If the law says candidate cannot appear, then candidate should not appear. We have the right to rule ourselves, to make our own decisions on how our system will work. We are not required to have or keep any system or method.
If we chose to change our law to be ruled by monarchy, then that is exactly what we should get. Then there’d be no candidates.
Democracy does not supercede the law. To the contrary, we only have democracy because the law says so. We only have protection of life, of property, because the law says so. 200 years ago black people were property, because the law said so. If we do not like a law, it is our responsibility to change it, while we still possess that ability.
This particular law is a logistical one, to keep elections efficient. I would not want ballots with all candidates on them, that would end up as a pointless pain in the ass. Elections can have shitloads of people running, many of which are not serious. Making sure that only candidates that have gone through the necessary steps to be elected, such as having the electors required by our constitution, is reasonable.
Back in the pre-civil war era, I would not have been a slave catcher, no. I do not need to exert myself to enforce laws I disagree with. But I also would not have advocated for disobeying it, but instead to change it. I would not have advised slaves to flee, though I would help any that came my way.
If we implemented a fresh monarchy through the democratic process, say, through amending our constitution to implement it, I would flee the country. I would not take up arms against it or something, though, not if it’s what most of my fellow citizens genuinely want. This is a different circumstance from the War of Independence, though, where they had never had the choice.
deleted by creator
We should start breaking the law now for the election?
If the law says candidate cannot appear, then candidate should not appear. We have the right to rule ourselves, to make our own decisions on how our system will work. We are not required to have or keep any system or method.
If we chose to change our law to be ruled by monarchy, then that is exactly what we should get. Then there’d be no candidates.
Democracy does not supercede the law. To the contrary, we only have democracy because the law says so. We only have protection of life, of property, because the law says so. 200 years ago black people were property, because the law said so. If we do not like a law, it is our responsibility to change it, while we still possess that ability.
deleted by creator
Depends on the law, and this one is not immoral.
This particular law is a logistical one, to keep elections efficient. I would not want ballots with all candidates on them, that would end up as a pointless pain in the ass. Elections can have shitloads of people running, many of which are not serious. Making sure that only candidates that have gone through the necessary steps to be elected, such as having the electors required by our constitution, is reasonable.
Back in the pre-civil war era, I would not have been a slave catcher, no. I do not need to exert myself to enforce laws I disagree with. But I also would not have advocated for disobeying it, but instead to change it. I would not have advised slaves to flee, though I would help any that came my way.
If we implemented a fresh monarchy through the democratic process, say, through amending our constitution to implement it, I would flee the country. I would not take up arms against it or something, though, not if it’s what most of my fellow citizens genuinely want. This is a different circumstance from the War of Independence, though, where they had never had the choice.
It’s a nuanced position.