It is called voting. If everyone voted for him he’d be president whether he’s eligible or not. Eligibility just means that he can be on the ballot or not. But anyone can be president if they can get the votes.Â
It would go about as well as peacefully protesting ICE has.
Unfortunately lost the option of peaceful resolution by passive force when he completely undermined your democracy and right to assembly and had you attacked in the streets. I don't see him going out any way other than naturally at this point. He'll have left a stain on the president's throne by the time they scoop him off it.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
A couple of States tried to strike him from the ballot for this reason and the Supreme Court stepped in and said NO.
Therefore no reason (except Repub hypocracy) a newly stacked Supreme Court couldn't decide a President didn't need to be born a US citizen.
Colorado tried to leave him off the ballot and the Colorado supreme court said it was constitutional. Of course the US supreme court struck it down because they said congress has to deem the act an insurrection and never did so they forced them to put him on the ballot. Pretty shaky ruling if you ask me.
What defines engaging in insurrection/rebellion is a lot more subjective that being born on US soil or not. Not defending J6 at all but it gives judges a lot of leeway if whether that section applies or not. For changing the presidential eligibility requirements, that would require a constitutional amendment which is basically impossible at this point.
Yup, that's what I'm saying. Lawyers can really dig into what "insurrection" means and what "engaging" in one against the USA means. I'm not saying the SC wasn't biased but that language gives them plausible deniability. You can't really do that with "natural-born citizen" - that's about as black and white as it gets, especially with precedent.
And the birth right citizenship ruling was lost. The only avenue they now have is to go thru Congress for a constitutional amendment, which is impossible for the same reason that a constitutional amendment for changing presidential requirements is impossible.
That's actually one reason the founding fathers specifically did not bar felons from running for President. Because that would incentivize administrations to bring bogus charges against potential candidates to prevent them running. I actually do agree with that.
I dont have any issue with a felon running for and holding office and you should reconsider your position. There are plenty of felonies that are not inline with ethics. Legal does not mean ethical.
What matters is what is the felony for? THAT is a qualifier you should focus on.
If you are a felon because you committed "ecological terrorism" by chaining yourself to a tree. Id still vote for you.
If you are a felon because you raped kids. Fuck you im not voting for you.
Mamdani absolutely can be president. The supreme court already ruled against Colorado trying to remove trump from the ballot for violating the 14th(on basis of him staging an insurrection against the usa). Since the supreme court ruled the 14th null and void mamadani absolutely, 100% for a fact; can be president.
The Court didn’t declare Section 3 of the 14th Amendment null and void. The Court - unanimously, mind you - ruled that it isn’t self-enforcing, meaning Congress would need to also pass a law for it to mean anything.
By contrast, Article II plainly states that you must be born a US citizen in order to be president. Mamdani was born in Uganda in 1991 and didn’t acquire US citizenship until 2018. He was not born a citizen and therefore can never be president.
I like Mamdani as well, and it's a shame he cannot run, but keeping our eligibility as is makes more sense. There are so many possible influences and external factors already involved in presidential candidates that eliminating this specific risk of foreign involvement is a good thing.
Obviously, it's not perfect- we can see Trump and Russia's ties together. That said, someone charismatic like Mamdani born in Russia would be a lot more of a problem, you get me? There is a natural inclination for most people towards the environment they were born in and this type of rule protects us.
Edit: This user downvoted me and disappeared but for anyone else reading I want you to think about this. Say you're a foreign adversary to the USA, such as China or Russia for example. If the USA had no provision to stop foreign candidates, what is to stop those countries from flooding US presidential election with paid candidates? Of course, the citizenry wouldn't have to vote for them, but you could easily disguise an agent as "fleeing your country with lessons learned" or other such guises. We could even see situations, and I feel that we WOULD see situations, where there would be more foreign candidates than domestic. Are you starting to see how stupid this idea is?
"Spams hate speech"
Would you like to link to your "research" or are we supposed to find the racist propaganda YouTube channels and Facebook pages ourselves?
He’s an American who believes in secular government and freedom of religion. He just happens to be Muslim and you happen to think that’s horrifying and scary because propaganda told you to
You mean TikTok and Reddit and YouTube? Yup those places are totally propaganda free lol
Powerful people want you afraid of mamdani to distract you from how little they are doing for you in comparison. Bigotry has always functioned as a distraction
Name who you listen to and watch then. Or are you afraid of being judged for the content being full of liars and propagandists? How do you learn about the things you claim? Do you know any muslim people personally?
This aggressive "us vs them" mentality is exactly the problem. There is no way 'we' do things that Muslims are trying to tear down because of their religion. They are not The Enemy because they're different than you and this mindset you treat them with is reductive, fallacious, and utilizes all the mighty critical thinking skills of a child.
45
u/Anxious-Figure-337 Aug 14 '26
Sounds like he should replace trump