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

 

[SaintForLife]

What do you think due process is?

Due process would be a jury & the right of cross-examination. The things that are provided to someone who is accused of a crime.

 

[fooferdoggie]

How would he be a dictator for only one day?

who knows thats what he said. be we all know it wont be for one day.

 

[MT15]

Just imagine the scenario in the future where Republicans start getting every Democrat who have ever contested election results removed from the ballot.

Well, if any Democrats ever try to stop the peaceful transfer of power, then they should be removed from the ballot. Saying that all Trump did was “contest” election results is just not honest.

 

[MT15]

Due process would be a jury & the right of cross-examination. The things that are provided to someone who is accused of a crime.

This isn’t a criminal trial, there isn’t always a jury in trials. There are bench trials, and they are just as valid. Trump’s representatives did have the right of cross-examination as I understand it. Why do you say they didn’t?

Whether you like it or not, Trump had due process. This isn’t some rogue “plan”. This is democracy working as intended.

 

[FullMonte]

You made a nonsensical argument acting as if supposedly trying to stop votes from being counted was a required criteria for an insurrection.

As usual, you (either intentionally or unintentionally) completely misunderstand my point.

So, let me clarify. No, “trying to stop votes from being counted” is not required criteria for an insurrection.

The definition of insurrection is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” What was the government doing on Jan 6? They were counting the votes. So, if the intent of the riot was to stop the counting of the votes, then it was “a violent uprising against an authority or government.”

Using extreme examples doesn't do much for your point. The name of the rally means nothing.

It’s called an analogy. You might want to look into it sometime. And, yeah, the name of the rally means nothing. Attending a “stop the steal” rally, listening to people say that Congress can do the right thing and declare Trump the winner, and then immediately breaking into the capitol and threatening to murder the Vice President because he didn’t do that imparts a clear plan to stop the government.

Had the rally been titled something like “enjoy my last days,” followed by speakers discussing Trump losing a fair election, conceding defeat, and telling people to look forward to 2024 when he would run again, and this was followed by a riot at the Capitol, “It was something that got out of hand” might be a valid argument.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump’s packing of the supreme court, to which he appointed three members, to create a reliable conservative majority, has been hailed by the right as his greatest achievement.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has stated that the most important prospect of a second Trump term would be his appointment of federal judges in their mold. But Trump’s candidacy for that second term now poses an existential threat to the legitimacy of the court’s conservative majority.

The decision earlier this week by the Colorado supreme court disqualifying Trump from the state ballot strikes at more than Trump’s eligibility. It cuts to the core of the ideological doctrines of originalism and textualism that underpin the conservative majority’s entire jurisprudence.

Originalism claims to divine the original intent of the country’s founders and interprets the constitution along those lines.

Using cherry-picked, false and bad-faith history, originalism has been the pure pretext for overturning Roe, dismantling commonsense gun regulations, ending environmental regulation, gutting consumer protection and voiding voting and civil rights.

Originalism is a recent contrivance, patched together as part of the “gameplan”, as Trump’s court whisperer, the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, describes it, of the capture of the courts to entrench the right’s agenda beyond the threat of adverse political tides for generations to come.

Textualism is the sister doctrine of originalism, providing snatches of text from the constitution divorced from social and legislative context as if in scriptural fundamentalism to undergird the reversal of rights.

It claims that to interpret a law, a judge may examine the plain meaning of its text but nothing else. It works hand in hand with originalism to exclude inconvenient portions of the historical record from judicial consideration.

But now this politicized jurisprudence has turned on its inventors. If ever there is a legal ruling of ironclad constitutional reasoning that can be defended on originalist and textual grounds it is in Anderson v Griswold, the decision issued last week by the Colorado supreme court.

The decision holds that Trump engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021, and that he is therefore barred for running for president under section three of the 14th amendment.

Trump’s appeal to the supreme court creates a crisis for the entire conservative methodology. If the court denies certiorari, declining to rule on the case, or upholds the Colorado decision, Trump would face disqualification cases in states across the country, throwing the election into chaos.

The Republican sponsors of the conservative court are panicked and enraged. The Wall Street Journal, the veritable mouthpiece of justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, is loudly decrying the Colorado “folly”.

