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

 

[itsclaireburks]

I am facinated that this amendment has an option for Congress to basically acknoledge that the candidate is disqualified under the terms of the amendment, but as a branch of government they feel that the person should still be able to run for office and can remove that disqualification.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Should there be a political price to pay for a president who refuses to engage in a peaceful transfer of power and incites a violent coup to stay in office?

Common sense says yes.

As does a majority vote of the Colorado supreme court. But since their stunning ruling this weekthat Donald Trump may not appear on their state’s primary ballot, many a lawyer and pundit is arguing otherwise.

They say, for example, that it’s not the role of a court but of the voters to decide a matter of such import. They don’t seem to recall that the voters did decide in 2020 when they elected Joe Biden, but that Trump refused to accept that decision and did everything in his power to reverse it.

Others allow that the constitution does provide that insurrection is disqualifying but they ponder whether Trump – without a legal conviction – really fits that definition. And in some cases, these critics twist themselves into verbal knots to express their doubt.

“I generally say that Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York magazine. “Insurrection,” he notes, may be useful shorthand for Trump’s role but it’s too imprecise to accomplish what the Colorado jurists say it does.

President Biden sounded sensible when asked by a reporter if Trump is an insurrectionist. “It’s self-evident … he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero.”

But even Biden, hardly a disinterested party, admits another obvious factor: the US supreme court will make the ultimate decision.

The smart money seems to be on the court’s ruling in Trump’s favor.

Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the Nation, predicted that the highest court will overturn Colorado 8-1, that the opinion will be written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, and only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will dissent.……

Hasen calls it imperative that the court move quickly: “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for president is eligible.” A later determination of eligibility, especially if it were to involve congressional Democrats, “would be tremendously destabilizing”.

For me, it comes down to this. Trump is an anti-democracy candidate, and his actions, over the past eight years, have proven that, time after time.

Too many Americans are so inured to his firehose of outrages that they don’t see as clearly as the Colorado jurists do that this man now should not be eligible for the leadership of the free world.

Mainstream media’s horserace fixation, and rightwing media’s relentless propaganda, has made that blindness worse.

(On Thursday morning, Fox News offered this mind-blowing chyron: “GOP leaders suggest removing Biden from red-state ballots over border crisis.”)…….:

Trump shouldn’t be eligible to run again. But America’s highest court may disagree | Margaret Sullivan

Even if the Colorado justices don’t prevail, they’ve reminded us that Trump has gone far beyond what’s acceptable

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

I’ll put this here even though so far seems to be unrelated
===========


An unnamed man was arrested after he broke into the Colorado Supreme Court building and fired gunshots early Tuesday morning, according to a statement from state police.

There is “significant and extensive damage” to the building, police said, but there were no injuries to the suspect, building occupants, or responders. Authorities believe the 2 January break-in “is not associated with previous threats to the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.”

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled4-3 that former President Donald Trump would be ineligible to appear on the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment. Within hours of that announcement, Trump supporters began making threats against justices — which both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Denver Police Department are investigating.


Tuesday’s incident began around 1.15am, when the suspect was involved in a car crash and pointed a handgun at the other person involved, police said. The suspect then made his way to the Colorado Supreme Court, where he held a security guard at gunpoint and demanded entry.

He took the guard’s keys and accessed “accessed an unknown number of floors,” authorities said.

Around 3am local time, the suspect called 911 and surrendered himself to police. Authorities transferred the suspect to a local hospital “to be cleared by medical personnel,” according to the statement……

Man broke into Colorado Supreme Court and opened fire, causing ‘extensive damage’

Police say the shooting is unrelated to the slew of threats levelled against the Colorado Supreme Court justices who voted to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot

www.independent.co.uk

 

[SaintForLife]

Nope, it was an insurrection. Multiple people have pled guilty to seditious conspiracy. One, Two, Oh heck, here is a list from the Dept of Justice. Seditious Conspiracy is basically insurrection without a violence component. It's difficult to prove "insurrection" in court and usually the seditious conspiracy is easier to prove and get convictions, so that's why it is used for convictions, but the violence inherent in Jan 6 is obvious and the event of Jan 6 is correctly called an insurrection.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when this is one of your ridiculous excuses for why they didn't charge people with inciting or participating in an insurrection.

For the application of the 14th Amendment, both terms fulfill the role. Anyone who engaged in the insurrection on the 6th or -- and this is the important part -- "or given aid or comfort" to those who did cannot run for office or be put into office. Trump -- even if never convicted -- absolutely did the giving aid or comfort to those who did.

And yet they didn't charge Trump or any January 6th defendants with inciting or participating in an insurrection. If it was such an iron clad case as yall claim they would have charged them.

This has been addressed many times, you just choose not to accept it.

An evidentiary hearing and a Secretary of States unilateral decision isn't considered due process in regards to saying someone is guilty of a crime.

Because that is harder to prove, AND Trump didn't take part in the violence or planning of the insurrection. He gave aid and comfort to those that did many times before and since (saying he will pardon those who participated is certainly giving them comfort just by itself), which is enough to apply the 14th Amendment.

