The amendment specifically says it's the responsibility of Congress to determine eligibility of ballot access, and it only requires a simple majority. Therefore only Congress can proceed with due process, SCOTUS is likely to rule that states do not have standing, or the state courts do not have the authority to rule on this case.
Dont get me wrong, Im not defending the POS or his actions. Ive seen him as a shady, POS, conman since the 80s. But many dems are gonna be in for quite a shock when it doesnt play out like theyve been told it will. And all the ones calling to bypass due process because its someone they oppose is insane.
Where is the part that says only Congress can decide to remove by a simple majority? My understanding is that Congress can decide to put someone back on the ballot by a 2/3 majority, but it would be the courts that decide to remove them in lawsuits filed by citizens.
I've seen it on several legal websites, but I've not found how they interpreted that.
Unfortunately the problem with "legal websites" is that they generally know enough about the law to push a message without having to provide anything to back it up.
That's not a dig at you or your opinion, just something I find frustrating.
The amendment specifically says it's the responsibility of Congress to determine eligibility of ballot access, and it only requires a simple majority. Therefore only Congress can proceed with due process, SCOTUS is likely to rule that states do not have standing, or the state courts do not have the authority to rule on this case.
Dont get me wrong, Im not defending the POS or his actions. Ive seen him as a shady, POS, conman since the 80s. But many dems are gonna be in for quite a shock when it doesnt play out like theyve been told it will. And all the ones calling to bypass due process because its someone they oppose is insane.
Where is the part that says only Congress can decide to remove by a simple majority? My understanding is that Congress can decide to put someone back on the ballot by a 2/3 majority, but it would be the courts that decide to remove them in lawsuits filed by citizens.
I've seen it on several legal websites, but I've not found how they interpreted that.
Unfortunately the problem with "legal websites" is that they generally know enough about the law to push a message without having to provide anything to back it up.
That's not a dig at you or your opinion, just something I find frustrating.