“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
    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.