#Constitutional Eligibility Requirements

[deadpresidents]

This is a sort of silly hypothetical, but I'm still curious:

Let's say that a president serves 2 terms, but for whatever reason wants to be on a ticket again. Could he run as someone's vice president after his own terms?

If he could, and that ticket won, what would happen if the president died? I'm pretty sure that a president can technically serve up to 10 years, even under the 25th amendment, in the case of a presidential ascension after half of the previous president's term (like how Coolidge or L. Johnson could have run for second full terms but, say, T. Roosevelt or Truman couldn't've [post 25th amendment].)

If a president died less than 2 years in and his vice president already had 2 terms served prior, would the office still go to the veep even if it would give him over 10 years as executive? Or would it go to the next person in the line of succession?

If a someone served two full terms as President, they would not be eligible to serve as Vice President.

The eligibility requirements for the Vice Presidency are exactly the same as those for the Presidency, so since they would be term-limited and unable to serve as President, they would also be unable to serve as Vice President. If someone is ineligible to serve as President for any reason, they are also ineligible to serve as Vice President for that very same reason.

The only way a President could serve more than eight years is if they were Vice President and succeeded to the Presidency and there were less than two years left in the Presidential term that they were assuming. In that case, they could still run for President in their own right for two full terms. So the best two examples, post-22nd Amendment, would be LBJ and Gerald Ford. When LBJ succeeded JFK, there were less than two years left in JFK's unfinished term which had started on January 20, 1961. So, LBJ ran and was elected in his own right in 1964, and he could have run again in 1968 if he wanted to.

On the other hand, when Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 and Gerald Ford succeeded him, there were still more than two years left in Nixon's unfinished term which began on January 20, 1973. Ford was able to run for a term in his own right in 1976. But if Ford had won the 1976 election, he would not have been able to run for another term in 1980 because he had served more than 2 years of Nixon's unfinished second term.

[mariacallous]

The death of the US government's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is starting to result in disconnection of internet service for Americans with low incomes. On Friday, Charter Communications reported a net loss of 154,000 internet subscribers that it said was mostly driven by customers canceling after losing the federal discount. About 100,000 of those subscribers were reportedly getting the discount, which in some cases made internet service free to the consumer.

The $30 monthly broadband discounts provided by the ACP ended in May after Congress failed to allocate more funding. The Biden administration requested $6 billion to fund the ACP through December 2024, but Republicans called the program “wasteful.”

Republican lawmakers' main complaint was that most of the ACP money went to households that already had broadband before the subsidy was created. Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel warned that killing the discounts would reduce internet access, saying an FCC survey found that 77 percent of participating households would change their plan or drop internet service entirely once the discounts expired.

Charter's Q2 2024 earnings report provides some of the first evidence of users dropping internet service after losing the discount. "Second quarter residential Internet customers decreased by 154,000, largely driven by the end of the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies in the second quarter, compared to an increase of 70,000 during the second quarter of 2023," Charter said.

Across all ISPs, there were 23 million US households enrolled in the ACP. Research released in January 2024 found that Charter was serving more than 4 million ACP recipients, and that up to 300,000 of those Charter customers would be "at risk" of dropping internet service if the discounts expired. Given that ACP recipients must meet low-income eligibility requirements, losing the discounts could put a strain on their overall finances even if they choose to keep paying for internet service.

“The Real Question Is the Customers’ Ability to Pay”

Charter, which offers service under the brand name Spectrum, has 28.3 million residential internet customers in 41 states. The company's earnings report said Charter made retention offers to customers that previously received an ACP subsidy. The customer loss apparently would have been higher if not for those offers.

Light Reading reported that Charter attributed about 100,000 of the 154,000 customer losses to the ACP shutdown. Charter said it retained most of its ACP subscribers so far, but that low-income households might not be able to continue paying for internet service without a new subsidy for much longer:

"We've retained the vast majority of ACP customers so far," Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said on [Friday's] earnings call, pointing to low-cost internet programs and the offer of a free mobile line designed to keep those customers in the fold. "The real question is the customers' ability to pay—not just now, but over time."

The ACP lasted only a couple of years. The FCC implemented the $30 monthly benefit in early 2022, replacing a previous $50 monthly subsidy from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that started enrolling users in May 2021.

Separately, the FCC Lifeline program that provides $9.25 monthly discounts is in jeopardy after a court ruling last week. Lifeline is paid for by the Universal Service Fund, which was the subject of a constitutional challenge.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Universal Service fees on phone bills are a "misbegotten tax" that violate the Constitution. But in similar cases, the Sixth and Eleventh circuit appeals courts ruled that the fund is constitutional. The circuit split increases the chances that the Supreme Court will take up the case.

[memories-of-ancients]

Early American Presidential Elections Were Way Different Than They Are Today

It's election season again, boy it sure is. I can tell because I now get daily texts from Joe Biden asking for money which is interesting because I never gave him my phone number and Trump has been sending me enough ads through the mail that it clutters my mail box if I don't empty it more than once a week. So in celebration of this great competition between two philosopher kings and elder statesmen I wish to detail how different presidential elections were in the opening decades of the United States compared to today. And I can tell you, elections back then were totally different, almost unrecognizeable.

First, most people could not vote. Early American elections were not democratic by any means. Of course women couldn't vote, so automatically half the population was ineligible by that fact alone. Also men who belonged to a minority groups couldn't vote. However, if you were a white man, odds were you were still ineligible to vote. All of the states had wealth and property requirements for voting, which made it so that the only men who were eligible to vote were wealthy white males. As a result, until the 1830's only around 2-3% perhaps 5% at most of all people were eligible to vote.

