"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”
"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”
My second link (the Guardian) makes the claim, and my third link (Harvard Law Review, linked by the Guardian) provides one such piece of evidence to back that claim.
Almost nothing is “hard and fast” in law, especially where politics is involved, but given that we’ve had three high profile cases in the last 15 years and no serious Supreme Court-level challenge, I’m going to consider the “question” as mere political posturing.
Yes, the “natural born citizen” clause in a hard requirement in the Constitution, how that’s interpreted does have some room for debate. It seems you’re intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying…
It seems you’re saying diametrically contradictory things.
You say things are absolutely hard and when soft edges are pointed out you then say “nothing is hard”.
I was talking about two distinct things, yet you conflate them.
It’s the same thing:
if “natural born” is a hard requirement despite never being defined or tested.
You said it was a hard requirement, I pointed to evidence of the rules being murky unclear and in many ways arbitrary to which you responded that nothing was hard.
On having that contradiction pointed out you now claim to be arguing two to more things.
To be more clear, here’s the relevant text of the Constitution:
That is the set of hard and fast requirements to hold the office of President.
The definition of natural born citizen is somewhat debated, but the general consensus is that it includes:
There are more links there to show the general consensus. But since it hasn’t been tried in higher courts, the definition isn’t “hard and fast,” but the requirement to be a natural born citizen absolutely is. Those are the two different things, the requirement is hard and fast, and the specific definition of the requirement isn’t, and probably won’t be even if it is tried in higher courts because there’s always going to be some exception to whatever definition is provided.
It’s like saying murder being against the law is a hard and fast rule, but the specific definition of murder could be subject to debate (i.e. one person’s self-defense could be considered murder, and vice versa). The definition can have some flux while the law that uses those terms can be strict.
A requirement can’t be strict if its own definition isn’t.
Yes it can, that’s literally the entire basis of constitutional law. We can bicker about the interpretation of the words, but the words themselves aren’t subject to change, and we make the requirement more strict through case law. That’s the whole reason we separate the legislature from the judiciary, the legislature create the laws, and the judiciary defines the edges of the interpretation of those laws.