[zls]

In the one law class I took, presidential eligibility was the example used to introduce our discussion of "standing". He framed the discussion specifically around a hypothetical Schwarzenegger run. The professor said that although it shouldn't be allowed, if Schwarzenegger actually ran, no one would have standing to sue him, so he would be allowed after all.

The prof spoke in a way that implied this is an accepted truth in the legal community, rather than just his own opinion. But IANAL for a reason, I got a D in that class and maybe he bamboozled me :)

[deanCommie]

This is a surprisingly illustrative anecdote.

America is incredible at "doing the right thing" when push comes to shove - regardless of policy, procedure, or legalese. In so many ways, going through life in the US means people figure out how to help you, unblock you, or ignore hurdles.

Allowing Arnold to become president if he was interested is clearly such thing - no sensible person would think it should be prevented - so it won't.

But unfortunately the whole procedure is not documented, relies heavily on systemic and entrenched privilege, and as the Trump administration revealed, and how the culture has evolved since then, can absolutely be mercilessly abused and taken advantage of by bad actors. The fact that the President could violate dozens of straight up laws, and not be charged with any crime is a mockery of the justice system. It really is "rules for thee, not for me".

As a white male, I find America (and to some degree Canada, which straddles the middleground) very convenient. As opposed to when I lived in Western Europe, and found myself facing an emotionless bureaucrat telling me "I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do."

But I also know a system with unwritten rules is never going to be equal, never mind equitable.

[imbnwa]

Unwritten rules are everything in America

[webmaven]

> Unwritten rules are everything in America

Show me where it says that.

[telotortium]

There would definitely be people who could argue standing, however. You could start with their opponents in the general election. More likely I think would be their primary opponents (probably initially at the state level). The Supreme Court could attempt to evade this by calling it a political question outside of the court's jurisdiction (they've done this in denying challenges to gerrymandered maps, although those are different in being acts of the states, rather than contesting an irregular election), or they could in theory deny cert and let a lower court's decision stand, although I think that's unlikely.

(IANAL)

[JaimeThompson]

>The prof spoke in a way that implied this is an accepted truth in the legal community

So the law professor talked like a lawyer? :)