Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apparently you missed the lesson in civics. That if you don't like something about the constitution, you can remove it, or add it by amending the constitution.The clause on office ineligibility is not only minor, but itself allows infinite exceptions.
Blocking anyone from office likely was not even really legal for them to add to the Amendment.
You got part one correct. Congress sets the rules, and the states have to carry them out.YES, clearly the age qualifications come from Congress, and NOT the states.
When states leave those too young off the ballot, they are not making the disqualification, but Congress is. The states are just doing what Congress said for them to do.
But Congress did not ever suggest someone should be stricken from office over a protected, non-violent, political protest.
And ex-post facto laws deal with making something illegal (putting someone in jeopardy of life, or liberty) retroactively. Keeping someone from a federal or state office, is not a deprivation of liberty. It's just a job.Ever heard of the prohibition on ex post facto laws? Secession wasn't declared illegal by SCOTUS till the war was over and Lincoln gave amnesty to all the confederates.
.
Yet the states could and did add additional qualifications on who could vote in a federal election. Remember Jim Crow. That required additional constitutional constitutional amendment to make Jim Crow laws illegal.The qualifications for "federal office" come from the Constitution, not congress
.
Who needs to be charged with being underage?Who has been charged with insurrection ?
And ex-post facto laws deal with making something illegal (putting someone in jeopardy of life, or liberty) retroactively. Keeping someone from a federal or state office, is not a deprivation of liberty. It's just a job.
For a USSC citation on this, you can reference the sexual offender registry. A requirement the court said did not violate the ex-post facto prohibition, even though it was applied to people convicted years or even decades before, and added another condition to their conviction.
Yet the states could and did add additional qualifications on who could vote in a federal election. Remember Jim Crow. That required additional constitutional constitutional amendment to make Jim Crow laws illegal.
As I said, ex-post facto applies to life liberty or property, not employment. Or any other conditions, like being on the registered sex offender list which BTW puts limitations upon the persons liberty. And that was upheld by the USSC. So the same goes for limitations imposed by the 14th amendment.Yeah, the key word being conviction, which never happened with confederates and even the 14th was ratified well after the end of the war. Any law that prevented them from the full enjoyment of citizenship outlined in the remainder of the 14th would be ex post facto. BTW, exactly how would you define liberty?
.
Which the states were in charge of. As they were in charge of all things concerning elections carried out in their state. They have to adhere to the constitution and federal law (supremacy clause), but otherwise can add additional requirements for access to the ballot. Such as the constitution doesn't mention a petition signed by a number of registered voters to gain access to the ballot. But the states under their power to carry out elections can put such requirements in place.LMAO, Jim Crow was about who could vote in any election.
.
As I said, ex-post facto applies to life liberty or property, not employment. Or any other conditions, like being on the registered sex offender list which BTW puts limitations upon the persons liberty. And that was upheld by the USSC. So the same goes for limitations imposed by the 14th amendment.
Which the states were in charge of. As they were in charge of all things concerning elections carried out in their state. They have to adhere to the constitution and federal law (supremacy clause), but otherwise can add additional requirements for access to the ballot. Such as the constitution doesn't mention a petition signed by a number of registered voters to gain access to the ballot. But the states under their power to carry out elections can put such requirements in place.
Full enjoyment of citizenship is part of liberty, like being able to represent your fellow citizens in government.
.
And you realize the constitution along with federal laws places limits on being able to represent your fellow citizens in government.
They place age limits, citizenship limits, time in country limits, other offices you can simultaneously serve in. Lots of limits on who can do so, including under the 14th section 3. So it's a club with lots of members.
Let's go back to the question you ran away from yesterday.And?
.
Let's go back to the question you ran away from yesterday.
Miley Cyrus 31 years old applies to be put on the presidential ballot 2024.
Does it take Justice Roberts to tell her no, or can somebody else make that call?
The 14th amendment doesn't specify that criminal charges or conviction are required. Many former confederates were banned from public office without criminal charges.Who has been charged with insurrection ?
Who has been charged with insurrection ?
The 14th amendment doesn't specify that criminal charges or conviction are required. Many former confederates were banned from public office without criminal charges.
the text of 14th section 3 says engaged in, or give aid or comfort to the insurrectionists.Who said trump committed insurrection?
