“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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Would you support this if it was Biden or Hillary in the same legal situation?

    It’s funny how you guys think we’re as devoted to Democrat politicians as you are to your chunky messiah.

    We’re devoted to democracy, to the Constitution. Not to any individual politicians.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      The right always acts like it’s some big gotcha “what about Biden/Hillary/whatever”. They don’t realize that most of the left has little emotional attachment to “their” politicians and if anything, a lot of Democrat politicians are simply adequate. Sometimes they’re straight up the lesser of two evils.

      But even when politicians are beloved, I don’t think the left is nearly as fanatical of unwilling to change their minds. Eg, Obama in 2008 was huge. He had a massive cult following and I remember being really hopeful for him myself. But he ended up being kinda lackluster. The ACA was an improvement over the then-status quo, but as a Canadian, I always viewed the ACA as a laughably half hearted attempt at reform. And oof, the warmongering? Nobody on the left shys away from hiding that unfortunate fact about Obama.

    • Kinglink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months 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.

      • xT1TANx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        And disqualification from office is not a criminal punishment.

      • tastysnacks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months 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.