“I will be asking the attorney general’s office for their input,” Secretary of State David Scanlan told the Globe. “And ultimately whatever is decided is probably going to require some judicial input.”

A debate among constitutional scholars over former president Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential race has reverberated through the public consciousness in recent weeks and reached the ears of New Hampshire’s top election official.

Secretary of State David Scanlan, who will oversee the first-in-the-nation presidential primary in just five months, said he’s received several letters lately that urge him to take action based on a legal theory that claims the Constitution empowers him to block Trump from the ballot.

Scanlan, a Republican, said he’s listening and will seek legal advice to ensure that his team thoroughly understands the arguments at play.

  • Kinglink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you were devoted to democracy and the constitution, then you’re remember that in this country there’s a presumption of innocence, as well as right to a trial. But I mean you must know that since you’re so devoted right?

    And thinking I’m a Trump supporter because I simply want him to legally be found guilty before we bar him from public office… I guess if you aren’t completely on your side, then you must be an enemy, kind of a shitty way to live your life, but you do you.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know the Constitution is a real document that you can actually read, right? It’s not just an idea or a metaphor. The 14th Amendment makes zero mention of a trial.

    • xT1TANx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I watched it live. I don’t need a court to tell me what I already know. And neither should you. If the evidence wasn’t so damn clear it might require subpoenas or evidentiary rulings to find out the truth but we do not need any of it. He’s on tape working to overthrow the election. Why do YOU need more?

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is no “right” to aspire to elected office, or to hold one.

      And disqualification from office is not a criminal punishment.

    • tastysnacks
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The constitution isn’t a law. All laws I’ve read describe the punishment for breaking the law. The constitution does not. The government can’t limit speech (within bounds). The government can’t limit guns (within bounds). The government can’t allow insurrectionists to run the government.