Secondly, you did not directly vote for the president at all. Presidents were not even listed on ballots. When you went to vote, you voted for your state's electors, the presidents weren't even listed on the ballot. In George Washington's diary entry for Jan 7th, 1789 he wrote that he voted for "Doctor Blackburn and Colonel Stuart", who were the electors he voted for in his district. The following is a surviving ticket from the 1789 Maryland Presidential election held by the Smithsonian ...

This was of course if you lived in a state where popular vote was used in presidential elections. According to the US Constitution it's up to the states to determine how electors are chosen. At the time many electors were chosen by state legislatures, or appointed by state governors. In the very first election (1789), only Maryland and Virginia used popular vote to choose electors. Incredibly New York failed to appoint electors altogether! In the next election, (1792), Massachusetts and Pennsylvania tagged on. Gradually other states did the same until by 1830 most states used popular vote to decide elections. The results are goofy looking popular vote maps like this (election of 1796), the gray areas being places where popular vote was not used, or there were not enough wealthy white men to vote.

Today we still use the Electoral College to elect the president, although there is a pretense of direct elections. When voting for president you are actually still voting for your state's electors, but it's generally agreed and expected that if your state's majority votes for a certain candidate, the electors will likewise vote for that candidate. And of course popular vote is used in every state to choose electors, for a state to do otherwise would be a national scandal even though it would be technically constitutional.

Finally, president and vice president were not on the same ticket. Today, for example, if you voted for Joe Biden, you are also voting for Kamala Harris as vice president. Until the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804 the way it worked was the candidate who was runner up became vice president. So today if we used the same system, Joe Biden would be president, and Donald Trump would be vice president. Likewise in the previous administration, Donald Trump would be president, and Hillary Clinton would be vice president. I suggest we repeal the 12th Amendment.

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is such an important article, the above link is a gift 🎁 link so that anyone can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Here are some highlights:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [...] He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” [...] The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” [...] The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.” It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [...] The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president. “Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said. Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so. [color/emphasis added]

Let's hope that election administrators across the US read this article and begin to set in motion the mechanism to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on ballots across the U.S., in case he does get the GOP nomination.

[vomitdodger]

This is interesting if you like debate, take an active interest in true constitutionality issues and mental gymnastics. About a six min vid. Discusses whether Harris is eligible for presidency based on the constitutional requirements. Not that I think it will make a difference. Discussion centers around what is a “natural born citizen” and “subject to the jurisdiction within”. Point being Harris was born on US soil while her non-US citizen parents had expired stays.

I’ve tried to find a definite answer for about two days and no such luck.

Points of considerations:

The Supreme Court has never officially ruled on this. There is much academic inference but it’s never ruled on a case/scenario like this.

The founding fathers original intent of “natural born citizens” was what most people would think…born to US citizens…not an anchor baby (Harris). Note they included the specific word “natural”.

Citizenship was later clarified to children of citizens born overseas…basically. Example: Ted Cruz born in Canada and McCain born in Panama Canal zone. Both considered “natural born citizens” so eligible to run.

Anchor baby’s are often referred to as “birthright citizens”. This is comrade Haley. Difference is her parents were in the US legally although not yet naturalized. Harris’ parents were neither…they stayed past their defined term. This is really key.

Most academics and some court rulings have made or attempted to make the terms “natural born” and “birthright” interchangeable. Others have said..not so fast…go back to original intent…they are not the same for constitutional legalities.

Truly a constitutional scholar/legal issue that would only be officially settled by the SCOTUS. Again not that it will likely make a difference anytime soon, if at all.

If you try to find info disregard anything in the last year or so…it’s clearly a setup for future Harris runs. Disregard fact checkers and the usual media. Disregard any source that simple lists the 3 presidential requirements as worthless, low IQ input.

I also suspect there’s heavy media censorship of arguments against Harris’ scenario. Most articles simply list those 3 basic requirements without any constitutional scholar authority….so again low IQ, meaningless input to influence the masses with repetition. Which is exactly what the media does.

[empiredesimparte]

Statement by HIH, Imperial Prince Henri de Francesim, Head of the Household of the Imperial Prince, at the press conference on the Marriage of King Philippe to Queen Viviana II of Ionian Union

👉🏻 Follow Philippe's wedding on the blog of my friend @funkyllama

Frenchmen, Frenchwomen, and also to you, subjects of Queen Viviana II and King Consort Philippe, Greetings. It is with great honor that I address you today to clarify the current situation concerning the order of succession to the imperial throne of Francesim, in light of the recent marriage of His Imperial Highness Prince Philippe, now King Consort Philippe, with Her Illustrious Majesty, Queen Viviana II of the Ionian Union.

First of all, I cannot help but express, as a father, the immense pride I feel for my son, Philippe. He has always shown great sensitivity to international challenges, and I am certain that, alongside Queen Viviana II, our nations will continue to prosper together. By virtue of the constitutional prerogatives and fundamental laws of the Empire, it is decreed that the lineage stemming from our house, represented by our son and his descendants, is eligible for the hereditary succession to the Imperial Crown of Francesim. Should it come to pass that His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Napoléon V, finds himself without direct offspring, the Emperor may, in accordance with imperial laws, adopt a legitimate heir from our lineage, to ensure the continuity of the dynasty and the stability of the Empire. It is evident that adoption would only be considered in exceptional circumstances. We sincerely hope that His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Napoléon V, will be able to produce a direct heir, thus ensuring the continuity of the lineage. Nevertheless, should the necessity arise, we will do what is required for the good of the Empire and our peoples. In the event of adoption by the Emperor, both parties will agree that the adoption would not compromise the sovereign interests of the Ionian Union, while ensuring the stability and continuity of the imperial dynasty of Francesim. Meanwhile, King Consort Philippe and his descendants are, of course, an integral part of the Imperial Family of Francesim. Thank you for your attention.

