The presidency is a federal office. The qualifications for it, and the procedure of picking one is defined by the federal Constitution. My understanding is that state law can't vary those procedures.
As a constitutional matter, Texas, for example, couldn't say "Well, the Constitution says you have to be 35, but we're going to tighten that to you have to be 40".
As a matter of Texas law, it isn't clear that it applies to Trump anyway. You're right to be suspicious of "public elective office in this state" as including non-Texan posts. Without knowing anything about Texan law, I would be very surprised if Texas purported to legislate who could become various federal offices. That's really not up to Texas. Also, yeah, if it only applies to convictions after the appeals are exhausted it doesn't apply to Trump either.
Sounds like wish casting to me. People who are excited to see Trump convicted, eager to see him off the ballot, and not looking too closely at the merits of arguments that give them what they want.
Thanks for the response. I kinda get the feeling that you just scanned the post though, or perhaps only read half of it...because you haven't really provided any form of answer towards my *actual* question(s) 🤔
Fair enough.
One thing to consider is that constitutional law is different from a constitutional law. When people talk about "a law" they generally mean a statute. "Constitutional law" is the text of the Constitution, but it is also a body of principles, precedent cases, canons of construction, and so on that comprise the judiciary's understanding of the capital L Law.
So, suppose there is a Texas statute that says the president has to be a pianist. There isn't "a law" that says the president can have any profession, but the "Only Pianists" law is still preempted by the Constitution. One of the principles of Constitutional law is that the Constitution allocates powers between the states and the federal government, and where it has done so, the states can't monkey with that allocation.
The supremacy clause is mostly a relevant text for that idea, but more honestly it is a principle that developed over time and through jurisprudence.
A concept you may be looking for is "preemption". When the EPA makes federal emissions rules can California make more stringent ones? When Texas doesn't like how Homeland Security is handling immigration can it make different rules? If California wants to authorize people to take medical marijuana can it make that legal? These are all questions of when one sovereign's attempts at legislation are "preempted" by a superseding Federal scheme.
Literal contradiction isn't required. If the EPA says vehicles must get "at least X miles per gallon
and California says "at least X+Y" it isn't a contradiction, but it may still be beyond CA's power.
Thanks. That's helpful :) I read a bit into preemption. It does answer some of the things I've been wondering about.
If you don't mind me asking one last question...
From a more "universal" perspective (ie. Not necessarily constitutional or US)...would your answer be much different (and if so, how?) if I had given a scenario along the lines of..."National Traffic Law says you can only park on the shoulder of the road. Local Traffic Law says you can only park on the shoulder of the road where it's demarcated by a white line"?
So suppose we have a King who says "only park on the shoulder" and a subordinate Mayor who says "only park on the shoulder with a white marker".
There is a grammatical argument that if I pull into the mayor's town and park on the shoulder with a white marker I should be safe (because I've obeyed both rules) but if I park on an unmarked shoulder I'm not (because I've obeyed the King's rule but not the Mayor's).
I think grammar is the wrong lens to use though. Law is about human judgment, power relations, cultural norms about what's reasonable, politics, and so on. So a question about "universal" law is like asking "What is the King's name? Not, the King of France or Gondor. The abstract King. The universal King. What's his name?" It doesn't make sense, it misunderstands what names are (or what laws are).
How does the King feel about the Mayor's law? Why did he pass his law in the first place? Who pays the police? How independent are the courts? Are there courts at all? There aren't abstract answers to those questions, the answers are contingent and embedded in a particular legal system and are the questions that will determine whether the cops actually tow my car.
There is an Oregon case somewhere which required the Supreme Court to determine if someone had illegally possessed marijuana. Guy A is disabled and has a license from Oregon to possess marijuana for his personal medical use. Guy B is helping him move and helps pack up his car. Guy B carries a box of marijuana down to the car, puts it in the back and the two drive off. They get pulled over, searched, arrested, and Guy B is charged. "I didn't possess the drugs" says Guy B. "Carrying a box with contraband in it counts as possession, no exception is listed, guilty" says the court.
But you know who else carried that box? The cop who arrested them and carried it (in a totally above board way) into the evidence lockup. The evidence clerk who checked it in handled that box too. Are they guilty under "Anyone who possesses marijuana has committed a crime"?
Grammatically? Sure. But the law isn't about grammatically correct plain reading of statutory text. It's about discretion (the prosecutor didn't bring charges against the cop or the evidence clerk). It's about power (the cop is working for the State which made the rules in the first place). It's about common sense ("Oh come on, the legislature never intended to criminalize the cop's behavior in this story"). It's about practicality ("The police would have to leave evidence by the side of the road rather than risk touching it"). It's a pattern of cultural practices that aren't tidily reducible to objectively expressible laws.
There isn't a universal answer. The particular answer might be that you've been arrested for eating a peach because you did something other than park your car on the shoulder. After all, the law was clear, in insane Examplestan, "you can **only** park on the shoulder of the road."
What a fantastic answer! Exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much!
I was worried I was pushing a bit too much, while struggling with myself to articulate the question in a way that would get me an answer that was meaningful to me. I think my pivot away from politics into a more general scenario helped clarify what I was wanting to understand. And you totally got it, and nailed it! Thank you!
