Not for senators and representatives.
"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Before ammendment:
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
"The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
I don't see how the 12th amendment prevents this.
One concern I have is a state may pass a law to block Trump from being on the ballot in that state. I don't see where the Constitution prevents states where the legislature is controlled by one party for creating a law designed to block a candidate. For example, if Trump is convicted of a specific law, pass a law that those that meet that criteria not be on the ballot. A state could pass a law banning candidates over 80, I suppose. I don't see how the state could block that by the letter of the law.
But of course the SCOTUS does as it pleases and makes up stuff that isn't in the Constitution. The scenario I described would be extremely unfair. Congress could defund states that do it, but we should handle it through amendments.
I think our Constitution should prevent states from creating laws aimed at banning specific candidates. If someone convicted of a crime can win the vote, that shows a large percentage of the electorate likely considers the conviction either trivial or unjust, or the opposing candidate more dangerous. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
9/16/23 11:12 am
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The Supremes got this one wrong (l)
