this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
307 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5468 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That's not how the opinion works. The Supremes said states can't remove candidates from the federal ballot under the insurrection clause. They can remove state candidates. It doesn't rule on anything else.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So how do they remove someone who isn't of age or a natural born citizen?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's a very good question, because I don't think it's ever been a real issue. Not among "serious" candidates (read: not some rando third party with zero chance).

Those factors are more mechanical. Being of age isn't a judgement issue unless someone says there's a mistake on their birth certificate or something. Natural born citizen is usually mechanical. Most candidates have been clearly born in the United States, and there's no debate about it. There was a little question around McCain, who was born in Panama, but there was clearly an act of Congress that made kids born there to American service members into citizens. If we take all the claims of the Obama Birthers at face value (which are nonsense), then he'd still be a citizen due to his mother being a citizen.

However, I do think the Birthers uncovered a problem while they fumbled around like idiots. They tried to get Obama off the ballot using the courts, and repeatedly had them dismissed due to lack of standing. If there actually was a valid reason to challenge someone under those requirements, it's not obvious who can enforce it.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I was under the impression that being a citizen wasn't enough, you had to be a natural born citizen. I don't think Obamas citizenship was ever in question, just his birthplace

"The U.S. Constitution states that the president must: Be a natural-born citizen of the United States"

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii, and no real evidence that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else. That resolves the issue right there.

That said, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, and he therefore had citizenship automatically at birth under US law. There's some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth", but it's not taken seriously.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There’s documented evidence of Obama being born in Hawaii

I don't disagree

There’s some SovCit-level bullshit about making a distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth”

~~Did you read the link in my post? that distinction IS made on an official US Government website~~

I misread your post

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The rest of their reasoning was basically "Congress can't do this shit, it'd be a mess, so we'll step up and reverse that clause."

They specifically said they will enforce the constitution as they see fit.