| || |
Last edited by Jeremy; 19th March 2017 at 11:48 AM.
Since when is a legal test subject to the whims of voters? It's either a test at law or its not. Nothing in your argument suggests it is a test at law.
No one under thirty-five can be president. That's a test. On the other hand there's nothing preventing someone who is constitutionally too young to hold office to be placed on a ballot. We've seen instances where people elected to congress had to wait until their 25th birthday before being sworn in. There's nothing in the Constitution that says someone could be too OLD to hold office, but voters can certainly make that a "test" in their own minds. Voters can make decisions based on anything they like.
I'll look it up but I'm pretty sure the atheists flat out won this issue.
You still haven't shown me how this would constitute a legal test. You're the lawyer...show me where the law defines "test" to mean "information on which voters might base their decisions"?
Medical deductions are going to run this thing up against HIPAA too. Electorate is clearly interested in the health of candidates but that doesn't necessitate disclosure.
Last edited by publius3; 19th March 2017 at 12:03 PM.