The conundrum for the court is that it can rescue Trump only by shredding originalism and textualism. There is no more originalist and textualist case to be made than this one. But this time, the solidity of the case is not based on specious doctrine. Here the logic can rightfully be said to be rooted in history and the constitution.

Two leading conservative legal scholars, William Baude, of the University of Chicago law school, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the University of St Thomas law school, arguing on strict originalist grounds, state unequivocally that Trump is constitutionally barred from running for office.

Section three of the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who has held public office sworn to uphold the constitution and who then engages “in insurrection or rebellion” from ever holding office again.

The amendment, Baude and Paulsen demonstrate, is “binding”, “general”, “prospective” and “self-executing”, requiring “no implementing legislation”, and the say “disqualification is sweeping in its terms”…….

Will Trump provoke a crisis of legitimacy for the US supreme court? | Sidney Blumenthal

The court can only rescue Trump from the Colorado ruling by shredding originalism and textualism. Will it?

www.theguardian.com

 

[efil4]

Donald Trump’s packing of the supreme court, to which he appointed three members, to create a reliable conservative majority, has been hailed by the right as his greatest achievement.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has stated that the most important prospect of a second Trump term would be his appointment of federal judges in their mold. But Trump’s candidacy for that second term now poses an existential threat to the legitimacy of the court’s conservative majority.

The decision earlier this week by the Colorado supreme court disqualifying Trump from the state ballot strikes at more than Trump’s eligibility. It cuts to the core of the ideological doctrines of originalism and textualism that underpin the conservative majority’s entire jurisprudence.

Originalism claims to divine the original intent of the country’s founders and interprets the constitution along those lines.

Using cherry-picked, false and bad-faith history, originalism has been the pure pretext for overturning Roe, dismantling commonsense gun regulations, ending environmental regulation, gutting consumer protection and voiding voting and civil rights.

Originalism is a recent contrivance, patched together as part of the “gameplan”, as Trump’s court whisperer, the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, describes it, of the capture of the courts to entrench the right’s agenda beyond the threat of adverse political tides for generations to come.

Textualism is the sister doctrine of originalism, providing snatches of text from the constitution divorced from social and legislative context as if in scriptural fundamentalism to undergird the reversal of rights.

It claims that to interpret a law, a judge may examine the plain meaning of its text but nothing else. It works hand in hand with originalism to exclude inconvenient portions of the historical record from judicial consideration.

But now this politicized jurisprudence has turned on its inventors. If ever there is a legal ruling of ironclad constitutional reasoning that can be defended on originalist and textual grounds it is in Anderson v Griswold, the decision issued last week by the Colorado supreme court.

The decision holds that Trump engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021, and that he is therefore barred for running for president under section three of the 14th amendment.

Trump’s appeal to the supreme court creates a crisis for the entire conservative methodology. If the court denies certiorari, declining to rule on the case, or upholds the Colorado decision, Trump would face disqualification cases in states across the country, throwing the election into chaos.

The Republican sponsors of the conservative court are panicked and enraged. The Wall Street Journal, the veritable mouthpiece of justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, is loudly decrying the Colorado “folly”.

The conundrum for the court is that it can rescue Trump only by shredding originalism and textualism. There is no more originalist and textualist case to be made than this one. But this time, the solidity of the case is not based on specious doctrine. Here the logic can rightfully be said to be rooted in history and the constitution.

Two leading conservative legal scholars, William Baude, of the University of Chicago law school, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the University of St Thomas law school, arguing on strict originalist grounds, state unequivocally that Trump is constitutionally barred from running for office.

Section three of the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who has held public office sworn to uphold the constitution and who then engages “in insurrection or rebellion” from ever holding office again.

The amendment, Baude and Paulsen demonstrate, is “binding”, “general”, “prospective” and “self-executing”, requiring “no implementing legislation”, and the say “disqualification is sweeping in its terms”…….

Will Trump provoke a crisis of legitimacy for the US supreme court? | Sidney Blumenthal

The court can only rescue Trump from the Colorado ruling by shredding originalism and textualism. Will it?

www.theguardian.com

in a few moments, someone will arrive to tell you that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written at a time that was specifically about the Conferderates attempting to hold federal office.
In other words, its outdated.

Then ask them about the 2nd amendment. ( gun control etc )

And just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[MT15]

How would he be a dictator for only one day?

He wouldn’t. Nobody believes him when he makes that stupid statement. But here’s what he didn’t say “I wouldn’t abuse power that way. I pledge I will not try to be a dictator”.

