Incarcerated people can run for President

[Ringo]

What are you arguing about anyway?! If the dead can be elected to Congress, then the living, though imprisoned people, all the more so.

 

[martybegan]

They can not, and do not.

But once again, each state is responsible for the elections inside their own state.


That is right there in the Constitution. And has not a thing to do with the "requirements for President". It is their ballot, they have a right as a sovereign State to set requirements on who appears on the ballot inside their state. Just as they are free to decide how they hold primaries.

They can determine how people vote, not who can run for President. Only the Constitution sets those requirements.

 

[Mushroom]

They can determine how people vote, not who can run for President. Only the Constitution sets those requirements.

But each state still runs their own elections, and has requirements for who can be on the ballot.

Say Pennsylvania has requirements that X number of petition signatures must be collected for a candidate to be on the ballot. If one does not meet that, then they are not on the ballot. People can still vote for them, as a write-in candidate and they are not on the ballot itself.

That is why independents typically have such large drives to collect signatures in order to be on the ballot. Ross Perot did it in every state in the country, so it is very possible. But you are confusing and trying to mix up two very different things. Ballet qualification is not the same thing as candidate requirements for office.

 

[martybegan]

But each state still runs their own elections, and has requirements for who can be on the ballot.

Say Pennsylvania has requirements that X number of petition signatures must be collected for a candidate to be on the ballot. If one does not meet that, then they are not on the ballot. People can still vote for them, as a write-in candidate and they are not on the ballot itself.

That is why independents typically have such large drives to collect signatures in order to be on the ballot. Ross Perot did it in every state in the country, so it is very possible. But you are confusing and trying to mix up two very different things. Ballet qualification is not the same thing as candidate requirements for office.

If ballot qualification went anything beyond signatures, it would probably spark a lawsuit.

 

[Mushroom]

If ballot qualification went anything beyond signatures, it would probably spark a lawsuit.

Which means nothing, as the Constitution and Federal Law endorses the fact that states have control over their own elections.

 

[martybegan]

Which means nothing, as the Constitution and Federal Law endorses the fact that states have control over their own elections.

THEIR own elections, and how THEY select electors, not who qualifies to run for President.

 

[Mushroom]

THEIR own elections, and how THEY select electors, not who qualifies to run for President.

I have explained the difference several times now. If you refuse to understand, I can't help you.

 

[martybegan]

I have explained the difference several times now. If you refuse to understand, I can't help you.

You are the one not understanding things. So a State can restrict people on the ballot for President to only residents of the State in question?

 

[Mushroom]

You are the one not understanding things. So a State can restrict people on the ballot for President to only residents of the State in question?

They not only can, they do. As it allows them to do in the Constitution.

But that has not a damned thing to do with their ability to hold office.

Once again, look at the process to even be placed on the ballot.

And finally, I suggest you go back and look at what the process actually is. Literally, you are not even voting for President at all. You are voting to decide which Elector is being sent to the Electoral College. And that is entirely a local matter.

 

[martybegan]

They not only can, they do. As it allows them to do in the Constitution.

But that has not a damned thing to do with their ability to hold office.

Once again, look at the process to even be placed on the ballot.

And finally, I suggest you go back and look at what the process actually is. Literally, you are not even voting for President at all. You are voting to decide which Elector is being sent to the Electoral College. And that is entirely a local matter.

The Elector, but if they said the candidate had to be from the State in question that would be an unconstitutional qualification.

 

[Mushroom]

The Elector, but if they said the candidate had to be from the State in question that would be an unconstitutional qualification.

Wow, you are really trying to stretch way out here to make some kind of obscure point that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The system you are screaming about is how it was listed in the Constitution.

 

[Pellinore]

The Elector, but if they said the candidate had to be from the State in question that would be an unconstitutional qualification.

So wait a second, let me see if I get this right. Say, for example, that Texas wanted to pass a law saying "The only people allowed to run for President in Texas, are people from Texas." You're saying that this would be illegal?

Because it absolutely wouldn't be. Texas could do that tomorrow if they wanted, though it would probably need to be an amendment to the Texas State Constitution rather than just a law. It would be utter madness, because a) their people would revolt, and b) it would essentially strip them of having any say in who wins.