⚜ Traduction française

Françaises, Français, mais aussi, à vous, sujets de la reine Viviana II et du roi consort Philippe, Salut. C'est avec un grand honneur que je m'adresse à vous aujourd'hui pour clarifier la situation actuelle concernant l'ordre de succession au trône impérial de Francesim, à la lumière du récent mariage de Son Altesse Impériale le prince Philippe, désormais le roi consort Philippe, avec Son Illustre Majesté, la reine Viviana II de l'Union Ionienne. Tout d'abord, je ne peux m'empêcher d'exprimer, en tant que père, la fierté immense que je ressens envers mon fils, Philippe. Il a toujours montré une grande sensibilité aux défis internationaux, et je suis certain que, aux côtés de la reine Viviana II, nos nations ne cesseront de prospérer ensemble. En vertu des prérogatives constitutionnelles et des lois fondamentales de l'Empire, il est décrété que la lignée issue de notre maison, représentée par notre fils et ses descendants, est appelée à l'hérédité de la Couronne impériale de Francesim. Si, par le cours des événements, Sa Majesté Impériale l'Empereur Napoléon V venait à se trouver sans postérité directe, l'Empereur pourra, conformément aux lois impériales, adopter un héritier légitime issu de notre lignée, afin d'assurer la continuité de la dynastie et la stabilité de l'Empire. Il est évident que l'adoption ne serait envisagée que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous espérons de tout cœur que Sa Majesté Impériale, l'Empereur Napoléon V, pourra produire un héritier direct, assurant ainsi la continuité de la lignée. Néanmoins, si la nécessité devait se présenter, nous ferons ce qui est requis pour le bien de l'Empire et de nos peuples. En cas d'adoption par l'Empereur, les deux parties s'accorderont sur le fait que l'adoption ne compromettrait pas les intérêts souverains de l'Union Ionienne, tout en assurant la stabilité et la continuité de la dynastie impériale de Francesim. En attendant, le roi consort Philippe ainsi que ses descendants font, évidemment, partie intégrante de la famille impériale de Francesim. Je vous remercie pour votre attention.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

A federal court has permanently blocked Florida from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors and restrictions on the care for trans adults.

“Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs,” Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida wrote in his ruling, issued Tuesday. “But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. “In the meantime, the federal courts have a role to play in upholding the Constitution and laws. The State of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment — treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity.” Hinkle also asserted, “Gender identity is real.” He had temporarily blocked the law last year. When hearing the case in December, he had ripped into Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for spreading lies about trans care for young people.

[...]

His ruling in the case of Doe v. Ladapo found that Florida Senate Bill 254 and the related Boards of Medicine rules were motivated by disapproval of transgender people and violate the equal protection rights of transgender individuals and parents of transgender minors in Florida. Florida was the first state to pass a law restricting access to health care for transgender adults. The ban on this care for minors was first enacted in March 2023 through the adoption of rules by the Florida Board of Medicine and Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine, at the urging of DeSantis, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and the Florida Department of Health. SB 254, which was passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and took effect in May 2023, wrote the ban into state law, subject to a narrow continued-use exception for minors who had started treatment before the ban. SB 254 also created felony criminal and civil penalties for Florida medical providers. Later, SB 254 added severe restrictions that effectively blocked access to essential medical care for trans adults and minors who would be eligible for the continued-use exception, including requiring that care be provided exclusively by physicians, barring telehealth, and requiring patients to complete unique, onerous, and misleading consent forms.

[...] DeSantis has vowed to appeal the ruling. “Through their elected representatives, the people of Florida acted to protect children in this state, and the Court was wrong to override their wishes,” said a statement from his office, as quoted by the Associated Press. “As we’ve seen here in Florida, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children. These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror.”

In Doe v. Ladapo, Judge Robert Hinkle permanently blocks Florida SB254 from taking effect. SB254 was a law that banned gender-affirming care for trans minors and put significant restrictions on gender-affirming care for trans adults. A win for common sense!

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Federal judge overturns Florida’s gender-affirming care ban in historic victory for trans rights

[beardedmrbean]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California and Nevada voters will decide in November whether to ban forced prison labor by removing language from their state constitutions rooted in the legacy of chattel slavery.

The measures aim to protect incarcerated people from being forced to work under the threat of punishment in the states, where it is not uncommon for prisoners to be paid less than $1 an hour to fight fires, clean prison cells, make license plates or do yard work at cemeteries.

Nevada incarcerates about 10,000 people. All prisoners in the state are required to work or be in vocational training for 40 hours each week, unless they have a medical exemption. Some of them make as little as 35 cents hourly.

Voters will weigh the proposals during one of the most historic elections in modern history, said Jamilia Land, an advocate with the Abolish Slavery National Network who has spent years trying to get the California measure passed.

“California, as well as Nevada, has an opportunity to end legalized, constitutional slavery within our states, in its entirety, while at the same time we have the first Black woman running for president,” she said of Vice President Kamala Harris’ historic bid as the first Black and Asian American woman to earn a major party’s nomination for the nation’s highest office.

Several other states such as Colorado, Alabama and Tennessee have in recent years done away with exceptions for slavery and involuntary servitude, though the changes were not immediate. In Colorado — the first state to get rid of an exception for slavery from its constitution in 2018 — incarcerated people alleged in a lawsuit filed in 2022 against the corrections department that they had still been forced to work.

“What it did do — it created a constitutional right for a whole class of people that didn’t previously exist,” said Kamau Allen, a co-founder of the Abolish Slavery National Network who advocated for the Colorado measure.

Nevada's proposal aims to abolish from the constitution both slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. California’s constitution was changed in the 1970s to remove an exemption for slavery, but the involuntary servitude exception remains on the books.