Hard to prove

I think I misunderstood where you were talking about Office vs Officer in the 14th Amendment. I thought you were saying the "Officer" part from that SC case didn't apply to the phrase: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States..." But now I think you are applying it to the phrase: "having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States."

Assuming it is the latter now... it still doesn't work and here is why:

In that case, Roberts (and the court) were referring NOT to the 14th amendment phrase but to the Appointments Clause of the constitution that defined roles of the Executive Office. That case dealt with whether or not the President could fire some of these Officers, which it concluded that he could. The Roberts observation you keep quoting refers to Article 2 Section 2, NOT the 14th Amendment. Article 2 Section 2 refers to the people mentioned in the Appointments Clause -- those the President can appoint, some with the oversight of Congress and some without if Congress gives that power. Roberts was talking about that one specific section of the Constitution and in no way making a blanket statement that "anywhere the word 'officer' appears in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments it means the Officers of the United States as referenced in the Appointments Clause." That's a HUGE stretch to apply it that way.

Are you saying the Constitution has different definitions of an officer? What are the other definitions of an officer and for what parts of the constitution?

That Reason link... of course they'll try and make it not apply to Trump. If the roles were reversed and this was for Biden, you know damned well they (and you) would be arguing that it absolutely applies to the President. And if it were reversed and this was for Biden, I would be right here arguing EXACTLY the same: the idea that the 14th amendment was created to be applied to every governmental official, elected or appointed, EXCEPT for the President (and maybe the VP) is preposterous.

You must not be too familiar with Reason to think they are big Trump supporters. They cite specific things to show what officer means.

I mean, if you took this tact, then any Governor of any state, or anyone who has never served in government but HAD been convicted of insurrection, or rebellion, or treason would be eligible to run for any office because the 14th Amendment would not apply to them according to what you are saying. Since a Governor (or a private citizen) might not have been a "member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State" (since you are claiming "officer" is not elected, so executive officer of a State would not apply) then they could actually be convicted and still run under this weird interpretation.

SCOTUS will strike it down either 8-1 or 9-0. I think it will be 8-1.

 

[MT15]

SFL - one question. If you rob a bank, and in the process commit other crimes and the prosecutor decides to charge you with the other crimes but doesn’t charge the bank robbery, did you not rob a bank?

You still robbed a bank right? I don’t know anyone who would say - no, you didn’t rob the bank.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL - one question. If you rob a bank, and in the process commit other crimes and the prosecutor decides to charge you with the other crimes but doesn’t charge the bank robbery, did you not rob a bank?

You still robbed a bank right? I don’t know anyone who would say - no, you didn’t rob the bank.

How do you determine someone robbed the bank? Do they get due process or do you skip that part? Do they just keep repeating the line that he robbed a bank and hope it sticks?

 

[MT15]

How do you determine someone robbed the bank? Do they get due process or do you skip that part? Do they just keep repeating the line that he robbed a bank and hope it sticks?

We all saw him, we have witness testimony, and he was caught with the money.

sorta like this:

 

[SaintForLife]

We all saw him, we have witness testimony, and he was caught with the money.

sorta like this:

And yet Jack Smith didn't even charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection.

 

[MT15]

And yet Jack Smith didn't even charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection.

So? Prosecutorial discretion. Look it up.

 

[MT15]

They’re not even denying he’s an insurrectionist now…

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

SFL - one question. If you rob a bank, and in the process commit other crimes and the prosecutor decides to charge you with the other crimes but doesn’t charge the bank robbery, did you not rob a bank?

You still robbed a bank right? I don’t know anyone who would say - no, you didn’t rob the bank.

it's impossible to rob a bank if you didn't use a gun, right?

 

[Optimus Prime]

it's impossible to rob a bank if you didn't use a gun, right?

If no gun was involved it was just a pilfering

 

[SaintForLife]

So? Prosecutorial discretion. Look it up.

The excuses get more ridiculous each day lol.

 

[MT15]

The excuses get more ridiculous each day lol.

That’s not an excuse. It’s just a fact. Prosecutors pick and choose which laws to apply to criminal situations every damn day. Your reasons for supporting the worst excuse for a human being who is threatening to end our entire form of government get more ridiculous.

What difference does it make when looking at his abominable actions whether he got charged with one crime or another?

It is excruciatingly clear what kind of man he is. It’s extremely clear what he did and how he has lied about the election being fraudulent. It’s clear that his lies caused people to try to overthrow the election in all kinds of illegal ways, from fake electors to armed conflict.

Yet, you continue the lies. You twist yourself into a pretzel supporting him. I just cannot understand why you do it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN anchor Boris Sanchez spent over seven minutes on Tuesday trying to get a really simple answer out of the chairman of Maine’s Republican party. But even after seven attempts, he was unsuccessful.

All Sanchez wanted to know was why it was wrong for Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. (A decision he announced Tuesday that he is appealing.) When she explained how she came to her decision on December 28, Bellows cited not just the United States Constitution, but Maine’s constitution as well. And a former Republican lawmaker in the state who was proactive in requesting Trump’s removal from the ballot, Tom Saviello, defended Bellows and her decision while declaring Trump to be “not qualified.”