Why do you suppose he didn’t say that?

 

[MT15]

More from those who are part of this Democratic plot, lol

 

[FullMonte]

in a few moments, someone will arrive to tell you that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written at a time that was specifically about the Conferderates attempting to hold federal office.
In other words, its outdated.

Then ask them about the 2nd amendment. ( gun control etc )

And just sit back and enjoy the show.

Well, I'm going to take a slightly different tack.

First off, I think SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision 9-0. The Colorado decision relies on the president falling under "any officer of the United States." SCOTUS has already ruled (In 2010) that the president is not an officer of the United States. I don't see them overturning their own decision on that.

With that said, I agree that it was written specifically about Confederates attempting to hold federal office. However, I don't think that simply saying it's outdated is the issue. The intent of the amendment wasn't so much to prevent Confederate officers from holding federal office. It was to prevent Confederate states from sending Confederate officers to serve in Congress. This was something that the northern states could not prevent otherwise. If I'm not mistaken, a high ranking Confederate officer was sent to Congress almost immediately after the Civil War ended, which was one of the things that led to the 14th amendment being created.

I don't think the authors of the 14th were concerned about the president, simply because they had enough electoral votes in the north to prevent a confederate officer from becoming president.

All in all, I think the 14th amendment, section 3, was poorly written by a group of individuals who were upset about the Civil War.

 

[superchuck500]

CREW is a left wing organization and they filed the lawsuit. I guess we can say that those Republicans came up with the plan and Democrats are executing it.

It’s not a “plan” - it’s people saying this law applies to this situation.

 

[Taurus]

It’s not a “plan” - it’s people saying this law applies to this situation.

As though Democrats went back in time to edit the Constitution just to mess with Cheato.

 

[LA - L.A.]

SCOTUS has already ruled (In 2010) that the president is not an officer of the United States.

What case was that? The Constitution specifically refers to the "Office of the President of the United States" a bunch of times and someone who holds an office is literally an officer, so according to the US Constitution, the president is in fact a literal officer of the US.

Furthermore, the original draft of the 14th amendment specifically listed several offices, including the Office of the President, until it was trimmed down to just the blanket statement of all officers of the US.

So even if the Supreme Court ruled in one instance that the president is not an officer, it's going to be hard to explain how the 14th amendment doesn't specifically include the holder of the "Office of the President" as is referred to several times within the Constitution itself. There's plenty of historic texts that show the framers of the 14th amendment wrote it in response to Confederates, but they intended it to be open ended and not limited to just Confederates.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The fight goes on but the enemy's greatest champion won't be on the field.

I think this primary has shown us that Trump really is lightning in a bottle. No one else commands the base like he does. I'll even go further and say that no one else commands the base, period.

It's like if Hitler had been killed in a car accident in late '38. Someone would have taken up leadership of the Nazi party but that person wouldn't have had Adolf's pull, his oratory skill, his unique intuition nor his ruthless timing.

I can't help but hear the lyrics of Jim Croce's "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" and its cautionary tale running through my brain.

There's almost always someone bigger and badder, just waiting for the right moment to strike.

 

[LA - L.A.]

CREW is a left wing organization and they filed the lawsuit. I guess we can say that those Republicans came up with the plan and Democrats are executing it.

CREW has Republican members.

CREW supports restrictions on members of Congress trading stocks.

You support restrictions on members of Congress trading stocks.

You say you are conservative, but CREW is a left wing organization.

Maybe you are myopically black-and-white and/or us-vs-them in how you think and see others.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot | CNN Politics

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

www.cnn.com

 

[superchuck500]

Michigan Supreme Court rejects ‘insurrectionist ban’ case and keeps Trump on 2024 primary ballot | CNN Politics

The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the US Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.”

www.cnn.com

Summary-
- Result is procedural - The process in MI doesn’t include primaries or require a self-attestation of eligibility like CO does.
- Neither the district court nor appeals in MI made any findings relating to insurrection or section 3.

 

[Taurus]

I can't help but hear the lyrics of Jim Croce's "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" and its cautionary tale running through my brain.

There's almost always someone bigger and badder, just waiting for the right moment to strike.

Or it's more like MLK and the movement never finds another voice as persuasive again. Just hollow, ineffectual echoes.