Wildland firefighting is among the most sought-after prison work programs in Nevada. Those eligible for the program are paid around $24 per day.

“There are a lot of people who are incarcerated that want to do meaningful work. Now are they treated fairly? No,” said Chris Peterson, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which supports the measure. “They’re getting paid pennies on the hour, where other people get paid dollars, to do incredibly dangerous work.”

Peterson pointed to a state law that created a modified workers’ compensation program for incarcerated people who are injured on the job. Under that program, the amount awarded is based on the person’s average monthly wage when the injury occurred.

In 2016, Darrell White, an injured prison firefighter who filed a claim under the modified program, learned he would receive a monthly disability payment of “$22.30 for a daily rate of $0.50.” By then, White already had been freed from prison, but he was left unable to work for months while he recovered from surgery to repair his fractured finger, which required physical therapy.

White sued the state prison system and Division of Forestry, saying his disability payments should have been calculated based on the state’s minimum wage of $7.25 at the time. The case went all the way up to the Nevada Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal, saying it remained an “open question” whether Nevada prisoners were constitutionally entitled to minimum wage compensation.

“It should be obvious that it is patently unfair to pay Mr. White $0.50 per day,” his lawyer, Travis Barrick, wrote in the appeal, adding that White's needs while incarcerated were minimal compared to his needs after his release, including housing and utilities, food and transportation. “It is inconceivable that he could meet these needs on $0.50 per day.”

The California state Senate rejected a previous version of the proposal in 2022 after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration cited concerns about the cost if the state had to start paying all prisoners the minimum wage.

Newsom signed a law earlier this year that would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create a voluntary work program. The agency would set wages for people incarcerated in state prisons under the law. But the law would only take effect if voters approve the forced labor ban.

The law and accompanying measure will give incarcerated people more of an opportunity for rehabilitation through therapy or education instead of being forced to work, said California Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat representing Solano County who authored this year's proposal.

Wilson suffered from trauma growing up in a household with dysfunction and abuse, she said. She was able to work through her trauma by going to therapy. But her brother, who did not get the same help, instead ended up in prison, she said.

“It's just a tale of two stories of what happens when someone who has been traumatized, has anger issues and gets the rehabilitative work that they need to — what they could do with their life,” Wilson said.

Yannick Ortega, a formerly incarcerated woman who now works at an addiction recovery center in Fresno, California, was forced to work various jobs during the first half of her time serving 20 years in prison for a murder conviction, she said.

“When you are sentenced to prison, that is the punishment,” said Ortega, who later became a certified paralegal and substance abuse counselor by pursuing her education while working in prison. “You’re away from having the freedom to do anything on your own accord.”

[datasoong47]

So, just before the Civil War began, when the Southern states were beginning to secede but before the war broke out, there was a last-ditch effort to stop secession with a proposed amendment to the Constitution called the Corwin Amendment:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

Basically, forbidding any future amendment from affecting slavery, though it's dubious whether it would've been effective, as some scholars have argued that a later amendment could explicitly repeal that one. At any rate, it was only ratified by five states, far short of the 3/4 requirement for ratification, namely Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois, in addition to the Restored Government of Virginia (a Union-backed rival government for Virginia, after Virginia seceded) whose ratification was legally dubious. Of those five, three - Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois - later rescinded their ratifications (it's questionable whether states have any Constitutional power to rescind ratifications, but that's another issue entirely). So, it was an utter failure. It's still technically eligible to be ratified, however, as the Constitution sets no time frame for ratifications of amendments

I just learned tonight reading the Wikipedia page on that amendment that there was a much more recent attempt at ratification

In 1963, more than a century after the Corwin Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures by Congress, a joint resolution to ratify it was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives by Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck.[30] His joint resolution was referred to the House's Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1963, but received no further consideration

Of course it was a Republican. But, seriously, 100 years later? I mean, it would obviously be entirely symbolic, but even so, that's a pretty blatantly racist symbolic effort

[us-presidential-election-sim]

US Presidential Election 1788-89

Okay, so we haven't done this before yet. The year is 1788. We're not really sure what this President thing is gonna be, but we're just coming out of a war and we delegated some responsibilities to this guy, so we need to figure out who it's gonna be.

(LOL it's definitely gonna be George Washington, no one is expecting otherwise... but let's do this voting thing for appearances' sake.)

Ahead of the election, please submit campaign ads for your chosen candidate here. Note: we absolutely allow - nay, embrace - smear campaigns and negative propaganda that may besmirch the reputations of these fine Americans.

Your candidates are:

George Washington (Independent, Virginia) John Adams (Federalist, Massachusetts) John Jay (Federalist, New York) Robert H. Harrison (Federalist, Maryland) John Rutledge (Federalist, South Carolina) John Hancock (Federalist, Massachusetts) George Clinton (Anti-Federalist, New York) Samuel Huntington (Federalist, Connecticut) John Milton (Federalist, Georgia) James Armstrong (Federalist, Georgia) Benjamin Lincoln (Federalist, Massachusetts) Edward Telfair (Federalist, Georgia)

Anyway, if you're being asked to vote, here's who you are:

If you live in Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, or South Carolina, you are a state legislator voting based on what you think is best for your new state.

If you live in Massachusetts, you are a state legislator, but eight of your ten electors have to be chosen based on what eligible voters in the House of Representatives wants.

If you live in Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, or Pennsylvania, you are a white man who meets the local property rights requirements.

If you live in New York, you are a state legislator but you're actually too busy clawing the eyes out of your fellow legislators to choose electors, so you're gonna sit this one out.

If you're in North Carolina or Rhode Island, you can get fucked until you finally ratify the constitution.

