That’s the dispute right now. The argument is that the Constitution commands something, and all government officers and courts are sworn to follow it. It’s the same as the exclusionary rule. In the Constitution the 4th Amendment says “no unreasonable search and seizure.” Doesn’t say anything about the legal remedy or what to do when it happens.

The Supreme Court held that the command implies the remedy, and the command must be followed by all officers and courts.

The argument here is whether it’s like that, or whether the right is only vitiated if Congress passes a statutory framework to provide a remedy. It’s a dumb take and such a rule would effectively makes the Constitution meaningless.

Doesn’t matter if it’s the primary or general. The secretary of State creates and distributes the ballots, she cannot put Trump’s name on it any more than a prosecutor could offer illegally obtained evidence. It is the prosecutor’s duty to follow the command of the Fourth Amendment, same as it is the secretary’s duty to follow the commands of the Constitution; she could not list someone on the ballot under 35 years of age, she cannot list an insurrectionist.