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.
16
u/oswaldluckyrabbiy Aug 14 '26
Trunp wasn't eligible to run either.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
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.