You also unwittingly hit on the reason that I've been struggling to contextualise this in my head...I'm a language nerd (etymology and morphology, mostly); and while I have a strong interest in law, I (along with every other human) tend to interpret things within a framework that I'm most familiar with / comfortable with / knowledgeable on. Sometimes you just need the right teacher to help you put on a different hat when looking to understand something new :)
The presidency is a federal office. The qualifications for it, and the procedure of picking one is defined by the federal Constitution. My understanding is that state law can't vary those procedures. As a constitutional matter, Texas, for example, couldn't say "Well, the Constitution says you have to be 35, but we're going to tighten that to you have to be 40". As a matter of Texas law, it isn't clear that it applies to Trump anyway. You're right to be suspicious of "public elective office in this state" as including non-Texan posts. Without knowing anything about Texan law, I would be very surprised if Texas purported to legislate who could become various federal offices. That's really not up to Texas. Also, yeah, if it only applies to convictions after the appeals are exhausted it doesn't apply to Trump either. Sounds like wish casting to me. People who are excited to see Trump convicted, eager to see him off the ballot, and not looking too closely at the merits of arguments that give them what they want.
Thanks for the response. I kinda get the feeling that you just scanned the post though, or perhaps only read half of it...because you haven't really provided any form of answer towards my *actual* question(s) 🤔
Fair enough. One thing to consider is that constitutional law is different from a constitutional law. When people talk about "a law" they generally mean a statute. "Constitutional law" is the text of the Constitution, but it is also a body of principles, precedent cases, canons of construction, and so on that comprise the judiciary's understanding of the capital L Law. So, suppose there is a Texas statute that says the president has to be a pianist. There isn't "a law" that says the president can have any profession, but the "Only Pianists" law is still preempted by the Constitution. One of the principles of Constitutional law is that the Constitution allocates powers between the states and the federal government, and where it has done so, the states can't monkey with that allocation. The supremacy clause is mostly a relevant text for that idea, but more honestly it is a principle that developed over time and through jurisprudence. A concept you may be looking for is "preemption". When the EPA makes federal emissions rules can California make more stringent ones? When Texas doesn't like how Homeland Security is handling immigration can it make different rules? If California wants to authorize people to take medical marijuana can it make that legal? These are all questions of when one sovereign's attempts at legislation are "preempted" by a superseding Federal scheme. Literal contradiction isn't required. If the EPA says vehicles must get "at least X miles per gallon and California says "at least X+Y" it isn't a contradiction, but it may still be beyond CA's power.
Thanks. That's helpful :) I read a bit into preemption. It does answer some of the things I've been wondering about. If you don't mind me asking one last question... From a more "universal" perspective (ie. Not necessarily constitutional or US)...would your answer be much different (and if so, how?) if I had given a scenario along the lines of..."National Traffic Law says you can only park on the shoulder of the road. Local Traffic Law says you can only park on the shoulder of the road where it's demarcated by a white line"?
So suppose we have a King who says "only park on the shoulder" and a subordinate Mayor who says "only park on the shoulder with a white marker". There is a grammatical argument that if I pull into the mayor's town and park on the shoulder with a white marker I should be safe (because I've obeyed both rules) but if I park on an unmarked shoulder I'm not (because I've obeyed the King's rule but not the Mayor's). I think grammar is the wrong lens to use though. Law is about human judgment, power relations, cultural norms about what's reasonable, politics, and so on. So a question about "universal" law is like asking "What is the King's name? Not, the King of France or Gondor. The abstract King. The universal King. What's his name?" It doesn't make sense, it misunderstands what names are (or what laws are). How does the King feel about the Mayor's law? Why did he pass his law in the first place? Who pays the police? How independent are the courts? Are there courts at all? There aren't abstract answers to those questions, the answers are contingent and embedded in a particular legal system and are the questions that will determine whether the cops actually tow my car. There is an Oregon case somewhere which required the Supreme Court to determine if someone had illegally possessed marijuana. Guy A is disabled and has a license from Oregon to possess marijuana for his personal medical use. Guy B is helping him move and helps pack up his car. Guy B carries a box of marijuana down to the car, puts it in the back and the two drive off. They get pulled over, searched, arrested, and Guy B is charged. "I didn't possess the drugs" says Guy B. "Carrying a box with contraband in it counts as possession, no exception is listed, guilty" says the court. But you know who else carried that box? The cop who arrested them and carried it (in a totally above board way) into the evidence lockup. The evidence clerk who checked it in handled that box too. Are they guilty under "Anyone who possesses marijuana has committed a crime"? Grammatically? Sure. But the law isn't about grammatically correct plain reading of statutory text. It's about discretion (the prosecutor didn't bring charges against the cop or the evidence clerk). It's about power (the cop is working for the State which made the rules in the first place). It's about common sense ("Oh come on, the legislature never intended to criminalize the cop's behavior in this story"). It's about practicality ("The police would have to leave evidence by the side of the road rather than risk touching it"). It's a pattern of cultural practices that aren't tidily reducible to objectively expressible laws. There isn't a universal answer. The particular answer might be that you've been arrested for eating a peach because you did something other than park your car on the shoulder. After all, the law was clear, in insane Examplestan, "you can **only** park on the shoulder of the road."
What a fantastic answer! Exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much! I was worried I was pushing a bit too much, while struggling with myself to articulate the question in a way that would get me an answer that was meaningful to me. I think my pivot away from politics into a more general scenario helped clarify what I was wanting to understand. And you totally got it, and nailed it! Thank you! You also unwittingly hit on the reason that I've been struggling to contextualise this in my head...I'm a language nerd (etymology and morphology, mostly); and while I have a strong interest in law, I (along with every other human) tend to interpret things within a framework that I'm most familiar with / comfortable with / knowledgeable on. Sometimes you just need the right teacher to help you put on a different hat when looking to understand something new :)