All in all, we expect about 1.8% of the population of America to vote. Democracy!

[crowns-of-violets-and-roses]

Northanger Abbey, by Jane Austen, received a single nominating vote for Best Novel. We did not rule on its eligibility, as it was nowhere near the top six nominees in this category (or even in the top two hundred), but any such ruling would have been negative. Northanger Abbey was first published in 1818, and first published in the USA in 1833. Neither of those dates satisfies Section 3.4.2 of the Constitution, which would require first publication, first USA publication or first English language publication to have been in 2023.

2024 Hugo Adminstrators' Report

[thenten]

Omnitrix Scanning: What CAN/CAN'T Ben turn into?

The Omnitrix is well-known at this point for having incredibly vague rules about what does and doesn't constitute as an eligible species for scanning, with them almost never being directly mentioned, short of the constantly reinforced rule of sapience being a requirement.

The rulings below are the ones I personally adhere to based on their consistency, and adherence to the intended themes in Ben 10.

What the Omnitrix CAN'T scan:

Species that are non-sapient. There's a certain threshold of awareness & intelligence that must be crossed for a species to be eligible for the Omnitrix, for Ben's sapient mind to be compatible within it. Azmuth has noted that this isn't "as high a bar as people think it is", with the writers confirming (albeit jokingly) that Earth animals such as dolphins and chimpanzees would be eligible, though they likely wouldn't be able to communicate like Wildmutt.

Unique robotic or otherwise technological creations, no matter how individually advanced or intelligent. The qualifications for robotic 'species' being considered for the Omnitrix are vague, but if a robot is a unique creation that cannot function as a species or culture, the Omnitrix almost certainly won't scan it.

Unnatural mutations of species that would otherwise be eligible, while they theoretically wouldn't be impossible to be scanned, but mutated DNA are by default withheld from being implemented into the Omnitrix to protect from their genetic instability. However, if the base species is yet to be unlocked, the Omnitrix IS able to extract an unmutated DNA sample from a mutated host.

What the Omnitrix CAN scan:

Robotic species that DO function as such, with self-sufficiency and culture and other necessities, are eligible for the Omnitrix. The most clear line for this is established by the Galvanic Mechamorphs (Or, as Ben calls his, Upgrade), whom were originally an accidental creation of the Galvan. While when they originally gained sapience, they might not have been eligible, the Galvan took the effort of upgrading to the point that they could function as a species & culture all their own afterwards.

Hive-Mind species, such as the Microchips, can be scanned by the Omnitrix, but in that specific instance it required the Omnitrix to create a more thorough hybrid of Microchip and Human DNA to ensure that Ben stayed in-control throughout the process, while still being able to communicate with the Microchip Queen.

Cybernetically-enhanced species, whose cybernetic enhancements are span the entire people due to either medical, environmental, or even religious or cultural reasons are eligible.

Species that stemmed as mutations from another species, whether or not those original mutations were natural or unnatural, can become eligible & unique from the base species if their DNA has stabilized and become more consistent across the species. This can be seen in the Prypiatosian-A (like NRG), whose species was mutated by their planet being devastated by nuclear war, and adapted into it's current form over several generations.

On a similar note, sub-species with even only small differences can be considered unique samples to scan by the Omnitrix, as shown by the Perk & Murk Gourmand whose differences are mostly just visual in nature. If there's defining genetic differences, it'll scan.

Species whose every fragment of DNA is a sapient part of them that are always in their control, like Ectonurites, CAN be sampled by the Omnitrix, but it usually requires consent of the sampled party, if not it'll have consequences (as it did with Ghostfreak).

Beings that "don't have DNA" as it is usually defined are entirely viable samples for the Omnitrix to scan, if they fulfill the other qualifications of sapience, self-sufficiency, and culture. It doesn't matter of they're Silicon-based like Petropians, energy-based like Nosedeenians, sound-based like Sonorosians, or whatever Celestialsapiens are made of.

So with this said, how about some (a lot of) examples of both?

Dragon Ball Species:

Saiyans: Yes!

Namekians: Warrior and Dragon Clan Namekians, yes, but not Demon Clan Namekians like Piccolo as they were "mutated by evil".

Frieza's Race: Yes and no. All of Frieza's own familial clan are stated to be mutants themselves, these mutations being the source of their ability to just create transformations at will, but the Omnitrix WOULD be able to extract an unmutated sample of whatever his species looks like without mutations.

Kais/Core People: Absolutely.

Gods of Destruction: As shown by the series, GoDs aren't a species, and their power just comes from training. So, while Ben could become any of their base species', he wouldn't gain the power of a God of Destruction through doing so. So, no!

Angels: Possible, but not advisable with the rules put on them.

Majins: With consent, perfectly possible. Scanning a hostile Majin would likely end up creating a Ghostfreak situation, though.

Androids: Nope.

Bio Androids (ex. Cell): With the Omnitrix's anti-mutated DNA safeguards, the Omnitrix would extract all the eligible individual samples that were used to create the Bio Android.

Machine Mutants (ex. Baby): As said, they're heavily mutated Tuffles, so they themselves wouldn't be scanned, but a base sample of Tuffle DNA would be extracted instead.

Marvel:

Spider-People, Mutants, and Hulks: Nope!

Inhumans: Probable! Though, the form may require exposure to the Terrigen Mist to gain powers of it's own.

Asgardians, Olympians, and other gods: Yep!

Skrulls: Yes, but only the base species. Super Skrulls are genetic experiments created in a lab, and therefore mutated.

Symbiotes: Perfectly eligible, though like Ectonurites, a consensual scan would be the most ideal to avoid a Ghostfreak situation. Also, as their species prefer having compatible hosts, the Omnitrix would probably allow Ben to attach the form to his other alien forms rather than making him use it on it's own.

