superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,056
1. I doubt they would come into play for a general election. I think they tend to presume that the parties will only nominate constitutionally eligible candidates. Thus, most of the eligibility issues come in play during the primaries (remember -- the Colorado ruling on insurrection that was overturned came in the context of the primary ballot).Wouldn’t state laws re: getting his name on ballot come into play? I assume most require constitutional eligibility.
2. The Supreme Court only specified in Trump v. Anderson the conditions by which a candidate can be disqualified under section 3 of the 14th, but the overall tenor of the opinion is that states should not try to make national decisions about candidate eligibility.
It's tricky, because this cuts both ways. Arizona tried to make the provision of a birth certificate a requirement for being on the ballot in Arizona, and the courts struck that down -- and good, because Arizona was obviously fishing for some bullshit reason to exclude Obama. In essence, the Court said that Arizona can't impose new requirements on presidential eligibility. Here, we would not be adding but enforcing such requirements. Still, I'd guess this court would say something like:
The constitution specifies certain characteristics required for a person to be president. None of them are "ability to prove eligibility in a court of law." So while a candidate has to be a natural born citizen, a state cannot make him/her prove it or else that would be adding a requirement.
Yes, bullshit, but less bullshit than Trump v. US