See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
But, I am failing to see how "running for president" can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That's actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it's not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don't know why you think it would start applying now.
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don't know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual "rights" conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn't like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn't even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn't forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.
See “felony disenfranchisement” and “presumption of innocence”. Amendment 14 section 3 doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property does require due process of law, which would be a "conviction".
But, I am failing to see how "running for president" can be considered a constitutionally protected right or privilege. Can you show me how this right or privilege comes into existence?
People are kicked off of voter rolls all the time without being convicted of anything. That's actually more egregious violation of rights if you ask me.
It’s right there in the constitution. It says anyone over age 35 who is a citizen and has lived here for 14 years.
https://www.usa.gov/requirements-for-presidential-candidates
To take this away from someone should require conviction of a crime. Just as taking away the right to vote does.
Look, I can’t stand Trump. But I also don’t believe in stripping rights from someone without being convicted first. It’s too slippery of a slope, and it could easily be abused otherwise.
The context, though, was in response to the Confederates returning to the Union. They did not need convictions for this to apply (it's not like they would try and convict every person that participated in the Civil War on the wrong side), so I don't know why you think it would start applying now.
Yeah I think the historical context and straightforward language make the intent of section 3 pretty clear.
When they wrote the 2nd Amendment there were only muskets. I don't know why we should start applying it to modern weapons. 😐
The minimum criteria mentioned in the constitution do not strip the power of the state to run their own elections. The existence of those criteria do not negate the powers conveyed to the state. Any individual "rights" conveyed by those requirements are still subject to the powers conveyed to the state.
The constitution empowered the Colorado legislature to enact law declaring how its elections will be run. The Colorado legislature declared that the Colorado courts will be empowered to answer any questions arising under its electoral process.
A question of candidate eligibility was raised. The duly elected and constitutionally empowered legislature enacted law requiring the court to answer that question. Just because Trump doesn't like that answer does not mean his rights were infringed.
Agreed. The Constitution states minimum requirements to be President. It definitely takes more than that to become President. The ruling out of Colorado doesn't even forbid him from being President. Obviously he could still win enough states without Colorado and this ruling doesn't forbid electoral delegates from voting for him either. If a candidate misses a deadline even it could keep them off the ballot. Being listed on one is not a right.