Brood: Possible, but the Omnitrix might modify the DNA with Ben's human DNA to counteract the dangers of being a part of a hive-mind. Still, entirely workable.

Watchers: Yes, but not advisable.

Ego the Living Planet: Comic version, very unclear.

Celestials: Insane, but yes.

Galactus: Nope, individual being.

DC:

Kryptonians, Amazons, Atlanteans, Tamaraneans: Absolutely!

Martians: Yes, but it'd require consent. DC Martians have full control over their DNA, and could retract a scan's sample at will.

Czarnians: Yes, but it wouldn't have all the traits Lobo has.

New Gods: In general, yes, but the exact abilities would be unclear.

Miscellaneous:

Yautja/Predators (Dark Horse): Yes.

Xenomorphs/Aliens (Dark Horse): Nope, not sapient.

Cybertronians (IDW): Absolutely.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (IDW): Nah.

Monsters (Undertale): Yes, but each different type of monster would likely be considered individual subspecies.

Gems (Steven Universe): Yes, but each individual gem type would be considered it's own species, allowing each to be scanned individually and be their own transformations.

Irken (Invader Zim): Yes, and as the "pinnacle" of their species have extensive cybernetic enhancement, the Omnitrix's Irken transformation would have them as well.

Halfas (Danny Phantom): Nope, mutated hybrid DNA.

Ghosts (Danny Phantom): VERY dependent, as ghosts in Danny Phantom come with a great deal of variance, but there would at least be a few eligible "species" from the ghosts that are native to the Ghost Zone rather than the human spirits that went there.

Quirk-Enhanced Humans (MHA): While one might assume they would be the same as Mutants from Marvel, I disagree. Quirk-Enhanced Humans have very strong, consistent DNA that sustains itself over successive generations, and while it may have started as a mutation, has clearly become the next step in evolution.

Timelords/Gallifreyans (Doctor Who): Terrifying, but yes.

[mariacallous]

In this super-election year 2024, one key election to watch is the European Parliament election. From June 6-9, around 360 million eligible voters across the 27 European Union (EU) member states will elect representatives to the European Parliament. The past five years have been a turbulent time for Europeans, from the global pandemic and subsequent economic slowdowns to an energy crisis and a reckoning on defense and security precipitated by the first major land war in Europe since World War II. The latest polling suggests that the outcome of the June election will produce strong results for far-right parties, with major policy implications for the EU and its partners around the globe, including the United States.

How do European Parliament elections work?

The European Parliament, together with the Council of the EU (which represents the governments of the EU’s member states), constitutes the EU’s legislative body. It has the authority to review, revise, and vote on legislation, endowing it with significant influence on the European policy agenda. Among the various EU institutions, the parliament is the union’s core democratic pillar as the only institution directly chosen by EU citizens. Strong voter turnout in the election is therefore key to the popular legitimacy and democratic nature of the European policy process. Following each legislative cycle, the parliament also has the role of confirming—or rejecting—a new EU Commission and commission president, the bloc’s executive, as proposed by the European Council (the EU’s top policy-setting institution, which brings together the heads of government of the member states, the president of the Council of the EU, and the president of the commission).

Since 1979, European parliamentary elections have taken place every five years. Voters elect national party candidates in their respective countries, who become part of a European parliamentary group as Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) at the supra-national level. The European groupings mirror the national-level party structures:

The European People’s Party (EPP) on the center-right.

The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) on the center-left.

The Liberals (Renew Europe) between the center and the center left.

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) toward the left of the political spectrum.

The European Left on the far left.

The European Conservatives and Reformers (ECR) on the conservative end.

The Identity and Democracy (ID) Group on the far right.

Non-aligned parties.

The number of MEPs for each member state is allocated based on population size, though there is a non-proportional factor favoring smaller member states, which means the population-to-seat ratio is much higher for larger states than smaller ones. (One German seat, for instance, represents almost 880,000 Germans whereas one Estonian seat represents only about 195,000 Estonians.) National parties receive seats in the European Parliament through a system of proportional representation, whose MEPs in turn become part of the European party groupings.

Through the Spitzenkandidat (German for “top candidate”) system, first used in 2014, European party groups also nominate a candidate for the commission presidency to personify their platforms and make the selection process for the EU’s chief executive more transparent. Nonetheless, there is no legal requirement for one of the Spitzenkandidaten to become the new commission president, which means the post could ultimately be filled by a different candidate. Like the U.S. presidential election, the Spitzenkandidaten also participate in public debates—the “Eurovision Debates”—to advocate for their parties’ policies and compete for voter support.

What issues are voters concerned about?

Even though European Parliament elections help determine the EU’s future policy direction, voters are fundamentally driven by issues that affect their daily lives, which inevitably include national-level concerns. Each member state’s election result should thus be viewed as a referendum on both the EU itself and its national government. In a recent Europe-wide survey ahead of the June election, Europeans overall indicated as their top priorities poverty and social exclusion, public health, economic support and job creation, as well as security and defense. Other top issues of concern were climate action, the EU’s future, and migration and asylum policy. All these issues have both a European and a national dimension, which have become increasingly intertwined.

In the past, European voters have used their votes to signal their discontent with local and national policies, due to perceptions that there is a disconnect between the European Parliament and bureaucratic EU processes, and that the parliament lacks relevance relative to other EU institutions. The previous EU election in 2019, however, exhibited the highest voter turnout since 1994 at nearly 51%, with climate change particularly mobilizing younger voters to participate. The 2024 Eurobarometer survey similarly shows that 60% of Europeans are “very” or “somewhat interested” in the election, with 71% indicating that they would be “likely” to vote if the election took place next week. Voters also demonstrated an appreciation for the EU’s role in their daily lives and on the world stage, as well as support for more EU engagement on matters of defense and security, energy resources and infrastructure, and food security and agriculture.

