Those are the qualifications on who can be president. Those aren’t the rules for being on a states ballot. Those rules are determined individually by each state.
It's almost like the powers that be believe that democracy itself is a threat to democracy...their democracy.
It doesn't make it right.
I’ve got you on my list
The overwhelming majority are male. The overwhelming majority are white. You don’t think there are any. Why do you think you are so far off?
We've diqualified federal judges and congressman and the like. All those offices, by the wording of the clause, are treated the same as the president or any other federal office. Blame the drafters of the amendment for not including due process or believing it necessary.
Bro the electoral college exists lol. There are plenty of examples where the intentions of those who wrote laws or constitutional amendments override popular will. Voters are also free to write in their votes or protest vote.
I have no idea who you are talking about here. You seem to be arguing with ghosts rather than addressing the core point of a rather cut and dry matter.
That's not what I asked, as you know. Judges and congress members are not voted on in national elections. Yeah, obviously states and local authorities control state and local elections. If it's "the drafters intentions", then surely you'd have some examples of national elections.
Not necessarily arguing at your point but individual rights are important. It’s a balancing act but the better countries have been Liberal Democracies/ Constitutional Republics which try to take the aspects of each. The majority decides a lot but everyone has bare minimum rights.
If they wanted to clarify, they would have clarified. That's literally how amendments work. That it is silent to any distinctions is key. You're reading into something that isn't there.
Yeah, except the opposite is true. "Engage in insurrection" and "due proces" is pretty cut and dry, and you deciding 200 years later that it "really means a 1 party dictatorship against voters, stated laws and election boards" is specifically the opposite. You think the "drafters intentions" was power centalized to a 1 party state where an individual person can override rules, laws, due process, the will of the voters and election boards to appoint national leaders? How much have you been drinking? Like the entire point of the thing was to decentralize power, which somehow you've interpreted as "centralize as much as possible".
There is no due process requirement for Section 3. There never has been.
Do I think drafters who were racist, didn't want black men and women in general voting, and didn't want reps elected directly were OK with a lack of due process? Why, yes, I do.
The 14th Amendment, as does the 13th, centralizes power. They literally fought a war where a stronger federal government emerged. You realize the Southern states were federally occupied and essentially occupied territory at this time period, right?
