Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court won't fast-track ruling on Trump's claim of immunity [View all]jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)and control all aspects of elections within their borders. That could, I guess, include candidate eligibility per constitutional interpretation. It's kind of the basis for the "states' rights" argument of "lost cause" civil war history rewritten which has haunted the nation since the early 20th century. This whole affair may turn out to define our understanding of the terms paradox and ambiguity. (Only not in cursive.)
The USSC would seem even more arcane than they are if they interpret the constitution to say that known insurrectionists were acceptable presidential candidates. It would be disastrous, especially for the perpetually secretive-yet-strident and intrepid revolutionist. I mean, consider the fate of all the basement-dwelling fantasy nihilists and utopia-through-violence warriors. What would they have left to define their "kampf" with? What good is anarchy when it's sanctioned by the state? It is the stuff of classic comedy, "man's eternal struggle within the permissive culture".
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):