The European Parliament’s current and future composition

Since the last election in 2019, the European Parliament has been governed by a coalition of the center-right EPP, the center-left S&D, and the Liberals of Renew Europe with a combined majority of almost 60%. As the largest parliamentary grouping, the EPP had the prerogative of nominating their Spitzenkandidat, Manfred Weber, for the commission presidency, but he failed to reach a majority for his confirmation. The EPP thus proposed Ursula von der Leyen, who was able to gather greater support and become the EU’s new chief executive.

In terms of the parliament’s political composition, the 2019 vote produced the largest gains for the far-right ECR and ID groupings to date. Together, they have occupied close to 18% of seats as part of the parliamentary opposition, thus increasing their capacity to shape EU policy debates. This has been particularly evident on issues such as migration and asylum policy as well as climate regulation. Nonetheless, there are noteworthy differences between the far-right parliamentary groups, particularly on foreign policy issues such as EU policy toward Russia, China, and the trans-Atlantic relationship. These differences will play a greater role given a probable shift toward the political right after the 2024 election.

Indeed, the latest polling indicates that the June election will result in even greater gains for European far-right parties, with analysts predicting they could occupy between 20-25% of parliamentary seats. Such a result implies a smaller centrist coalition governing the EU, making EU leadership more unstable and susceptible to right-wing influence. Von der Leyen, the current commission president who is running as the Spitzenkandidat for the EPP, has even indicated her willingness to break the firewall to the far-right and collaborate with the ECR—which includes parties such as Poland’s nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s post-fascist Brothers of Italy—to form a governing majority. Von der Leyen is running for another five years as the EU chief executive, yet the prospect of right-wing gains has cast doubt on whether she would be confirmed by a more right-leaning parliament or whether a more conservative candidate may be needed to attain a majority.

Why the European Parliament election matters to the United States

Democracy and the rule of law. The European Union and its individual member states are the United States’ most important partners in defending the international order, characterized by liberal democratic institutions and processes, the rule of law, protection of fundamental rights, and international cooperation through multilateral fora. Particularly in this time of heightened geopolitical tensions, renewed great power competition, and authoritarian threats (internal and external) against democracy, it is of strategic value for the United States to have like-minded partners in the European Union—the parliament and the commission—who are committed to these values at home and abroad.

Defense and security. The United States and the European Union are also deeply interconnected in the realm of defense and security: 23 of the 27 EU member states are formal U.S. allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—the largest security alliance in the world. In Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, member states have pledged to come to one another’s defense in the case of an attack. This collective deterrence principle has prevented territorial wars in NATO countries since the alliance’s founding in 1949. The trans-Atlantic allies have also been strong partners in providing support to Ukraine in response to Russia’s brutal and illegal full-scale war, with EU institutions and individual member states contributing military, financial, and humanitarian aid, including care for millions of Ukrainian refugees who have fled to Europe. Having European partners who share U.S. assessments of security threats in the North Atlantic theater and are committed to investing in their national defenses to strengthen the alliance is thus relevant to the United States’ own security and defense posture.

Moreover, covert Russian influence operations targeting the European ECR and ID groups and some national far-right parties’ open friendliness toward the Kremlin not only imperil European security but also that of the United States and trans-Atlantic community. Notably, von der Leyen has announced the establishment of an EU defense commissioner to enhance Europe’s defense industrial capacity and coordinate defense matters across member states, should she be reelected as the commission’s president. This intra-European defense coordination would complement—not substitute—NATO and serve to strengthen the European pillar in the alliance. 

Economics and trade. As the world’s largest single market and free trade area, the European Union is also the United States’ most important commercial partner in terms of trade in goods and services as well as foreign affiliate sales and investment streams. The EU’s economic power also makes it an influential player in U.S. strategy toward China, as Europe navigates questions of economic security and interdependence. In 2019, the EU officially defined China as a “partner for cooperation, an economic competitor and a systemic rival,” yet it has preserved space for closer ties than American policy permits in areas such as trade, investment, and climate. Finally, the European Union—as a community of like-minded liberal democracies—is a critical partner in developing global governance structures for technology and artificial intelligence, energy and natural resources, and climate change. 

President of the European Commission. Over the past five years, von der Leyen has transformed the role of commission president, becoming an EU interlocutor to world leaders in her own right, whereas previously the European Council was seen as the power center of the union. Von der Leyen has de facto expanded the commission’s policy reach through her leadership on public health matters in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as on defense and security following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In the process, the EU became a more autonomous and resilient international player and von der Leyen established herself as a respected U.S. partner in matters of transnational governance; on trade issues, however, the relationship has been much more difficult. Von der Leyen was also criticized by some in Europe for being too close to the United States and not sufficiently prioritizing European interests. Yet having won EPP backing and amid attacks on the European Union’s values and unity from authoritarian regimes in Russia and China as well as illiberal forces within Europe, she now hopes to defend and deepen her legacy in another five-year term. Whether she is able to do that will depend on the inroads the hard right makes in the upcoming elections.

[rockyp77mk3]

Kaptain AmeriKa questions. How do you defend republicans supporting anti democratic policies? Isn't chanting death to Amerika protected under your constitution?

It's actually Sergeant America. Basically the same except having to work harder, receiving no credit and no access to the Officer's Club. Oh, and we have to make sure that 2LT America doesn't get lost.

