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

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,752
    Reaction score
    12,047
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

    1692502254516.png


    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:


     
    Last edited:
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

    1692502254516.png


    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:


    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.
     
    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.
     
    Last edited:
    Not sure how true but Michigan, NH and another state efforts to remove Trump from ballot are picking up steam (per some tweet )
     
    Judge Luttig responds to some criticisms of his stance on this, there are more tweets if you go to the thread:



     
    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.……

     
    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.……


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

    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."
     
    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.
     
    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.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom