States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Neworleansfan]

Republican states should consider this to keep Trump from winning the primary if they want to win the general election.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Republican states should consider this to keep Trump from winning the primary if they want to win the general election.

excellent point

 

[Lapaz]

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

There is a growing movement in some states to conclude that Trump is already disqualified under the 14th Amendment and they may remove him from the ballot. This would set-up legal challenges from Trump that could end up at the SCOTUS.

The 14A disqualification doesn’t have any procedural requirements, it simply says that a person that does those things can’t serve in those offices. It a state says it applies to Trump, it would then be on Trump to show that it didn’t (either because what he didn’t doesn’t amount to the prohibited conduct, or that president isn’t an “officer” as intended by the amendment).

States are in charge of the ballots and can make eligibility determinations that are subject to appeal - there is actually a fairly interesting body of cases over the years with ballot challenges in federal court.


More on the legal argument in favor of this:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

I don’t think he has been charged with insurrection, even though we know that was his intent. He’s been charged with corruption and blocking proceedings. I was listening to some discussion about this and the lawyers I heard don’t think state officials will be allowed to keep him off of ballots since it is just an opinion that he was committing an insurrection.

 

[superchuck500]

I don’t think he has been charged with insurrection, even though we know that was his intent. He’s been charged with corruption and blocking proceedings. I was listening to some discussion about this and the lawyers I heard don’t think state officials will be allowed to keep him off of ballots since it is just an opinion that he was committing an insurrection.

Certainly there's a question of what is an insurrection and did Trump engage in it - but that's a legal interpretation, actually a constitutional interpretation which is meant for the courts to decide. The fact that it's up for debate means that there is a legitimate argument. But the language of the clause doesn't require some kind of adjudication first - states could do it and then let Trump or the GOP challenge it and it will eventually go to the Supreme Court for ruling.

I think it's fair to ask if that's worth it. Because it's debatable, I think the we as a nation are better to defer to the political process rather than a debatable interpretation of such an unusual feature of the Constitution that was the result of an actual civil war. And doing it would arguably raise the risk of similar episodes. On the other hand, if he behaves similarly in future events this would be one of those examples of history where an opportunity was missed.

 

[zztop]

just saw this

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/

 

[fooferdoggie]

just saw this

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4171623-florida-lawyer-files-challenge-to-disqualify-trump-from-2024-race-citing-14th-amendment/

I wish him luck.

 

[efil4]

Not sure how true but Michigan, NH and another state efforts to remove Trump from ballot are picking up steam (per some tweet )

 

[MT15]

Judge Luttig responds to some criticisms of his stance on this, there are more tweets if you go to the thread:

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump is hitting back at attempts to ban him from the 2024 presidential race under the 14th Amendment.

Several Democrats and top legal scholars have argued that Mr Trump should be disqualified from running for president again as the amendment bans insurrectionists from holding public office.

Mr Trump took to Truth Social on Labor Day ranting that it is “just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in US history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

This comes ahead of a busy week for the former president as the future of Truth Social hangs in the balance.……

Trump fined and threatened with jail for violating fraud trial gag order: Live

As Kenneth Chesebro, co-defendant in the Fulton County election subversion case, pleads guilty

www.the-independent.com

 

[Taurus]

Donald Trump is hitting back at attempts to ban him from the 2024 presidential race under the 14th Amendment.

Several Democrats and top legal scholars have argued that Mr Trump should be disqualified from running for president again as the amendment bans insurrectionists from holding public office.

Mr Trump took to Truth Social on Labor Day ranting that it is “just another ‘trick’ being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in US history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

This comes ahead of a busy week for the former president as the future of Truth Social hangs in the balance.……

Trump fined and threatened with jail for violating fraud trial gag order: Live

As Kenneth Chesebro, co-defendant in the Fulton County election subversion case, pleads guilty

www.the-independent.com

I say take a page from his own playbook. Just. Do. It. Then make it really expensive, difficult and time-consuming to challenge it.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I say take a page from his own playbook. Just. Do. It. Then make it really expensive, difficult and time-consuming to challenge it.

since trump is running out of lawyers willing or able to work for free its a good plan.

 

[MT15]

Honestly, his best hope for a pardon(s) is for him to drop out of the race and let a different R run. Better chance to win IMO, and most Rs will pardon him on their first day. He’s too malignantly narcissistic to see that, though.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Taurus]

He was impeached for incitement to insurrection.

Really, that ought to be that. He's disqualified, QED.

If Democrats were vertebrates, they'd be saying this at every opportunity.
"He was impeached for attempting a coup. The 14th Amendment is explicitly clear. He's disqualified himself from holding office.
He can campaign 'till the cows come home but he can't take the Oath."

 

[Booker]

He was impeached for incitement to insurrection.

Really, that ought to be that. He's disqualified, QED.

If Democrats were vertebrates, they'd be saying this at every opportunity.
"He was impeached for attempting a coup. The 14th Amendment is explicitly clear. He's disqualified himself from holding office.
He can campaign 'till the cows come home but he can't take the Oath."

Yep. I can understand Biden keeping his mouth shut, as any opinion he might voice would be used as “proof” that his administration had “weaponized” the DOJ.

But members of Congress should be taking every opportunity to point by point argue the case(s) against him.

 

[samiam5211]

Watching the debate, i got the impression that the candidates on the stage don't expect Trump to be on the ballot.

If they thought they were actually running against him, i think they would have been attacking him a little more.