States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (2 Viewers)

[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]

So you are actually arguing that the President of this United States should be immune when he commits treason or any illegal act?? Reread post one, besides all the other qualifiers, it says “or Officer”.

I'm saying the Supreme Court already ruled that the president isn't considered an officer in regards to the 14th ammendment.

 

[SaintForLife]

Show me in sec 3 where it says " officer" - it doesnt- it says OFFICE. President of the United States is an "office" of Government. Senator is an "office".

Is the President an "Officer of the United States"? Originalism vs. Textualism

Following the Colorado District Court’s ruling on Trump’s presidential eligibility under Section Three, the arguments that the president is neither an "off

papers.ssrn.com

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20a,a%20member%20of%20any%20State

 

[efil4]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/#:~:text=No%20person%20shall%20be%20a,a%20member%20of%20any%20State

i found it and replied. previous page.

The details are definition of Officer. Which is what is going to get hashed out soon enough.

PErsonally i dont see how he ISNT an OFFICER of the US since he ( talking about the position of President of the United States ) is charged with the oversight/monitoring/appointing/directing of the overall operation of the United States.

not unlike a corporation.

 

[coldseat]

I see all of you have conveniently ignored what someone posted recently in this thread about how the Supreme Court had said in 2010 that the president is not considered an officer in regards to the 14th ammendment.

In Free Enterprise Fund vs Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight board, Roberts stated "the people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States., rather officers are appointed by the president pursuant to Article II, section 2." Also, the Constitution's impeachment clause said that the president, vice president, "and all officers of the United States," not "all OTHER officers of the United States."

States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification

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...

madaboutpolitics.com

That ruling did not have to do with the 14th amendment and the SC stated no such thing.

Roberts and the rest of the conservatives may very well state the same thing in regards to the 14th amendment, but that seems nonsensical. So a person can participate in an insurrection against the federal government and be barred from running for Congress or being appointed to any office in the US, but still run for President and Vice-President? That's a dumb interpretation when the Office of the President of the United States is called "THE OFFICE" of the President of the United States. Thus making him an officer of the United States.

How doesn't this plain definition of an officer not include the President as an officer of the United States? You really have to invent a new definition of "officer" or "office" to not include the President as an officer of the United States.

 

[Taurus]

That ruling did not have to do with the 14th amendment and the SC stated no such thing.

Roberts and the rest of the conservatives may very well state the same thing in regards to the 14th amendment, but that seems nonsensical. So a person can participate in an insurrection against the federal government and be barred from running for Congress or being appointed to any office in the US, but still run for President and Vice-President? That's a dumb interpretation when the Office of the President of the United States is called "THE OFFICE" of the President of the United States. Thus making him an officer of the United States.

How doesn't this plain definition of an officer not include the President as an officer of the United States? You really have to invent a new definition of "officer" or "office" to not include the President as an officer of the United States.

What is it then if it's not the Office of President? The Upholstery? The Annoyance? The Half-Marathon of the President?

 

[SaintForLife]

That ruling did not have to do with the 14th amendment and the SC stated no such thing.

Roberts and the rest of the conservatives may very well state the same thing in regards to the 14th amendment, but that seems nonsensical. So a person can participate in an insurrection against the federal government and be barred from running for Congress or being appointed to any office in the US, but still run for President and Vice-President? That's a dumb interpretation when the Office of the President of the United States is called "THE OFFICE" of the President of the United States. Thus making him an officer of the United States.

How doesn't this plain definition of an officer not include the President as an officer of the United States? You really have to invent a new definition of "officer" or "office" to not include the President as an officer of the United States.

I know the case in 2010 wasn't about the 14th ammendment, but his ruling applies to the 14th ammendment because they defined that the president isn't considered an officer in regards to the constitution.

Your general definition of officer has zero relation to what an officer is in the constitution.

 

[SaintForLife]

i found it and replied. previous page.

The details are definition of Officer. Which is what is going to get hashed out soon enough.

PErsonally i dont see how he ISNT an OFFICER of the US since he ( talking about the position of President of the United States ) is charged with the oversight/monitoring/appointing/directing of the overall operation of the United States.

not unlike a corporation.

The Supreme Court has already said that the President isn't considered an officer.

 

[coldseat]

I know the case in 2010 wasn't about the 14th ammendment, but his ruling applies to the 14th ammendment because they defined that the president isn't considered an officer in regards to the constitution.

Your general definition of officer has zero relation to what an officer is in the constitution.

I don't agree that it applies to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't make a distinction between elected office and appointed office. It just says "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" The presidency is clearly an "office" under the United States (both civil and military). You have to tie yourself into a pretzel to conclude that it's not.

Again, I'm not saying the SC won't do that. I'm just saying that if they do, they are clearly inventing their own interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th amendment instead of applying it as clearly stated in the amendment.

 

[MT15]

Your last paragraph is laughable and nobody would believe that except partisan Democrats.

My last paragraph was just straightforward fact. Which you are evidently now to the point of just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly hoping these pesky facts will just go away.

 

[MT15]

I think we can all see how desperate MAGA is getting over these legitimate challenges to Trump’s candidacy. It’s apparent to me that we may have some serious political violence over this issue if the Supreme Court doesn’t decide in Trump‘s favor. I do still hope that they decide against him. This thread has a good synopsis of my reasons for feeling this way.

 

[efil4]

The Supreme Court has already said that the President isn't considered an officer.

That case was specific to appointments/appointees. Read the case.

Nothing to do with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and how it relates to officials and officers ( appointed or elected )

 

[SystemShock]

Pardon the ignorance, but even if all States remove Trump from the primary ballot, what prevents the GOP to just turn around and make Trump their presidential candidate anyway?

 

[MT15]

That case was specific to appointments/appointees. Read the case.

Nothing to do with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and how it relates to officials and officers ( appointed or elected )

Yeah, even I, who doesn’t pretend to know case law or anything about the law, know enough to realize that there are serious legal scholars from both conservative and liberal backgrounds who think these are credible challenges to Trump’s candidacy.

Basically anyone who is mouthing off that this is “extra-constitutional” (like Amash) or is lacking due process (like SFL) is being totally dishonest. This IS due process. There’s no other word to describe it.

But I have a feeling that if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, life will go on as normal. But if they rule against Trump we will have political violence. Because that is what MAGA is, violent people.

 

[MT15]

Pardon the ignorance, but even if all States remove Trump from the primary ballot, what prevents the GOP to just turn around and make Trump their presidential candidate anyway?

I suppose they could, but he would presumably be ineligible to be on the general ballot because he would be ineligible to hold office. The same as if he were born in Germany or was only 33 years old.

 

[MT15]

it seems to me that trying to logically say that president isn’t an office is sorta crazy.

 

[Farb]

The Supreme Court has already said that the President isn't considered an officer.

Yes, but TRUMP! is their only response.

 

[MT15]

Yes, but TRUMP! is their only response.

Oh give it up. There are pages of lucid comments and Chuck has written several posts explaining this issue. Look, nobody knows how the Supreme Court will rule on this, but it’s a legitimate issue. It has everything to do with the man-baby’s own actions and nothing to do with anything else.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, but TRUMP! is their only response.

They are desperate. They see Trump gaining more support ironically after each indictment and now this harebrained plan. The impeachment didn't work, Mueller didn't work, January 6th committee was pure partisan garbage, and this will 100% get struck down by SCOTUS.

Be prepared because they will up the ante and continue to try to make sure he can't run again. The leaked anonymous stories will increase and will be duds like the weak binder story.

The establishment will do everything in their power to stop Trump. He threatens their hegemony by not supporting the forever wars movement among other things.