scotus has ruled on previous cases that certain qualifications such as the ability to pay a filing fee could not be a disqualifer for a person to appear on a ballot, again another 14th issue.
There is NO burden to any person providing their tax returns, even if they dont actually file a tax return. They simply state i didnt file a return in that particular year.
The constitution says nothing about how a state chooses an elector or what that elector can be pledged to do.
I dont know how this could be any clearer.
One could take this to the court and the judge will simply say, this law cant be unconstitutional because by the constitution that elector cannot be forced to vote in a certain way.
We are talking about a law that would set the expectation for the way an elector would vote. In a way you could say it is a “worthless” law. But typically with few exceptions, electors vote the way the state law has established which isnt to say they have to.
In states where this would pass it would be the expectation, not the legally required.
It can’t be any clearer that Illinois wants to add a NEW requiment for candidates for the office of president. If they pass a law that says the electors can not vote for one that hasn’t released his/her taxes, then that is in violation of the constitution that spells out the requiments.
This^
M
Ive already went over this. Not going to do it again because you cant read.
Bottom line that is the legislation at hand. Of course there will be court challenge, and of course i suspect plenty of people will think because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are now on the court that automatically means they will decide against such things.
Guess we will see.
So your a liberal judge on the supreme court.
This case comes before you and the question is posed to you:
If this law is allowed to stand – the requirment that a candidate must release their taxes or the electors may not vote for them. Could a state then pass a law stating their electors may not vote for a candidate unless they have promised they are pro-life and work to ban abortion?
They could pass that law, and just like the current proposed law the electors are not REQUIRED to vote that way. In your example unlike the ones provided earlier by another person, i dont see anything in there running afoul of the 14th.
What would likely happen there is the people in that state would end up flipping and electing law makers to rescend that law.
14th has NOTHING to do with qualifications and electing the president.
One can run and not be on the ballot in some states.
For ■■■■ sakes. Why can you not get this straight?
Gonna say it one more time. Presidential qualifications to be elected in and of itself are NOT in question. What is is how electors are expected to vote. Yes a state can put whatever qualifications they want on a pledge by an elector . #1 That elector still isnt required to vote that way. #2 Those qualifications by a law passed cant violate the U.S constitution even if said law doesnt require a person to do anything.
Additional requirements on an elector has nothing to do with the candidates eligibity or qualification to be president.
As i said let it paas in Illinois, then pray that some court finds what you believe to be true.
Seems to me libs want to make up laws as they go along…but I’ll be damn if they are planning on living by em.
Standard lib MO.
Please point out the wording in the 14th that deals with election of president and requirements
please and thank you.
Just wait until a state were to put some requirement in there they didn’t like and watch them howl. “An elector can only vote for a candidate who has provided his birth certificate and school records”.
Roe v wade is also in that pesky constitution.
apples to oranges comparison.
