When we remove a person from society, its from a jury of their peers, not 'scholars'. Given the election process in itself (lets remove the silly political party rules) is all about publicly electing an individual to represent the people, removing a person from eligibility should be done in the same fashion. If you want to blather on about ineligibility over insurrection, put the man up in front of a juror of his peers and convict him. Democrats had 3 years to do this and have failed miserably, along with every other accusation. We don't use people with insufferable titles to convict people. I trust the Rule of Law and the constitution. I do not trust people. Removing presidents from office and disqualifying them from office should be for the most extreme measure, not because a poorly ran political party can't get enough support to beat them. The DNC is not even trying. The current leadership (and the RNC too) is more concerned about keeping their people in power than the overall health of the country and their party. We are doing more and more extreme measures to mute the other side. I am not a Trump fan nor do I want him president again, but I am not in the least bit of concern over this bumbling idiot becoming supreme dictator for the next 1000 years. This is a stupid fear mongering measure that Democrats need to stop pushing.
So if 34 year old Taylor Swift wants to run for president you believe that the secretaries of state and the courts should have no role in leaving her off the ballot even though the constitution says she needs to be 35? Also you’ve contradicted yourself before when you openly said here that you want Trump to win. Those are your words and your disdain for Democratic people and liberals makes it obvious that you shouldn’t be able to sit here with any credibility to claim some sort of neutral position so please don’t mock our intelligence and inability to read your prior posts.
Age is in the constitution. If you need a court to determine if Taylor Swift is is not at least 35, then take it to court. I am not sure of your point here, TBH. Yes, I have stated that a couple times, purely in spite of the rage driven partisans.
So, everyone under 35 has been removed from society because the Constitution says you must be older to be POTUS? Clearly not. Constitutional scholars interpret the Constitution; they don't remove anyone. You are way out on a ledge of not understanding things but making strong opinions that are wrong. The Supreme Court, not a juror, will decide what the Constitution said and meant and if Trump is qualified or not. This is completely different from your misunderstanding and false equivalence to a criminal trial. You are simply very wrong here with the false equivalence of disqualification and criminal conviction. The Constitution isn't 1 and 0 black and white logic; it's words that require people, but not just any person like you or me, but qualified experts in the field to interpret and judge. That's exactly what's happening here. It's completely a legitimate legal process. Apparently, you don't trust even that process. You also are contradicting yourself and making multiple false assertions. I have pointed out that the Court's decision is driven by conservative scholars and plaintiffs, yet you continue to blame Democrats. Simply not fact-based. Your dismissal of subverting democracy as "stupid" reminds me of how you dismissed for years about concern that Trump will not just leave office peacefully if he loses. You were wrong then, and you are again repeating the same mistake of completely dismissing the signs of danger. But this really has nothing to do with the actual point here - whether he will be a dictator or not has no bearing on what the Constitution said about his qualification.
Being a felon doesn't prevent you from running from office. Convict him of insurrection or whatever term you want. Domestic Terrorist
A Convicted Insurrectionist Felon Donal Trump still has a nonzero chance of winning in 2024. The USSC can chose to ignore/interpret Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, as they see fit. BTW, I can name your next argument if Trump got convicted of "insurrection", mainly since there is no single "insurrection" statue and the statues that are legally close to insurrection do not apply .. for reasons.
