The 14th Amendment was written specifically to deny the vote to those who would send insurrectionists to Washington by rendering those rebels ineligible. The reason it is written that way is because the post civil war south voted to return insurrectionists right back into office after they lost the civil war. The congress passed a constitutional amendment to prevent that, taking that coice off the table for the majority populations in the south and for any other people who were so inclined to elect persons who would not respect the rule of law.
The constitution also grants the states the right to run their own elections. It is completely legitimate for states to determine that candidates that are not eligible to hold office by being too young, not native born, not citizens or INSURRECTIONISTS cannot appear on the ballot.
Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.
The 14th Amendment was written specifically to deny the vote to those who would send insurrectionists to Washington by rendering those rebels ineligible. The reason it is written that way is because the post civil war south voted to return insurrectionists right back into office after they lost the civil war. The congress passed a constitutional amendment to prevent that, taking that coice off the table for the majority populations in the south and for any other people who were so inclined to elect persons who would not respect the rule of law.
The constitution also grants the states the right to run their own elections. It is completely legitimate for states to determine that candidates that are not eligible to hold office by being too young, not native born, not citizens or INSURRECTIONISTS cannot appear on the ballot.
How am I wrong?
Is it the case the states can determine a person ineligible for being too young, not native born and not a citizen without legally verifying the facts of those things? If so, we are right back to the question of how the state can simply assert the person is an insurrectionist without verifying it, simply on their own say-so. Do they just get to make it up as they go along?
yes, it is the case that a state can determine, through evidence and a deliberative process, that a person is not of age, a citizen, etc. And in this case, a state can determine, through evidence, that a person engaged in insurrection. The amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in words nor did its application in the post civil war era require a conviction. It's not 'making it up'. This is simply reading the words and taking the required action. And the states did legally verify the facts.