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

 

[Optimus Prime]

BOSTON (AP) — Five Republican and Democratic voters in Massachusetts have become the latest to challenge former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the Republican primary election ballot, claiming he is ineligible to hold office because he encouraged and did little to stop the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The challenge was filed late Thursday to Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin’s office ahead of the March 5 presidential primary.

The State Ballot Commission must rule on the challenge by Jan. 29. It came a day before the Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether Trump can be kept off the ballot. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Massachusetts challenge, similar to those filed in more than a dozen other states, relies on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits anyone from holding office who previously has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then later “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the country or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies.

In its 91-page objection, the voters made the case that Trump should be disqualified from the presidency because he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol Jan. 6 to intimidate Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence. It also says he “reveled in, and deliberately refused to stop, the insurrection" and cites Trump's efforts to overturn the election illegally...............

Massachusetts voters become latest to try and keep Trump off ballot over Jan. 6 attack

Five voters in Massachusetts have become the latest to challenge former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Republican primary election ballot in March, claiming he is ineligible to hold office because he encouraged and did little to stop the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[superchuck500]

These people are so forking stupid

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri? JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection SANCHEZ: How so? ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas

www.threads.net

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

These people are so forking stupid

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri? JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection SANCHEZ: How so? ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas

www.threads.net

that dude is a blubbering idiot. i love how he wouldn't (or couldn't) asnwer the question..lol

 

[coldseat]

These people are so forking stupid

Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

BORIS SANCHEZ: What would be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri? JAY ASHCROFT: There have been allegations that he's engaged in insurrection SANCHEZ: How so? ASHCROFT: Um, I've seen allegations from the lieutenant governor of Texas

www.threads.net

I watched is idiot live at lunch time today and lost about 20 IQ points.

 

[FullMonte]

I've got a question for the legal experts out there.

I recently heard that there are a lot of people who are going to be disappointed when the Supreme Court issues their ruling. In short, the person was saying that the Supreme Court can only rule on certain aspects of the case. He stressed the SCOTUS cannot rule on findings of fact made by lower courts. So, in this particular case, SCOTUS cannot overrule Colorado's decision that Trump engaged in insurrection. All they can rule on is things like: Does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply to the president? Can a state make the decision to disqualify a candidate based on the 14th Amendment on their own, or is that something that Congress must do? and other arguments like that.

Can one of the law folks here speak on this?

 

[MT15]

What would be the basis for saying Congress has to act? I didn’t see anything about that in the amendment. But I am definitely not a lawyer so maybe someone can help me out?

 

[Booker]

What would be the basis for saying Congress has to act? I didn’t see anything about that in the amendment. But I am definitely not a lawyer so maybe someone can help me out?

I believe it says that Congress can pardon the restriction with a 2/3 vote, but it doesn’t say anything about Congress being involved otherwise.

 

[FullMonte]

He wasn't saying that Congress had to do it. He was just that as a random example of the type of thing that SCOTUS can rule on.

There ARE people out there saying that since section 5 says that Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of the article, that means that Congress has to rule that the person is ineligible. But since Section 3 says that congress can remove the disability, that would seem to indicate that section 3 is self-executing.

 

[MT15]

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

this can't be true.. please tell me it is, but not even Trumps dimwits are that dumb...

edit, so basically Nevada GOP says screw what the voters want , they are gonna go with a Caucus instead..

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former President Donald Trump will not be appearing on the primary ballot in Nevada on Feb. 6. But neither will Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, or former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Their absence has not escaped the notice of voters in the Silver State, some of whom have begun to receive their sample ballots for the presidential primary.

"Why is my official primary mail in ballot missing a certain DONALD J TRUMP?" a user on X wrote.

The reason Nevadans will not be able to vote for Trump — or several of the other Republican candidates — in their state's primary is because they chose to participate in the state GOP-sanctioned caucus instead, which will take place two days later

"This has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or disqualification of any candidate," said David Becker, CBS News election law expert and political contributor. "Trump, like several other candidates, chose to stand with the state GOP and compete only in the caucus, where delegates will be chosen." ............

Trump won't be on Nevada's 2024 GOP primary ballot. Neither will DeSantis, Ramaswamy or Christie. Here's why.

Trump, and most of the Republican 2024 presidential nominee candidates, won't appear on Nevada's 2024 primary ballot. But the state's caucus will include all GOP candidates.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

who are all these other people?

Castro, Fulkerson, Kjornes, Singh

 

[MT15]

this can't be true.. please tell me it is, but not even Trumps dimwits are that dumb...

edit, so basically Nevada GOP says screw what the voters want , they are gonna go with a Caucus instead..

Yeah, I forgot about that. I read it a while ago. I think Trump thinks it helps him.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Yeah, I forgot about that. I read it a while ago. I think Trump thinks it helps him.

yes, because he can play the "i was left off the ballots in certain states" but he won't specify why... he'll let the RWNJs believe he was taken off...

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah, I forgot about that. I read it a while ago. I think Trump thinks it helps him.

I think because the party can better control it - rather than a statewide primary vote.

 

[MT15]

I think because the party can better control it - rather than a statewide primary vote.

And Trump controls the RNC. So they must think it will help Trump.

 

[superchuck500]

And Trump controls the RNC. So they must think it will help Trump.

Yes

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN) — The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a bid to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” saying it’s waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

The ruling comes after Colorado and Maine kicked Trump off the ballot, after judges and officials determined that his role in the January 6 insurrection renders him ineligible for office. However, those decisions have been paused to allow for appeals.

Trump has prevailed in other states, where courts dismissed lawsuits on procedural grounds and never grappled with the questions about January 6. He has beaten back challenges in Minnesota, Michigan, and Arizona – and California’s top election official recently decided to keep him on the ballot there as well…..

Oregon Supreme Court won’t remove Trump from ballot for now, says it’s waiting on SCOTUS | CNN Politics

The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a bid to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” saying it’s waiting for the US Supreme Court to rule on the issue.

www.cnn.com