I assume that you believe that voter ID, no ballet harvesting, and signature validation on mail in ballots is somehow anti democratic. In truth those are the things that make sure the democratic process is protected. I defy you to find one person in this nation who is eligible to vote and who has virtually no identification of any kind. The Democrats are constantly harping that these safeguards damage democracy while in fact they ensure that cheating will be kept to a minimum. It's almost as if the Democrats are accusing others of what they are doing as they are doing it. I wonder where they got the idea to do that?

Yes, chanting "Death to America" is an exercise of free speech. However, while a person cannot be prevented from such a demented outburst it has to be understood that there are consequences. One such consequence could be that individuals here on student visas and who shout this, could be deported for advocating the violent overthrow of the nation. Another could be that students could be expelled for "Hate speech" after all advocating what amounts to the death of over 334 million people is fairly hateful. Certain jobs requiring security clearances may be denied to people with this mindset since classified access would put them in a position to act on their pernicious beliefs. Imagine that you are on a subway and a deranged passenger starts shouting in your face, "Death to you and your family." Now you probably wouldn't try to shut him up but you would surely move to another car or even leave the train a the very next stop. Same thing.

[veliseraptor]

potential (and very self indulgent) au: jiang yanli and jiang cheng join wei wuxian in becoming demonic cultivators

oooh, fun. I have kind of a hard time making this one work in my head (especially for jiang cheng, actually), but let's see here, I've been Challenged so I'm going to make it work

first off, Jiang Cheng - I think the initial requirement here is that the Jiang Sect is never reconstructed. whether that's because it's just too wrecked to rebuild or for whatever reason Jiang Cheng can't hold it (the sect) together (unfair to Jiang Cheng imo, but handwave), but if Jiang Cheng has a sect to protect that he will never see decimated like it was before again, I don't think he would ever turn to demonic cultivation and the risks it entails (politically, socially, etc.). even though in the immediate aftermath of Sunshot Wei Wuxian's skills aren't considered with quite the same hostility they are later, they still are pretty quickly increasingly suspect by society at large.

the other possibility here would be the core transplant not working out, somehow - either temporarily succeeding and then there's some kind of rejection, or it just never succeeds and both Jiang Cheng and Wei Wuxian end up coreless. Jiang Cheng seizes on the one means he now has to get revenge for the death of his family, and maybe believing that he couldn't lead a sect without his cultivation (I don't think it would necessarily be impossible, but he didn't ask me) he doesn't try to rebuild Jiang Sect at all.

the hard one here I think is Jiang Yanli, who doesn't seem to have significant cultivation ambitions in general, and certainly her brothers would both heavily push back against her practicing something as dangerous as demonic cultivation, particularly considering she seems to have a delicate constitution.

(I'm personally partial when it comes to demonic cultivator Jiang Yanli to it happening after Wei Wuxian's death, with also a dead Jiang Cheng and Jin Zixuan, driven by a need to protect and fear for Jin Ling, but that doesn't suit this particular AU. in this maybe she's just driven/motivated by the need to protect her brothers, who are both walking a dangerous path now.

this would have the side effect of probably nixing her marriage to Jin Zixuan entirely, since she's not going to be looking terribly eligible under the circumstances - and wouldn't be bringing a sect alliance with her. Jin Guangshan isn't going to go for that one, love match or not.

all three of them in this scenario no longer have the protection of a sect behind them, though, which puts them in an even more precarious position - pressure to join one, certainly, but also putting them on the fringes of things, which is not a good place to be in the cultivation world.

the trouble here is going to still come with the Wen remnants, though - Wei Wuxian still feels obligated to protect them, and Jiang Cheng perhaps even more emphatically in this AU (particularly if he's coreless) does not. without the need to protect the sect Jiang Cheng might land in a different place than he does in canon, but it definitely would put a strain on their relationship, and the last thing that they need at that point would be to be divided as society gets increasingly hostile.

I have a hard time envisioning this AU going anywhere good, tbh; I feel like it ends in a blaze of glory with all three siblings dead in a siege on the Burial Mounds. but maybe that's my pessimism talking. maybe their powers combined could hold off the force of the cultivation world's hostility pressing down on them. but it doesn't look great for our heroes.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Whitehouse at MMFA:

It’s 2024, so everyone reading this knows exactly what the deal is with birthers. We know that the Constitution requires anyone running for president to be a “natural born Citizen,” and that Vice President Kamala Harris, having been born in Oakland, California, surely qualifies. Birtherism must be understood not as a wild conspiracy theory about where Kamala Harris and Barack Obama were born, but rather as a slur against their status as Americans. There are no good-faith legal questions about whether or not Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen, just like there were no good-faith questions about where Barack Obama’s mother gave birth to him. We all know the deal. MAGA pundits are pushing birtherism against Harris now — like they did to Obama before her — in order to signal to their audience that people like Harris and Obama are somehow less American. Regardless of your politics, these claims deserve nothing more than absolute contempt.

The biggest name currently spreading this is Trump associate Tom Fitton. You may remember that Fitton, the Judicial Watch president who is not a lawyer, reportedly advised former President Donald Trump to keep secretive government documents that the former president had stored on a ballroom stage and in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Ironically, in 2009 — years before Trump picked up birtherism and used it to help take over GOP politics — Fitton was one of the few right-wing voices who spoke dismissively about birtherism against Obama, saying he had not “seen any credible evidence Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen eligible for the presidency.”) Fitton links to an August 14, 2020, piece by John Eastman in Newsweek. Eastman is the intellectual architect of Trump’s attempt to remain in office despite losing the election, which culminated in January 6. (A judge has since ruled that Eastman should be disbarred for his actions.) We addressed this at the time when then-Trump campaign official Jenna Ellis reposted Fitton’s identical tweet.

Parts of the right-wing media are resurrecting debunked birther smears against Kamala Harris for the purpose of otherizing her because she is a Black and South Asian woman running for President.