That's not the point. The point is the precedent it would set.
Exactly. Under our system, States have the authority to run their elections how they see fit within the guidelines of the Constitution. That goes for methods we agree with and those we disagree with....
Do we want the Feds to start telling states how to run their elections even more than they already do? Is that what the good Constitutionalists of OSA really want? Do we want to nationalize elections because California made us mad?
this is certainly a moment where i miss Dave.
Frankly, i think it's hard to say what a court would say for sure. But, i'm guessing it'd look at if the rule was discriminatory in some way (i.e. did it unfairly target one group in some way). If it it applies equally across the board then it might stand since states have historically been able to set standards for ballot access. The instances where the feds have been involved, IIRC, have usually dealt with historic voting problems, generally centered around racial discrimination.
Would it be unconstitutional for a candidate seeking ballot access to have to provide a birth certificate to prove that they are US born? Of course, a birth certificate isn't a federal document, in the way a federal tax return is, but it would be the state setting terms for being on the ballot that would require the candidate to provide documents that extend beyond the boundaries of the state in question (potentially, assuming the person wasn't born in said state).
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution uses the word powers. It doesn't use the word "rights" despite the phrase in common use "States' Rights." I think that's the pedantry he's quibbling over.
I know, "words have meaning," "the Framers deliberately intended..." yadda yadda and all that... As if a state ("of the people, by the people, for the people" mind you) having power over you is somehow functionally any different that saying they have a right to do something to/for its constituency? So for the record, I agree with the points you're raising throughout the thread.
There is zero correlation between 2nd Amendment protections in the Constitution and State laws that govern political party primary voting, so whataboutism doesn't apply.
Since the constitution is silent in regard to state political primaries, the power rests almost entirely with the State to determine that process. The State can hold it's primary when it chooses, in the manner it chooses. That's why some states only hold caucuses and hold their primaries at different times.
The standard of constitutionality is not whether or not you agree with it. Voter ID laws and financial disclosure requirements exist all over the country for many levels of political office....and we're all for voter ID and knowing who owns our politicians right? Why are providing tax returns such a horrendous, unconstitutional idea in that context? (solely in that context. Take Trump out of it.)
If it is unconstitutional in any way then my whataboutism certainly applies. Pointing the finger at other scenarios doesn't add to the validity of this one. Much in the same manner one could reference past state laws concerning gun rights that have been overturned. Now if you are deeming this as completely within the limits of The Constitution then more power to you. Seems they need to reference you to clear up the matter.
Also, voter ID and financial requirements are two different things to me. You must be a citizen to vote federally and obviously, to hold office, correct? Where does it say financial status is needed to hold the Presidency?
Similar threads