As Mushroom said, we don't actually vote for President, at all. We vote to essentially suggest to our State who the Electors should vote for. The procedures, who appears on the ballot, limits on Electors, all of that are all up to the State, by design. The only limit is that several of our Amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) limit a State's ability to disallow certain people from voting.

 

[Mushroom]

So wait a second, let me see if I get this right. Say, for example, that Texas wanted to pass a law saying "The only people allowed to run for President in Texas, are people from Texas." You're saying that this would be illegal?

Because it absolutely wouldn't be. Texas could do that tomorrow if they wanted, though it would probably need to be an amendment to the Texas State Constitution rather than just a law. It would be utter madness, because a) their people would revolt, and b) it would essentially strip them of having any say in who wins.

Actually, it would be illegal.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

The State could pass all the amendments like that it wants, it is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and would be declared void before the ink was even dry.

And most people really do have little to no understanding of how the process actually works. Only a couple of times in a century does some independent rise up and actually have an impact on the National Election. The last time was 1992, and most seem to have forgotten that Ross Perot had to stage a national and expensive ballot effort in order to ensure he would be on every ballot in the country. That is the main reason why most people who run for that effort join a party.

In those cases, the party is the one that raises the petitions in a block for the party, and the individual does not have to do so. That is why Ross Perot after that election formed the Reform party. So he would no longer have to go to such measures to run again.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, you are really trying to stretch way out here to make some kind of obscure point that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The system you are screaming about is how it was listed in the Constitution.

I'm saying what is in the Constitution about being President is imposed on the States. They can set requirements for electors but no additional requirements for the person running for President.

Look back to the whole thing where States wanted to require tax returns being filed to be listed on the ballot, or at least thinking about it.

 

[martybegan]

So wait a second, let me see if I get this right. Say, for example, that Texas wanted to pass a law saying "The only people allowed to run for President in Texas, are people from Texas." You're saying that this would be illegal?

Because it absolutely wouldn't be. Texas could do that tomorrow if they wanted, though it would probably need to be an amendment to the Texas State Constitution rather than just a law. It would be utter madness, because a) their people would revolt, and b) it would essentially strip them of having any say in who wins.

As Mushroom said, we don't actually vote for President, at all. We vote to essentially suggest to our State who the Electors should vote for. The procedures, who appears on the ballot, limits on Electors, all of that are all up to the State, by design. The only limit is that several of our Amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) limit a State's ability to disallow certain people from voting.

Yes, it would be. The only requirements to be President are in the Federal Constitution, and that is the supreme law in this case.

The State sets up requirements for electors, they can't set requirements on who can run for President in their State beyond what the Constitution stipulates.

 

[Pellinore]

Actually, it would be illegal.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.



The State could pass all the amendments like that it wants, it is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and would be declared void before the ink was even dry.

And most people really do have little to no understanding of how the process actually works. Only a couple of times in a century does some independent rise up and actually have an impact on the National Election. The last time was 1992, and most seem to have forgotten that Ross Perot had to stage a national and expensive ballot effort in order to ensure he would be on every ballot in the country. That is the main reason why most people who run for that effort join a party.

In those cases, the party is the one that raises the petitions in a block for the party, and the individual does not have to do so. That is why Ross Perot after that election formed the Reform party. So he would no longer have to go to such measures to run again.

That Clause was made obsolete by the 12th Amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ...

They could easily and legally stipulate that their Presidential votes be for someone from Texas, and in order to satisfy the Constitution, their choice for VP must therefore be from outside the state.

You're absolutely correct, though, in that most people don't really know how it works. Most of the procedures and mechanics such as primaries and nominations and conventions and so on come from the parties, not the law. The idea of a presidential ticket comes from the parties coordinating between states so that they all vote for the same two people. This all came about organically after the chaos of the first few elections, when many electors didn't even say which party they represented, and most of the states didn't even have popular votes.

 

[Mushroom]

The idea of a presidential ticket comes from the parties coordinating between states so that they all vote for the same two people.

Actually, it was more that they realized early on that having the second place candidate become the Vice President was a guarantee for infighting and gridlock. The founders had thought that the two could overcome such issues for the benefit of the country, but it did not work out that way.

I mean, just think about it. If elections were still run the same way today as they originally were, Donald Trump would today be the Vice President.

And his Vice President would have been Hillary Clinton.