this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
140 points (92.7% liked)

news

231 readers
765 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

It's been argued, though notably not in the courts, that this is superceded by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

Everyone knows what the current supreme court would make if it.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Considering the 14th is also where the insurrection clause resides, I suspect, the majority of voters don't exactly adhere too closely to that particular amendment.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Even with a favorable court this would be difficult because of how US elections work. There is nothing saying a naturalized citizen can't run for president, just that they can't hold the office.

A party would have to risk nominating an ineligible candidate, and that's not something primary voters are going to want to do. Until that happens, there is no real mechanism to get a ruling from the courts since there is nobody with standing for a lawsuit.