Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack.
  • Spitzspot@lemmings.world
    0·
    4 months ago

    Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      0·
      4 months ago

      Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      0·
      4 months ago

      This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying “Trump did nothing wrong”, this is specifically saying “States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots”, which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.

      The SC could come out tomorrow and say “We’re disqualifying Trump”, this doesn’t preclude that.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        0·
        4 months ago

        States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          4 months ago

          [citation needed]

          List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn’t convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)

          Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.

          • Dem Bosain@midwest.socialEnglish
            0·
            4 months ago

            https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

            Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it’s the state, of course.)

            • DigitalFrank@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              4 months ago

              States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.

              Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.

              Me, I don’t want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that’s what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.