But Maine’s GOP chair Joel Stetkis thinks she was wrong. Sanchez wanted to know why, legally speaking, Bellows was wrong — and he asked Stetkis seven times:

Sanchez: What is your response?
Stetkis: Well, Boris, I think the simplest way we could put this really is, you know, we’ve got an unelected bureaucrat who likes to pretend that she’s a lawyer, and she’s literally taking away the voters’ choices in Maine. You know, here in Maine and across the country, regardless of, you know, whether they like Donald Trump or not, you know, Bellows is wrong on so many levels. And it’s, it’s getting to the point of really being embarrassing.

Here’s the second attempt:

Sanchez: But if the state law, like the state constitution, makes it so that if someone has a complaint about a candidate, they take it up with the Secretary of State, who then is the arbiter, how could she be in the wrong for making a decision based on what was presented to her in that hearing?
Stetkis: Well, you know, her decision process was just wrong. You know, she’s there… uh… to… uh… To support, uh, Maine’s voter, Maine voting rights. And she’s doing exactly the opposite. You know, we’re going to fight this thing to the highest extent that we need to. And what she’s doing is just flat out wrong.

Third:

Sanchez: [W]hat’s your main argument against her decision?
Stetkis: Oh, this has so much more to do… uh… with the… uh… you know, the suppression of the vote as opposed to Donald Trump. We would, we would oppose this decision regardless of what Republican she decided that she was going to arbitrarily decide Maine voters aren’t going to be allowed to vote for.

Fourth:

Sanchez: Joel, you’re saying that it’s arbitrary, but what is it about her decision? What is it about her argument legally that you’re opposed to?
Stetkis: We’re just opposed to her taking away the rights of the voters, to be able to choose the leader that they want to vote for or not.

Fifth and sixth:

Stetkis: Her reasoning behind her decision is completely wrong.
Sanchez: So what is the reasoning that you object to?
Stetkis: No matter how you ask the question, her decision is completely wrong. There are, there are…
Sanchez: Joel, but give us the details. Why is it wrong? Why is it wrong?
Stetkis: So Boris, so Boris, this is the thing, right? There are, there are attorneys and judges, Democrats and Republicans across this country that have said that she is wrong.

Nice try citing “attorneys and judges,” Stetkis, but that doesn’t count! Here is the seventh and final attempt:

Sanchez: Is there any detail you can give us other than saying she’s flat out wrong, Joel?
Stetkis: So one of the things that we’ve seen in the last week are… are very highly respected lawyers and judges, Democrats and Republicans alike, that have come out and given plenty of legal argument on why that she’s wrong. You know, my job, my job here is to protect the voters in the state of Maine, and what she is doing just shows absolute contempt for the everyday American. They feel like we’re not smart enough to think for themselves, that she needs to pull somebody off of the ballot because we’re not smart enough to know whether we should vote for that person or not. And that’s just flat out wrong.

Either the segment ran out of time or Sanchez just gave up, but he ended the interview there by reminding Joel Stetkis that he never answered the one question he asked him:

I don’t think it’s a question of intelligence. I think there’s a legal argument to be made. It doesn’t seem like you have articulated the exact legal argument and the flaw that you see in her decision. Nevertheless, Joel, we’re grateful to have you and get your perspective.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

The excuses get more ridiculous each day lol.

I know we hear them all the time from trump glad to hear your getting tired of them.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

remember when Al Capone was convicted of Tax Evasion? everyone knew what he was really guily of doing, but it was just easier... nothing wrong with that.. people don't look back at Capone and say, he was a good guy, he just had a tax problem..lol

 

[Taurus]

CNN anchor Boris Sanchez spent over seven minutes on Tuesday trying to get a really simple answer out of the chairman of Maine’s Republican party. But even after seven attempts, he was unsuccessful.

All Sanchez wanted to know was why it was wrong for Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. (A decision he announced Tuesday that he is appealing.) When she explained how she came to her decision on December 28, Bellows cited not just the United States Constitution, but Maine’s constitution as well. And a former Republican lawmaker in the state who was proactive in requesting Trump’s removal from the ballot, Tom Saviello, defended Bellows and her decision while declaring Trump to be “not qualified.”

But Maine’s GOP chair Joel Stetkis thinks she was wrong. Sanchez wanted to know why, legally speaking, Bellows was wrong — and he asked Stetkis seven times:


Here’s the second attempt:


Third:


Fourth:


Fifth and sixth:


Nice try citing “attorneys and judges,” Stetkis, but that doesn’t count! Here is the seventh and final attempt:


Either the segment ran out of time or Sanchez just gave up, but he ended the interview there by reminding Joel Stetkis that he never answered the one question he asked him:

MSN

www.msn.com

I'd like to have seen Sanchez tell Stetkis that Trump took himself off the ballot when he sat on his arse while an insurrection was happening. "Aid and comfort" yo.