A fair concern, one that I share to an extent. It seems to me that at least according to those making the argument, the language of section 3 doesn't require an actual conviction wrt to eligibility, only involvement. It might not be that one had to even have been impeached, much less "prosecuted" for them to be ineligible. Though, who decides this is also part of the controversy as section 3 is silent. Politicians do control the rule of law on this issue--that is by design (congress actually has the power to remove this criteria). Though yeah, it def can be a slippery slope. Keep in mind this is as political issue as you might find because it's not about legal due process in criminal court, but about (in)eligibility for public office arising from specific criminal activity but where the framers of 14a didn't explicitly invoke a due process requirement or conviction.
What does that mean, self executing? According to the proponents of this clause, what exactly is the trigger upon which he becomes ineligible? I truly don’t understand it. Ultimately someone with applicable authority has to make a determination other was you have the month python argument sketch “Yes you did!!” “No I didn’t.!”
Remember that time a candidate had a picture of a girl sitting on his lap on a boat get out to the papers? He was toast. SMH
What’s the problem given … “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” – H.L. Mencken
Maybe tomorrow we can all get together again and think of another imaginary way we can stop Donald Trump from running for President.
No he needs to run. He gives Biden the greatest chance at reelection and he helps to highlight some of the foolery going on in the GOP right now
Haley is horrible. She’s like a female version of Mike Pence. The carefully crafted “make grandma think I’m a genius” one liners are so awkward and faked. The only two on that stage that have any hope is DeSantis or Vivek.
They could try suing, or they could try appealing to the person who decides which candidates qualify for the ballot in the various states.
The answer to your question is it would require impeachment by Congress along with a subsequent conviction by Congress (ie 2/3’s vote or greater for conviction). That is the only legal standard established within the Constitution for a president.
Now that’s a scary precedent. States don’t have to create fake electors or scam election recounts. They can just declare their less preferred candidate “against the constitution” and ineligible. Just assert Joe Biden was paid off by Hunter Biden Ukrainian cronies and declare him ineligible.
I truly cannot tell if you think there is any other answer here than impeachment. Perhaps you’re just toying with them. The standard is no different for Joe Biden. 2/3rds vote by Congress or shut the hell up!
I believe this was tried against Madison Cawthorn in the courts and he was disqualified from running. Then an appeals judge used some Civil War era law to negate it. And no, it wouldn't be tried in congress. Impeachment laws are for the actual president, not someone running to be president.
