▲ 367 ▼ Libertarian Party Embraces Remorseless QAnon Shaman’s Run for Office (www.thedailybeast.com) submitted 2 years ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] docAvid@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You seem to have missed the key word, "ruled", but nice rundown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts: -he took an oath to defend the constitution -he participated in an insurrection. The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are. They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] docAvid@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution. But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is neither a mandate he be “ruled” ineligible by any entity. The constitution as written has already deemed him ineligible by the simple facts: -he took an oath to defend the constitution -he participated in an insurrection. The constitution lays out other requirements, as well, elsewhere, including being of a certain age (30 senate, 25 for rep.) the courts don’t rule anyone whose 24 ineligible- they just are. They can be expelled easily when they got to take office. “Uh nope. Weren’t you that guy? Yes? Well buhbye. Aren’t you supposed to be in jail?!” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] docAvid@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution. But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] docAvid@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago Who do you think is going to do this expelling? Do you imagine that there is some meta-governmental body, at the highest level, that can be relied upon to block anybody who isn't following the rules, other than a court? Nobody 24 runs, because they know they would be ruled ineligible. Ultimately, government works because of functioning institutions. The Supreme Court is not, currently, a functioning institution. But nevermind that. The point is that, if you wanted to suggest that a ruling wouldn't, or shouldn't, be necessary, you could have said so, but you did not. You said that, if no legal authority had ruled him ineligible, that must mean the Constitution has zero legal authority. The Constitution doesn't make rulings. Your comment was entirely unrelated to the comment you were responding to, because you ignored the word "ruled", whether you think a ruling is necessary or not. permalink fedilink source parent