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

 

[fooferdoggie]

what are the arguments for keeping him on?

he is a catsup tossing sable Genius?

 

[brandon]

what are the arguments for keeping him on?

It's gonna be like, hard to do and some people won't like it.

 

[RobF]

It's gonna be like, hard to do and some people won't like it.

That was basically the impression I got from this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-court-donald-trump-eligibility-2024-election

In particular, " A majority of justices, including some from the court’s liberal wing, voiced concern about the chaos that would ensue if they allowed states to decide whether to disqualify candidates from the ballot," seems to basically boil down to, "but some people won't like it."

Which seems like pretty dubious reasoning to me. Of course insurrectionists and their supporters wouldn't like the consequences of their insurrectioning including being barred from office. It doesn't follow that there shouldn't be those consequences.

Also:

“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked ...

Does that really follow? The insurrection bit applies to someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". It couldn't just be applied to a political opponent without those grounds, and if it was applied arbitrarily, wouldn't that ultimately go to the Supreme Court to rule appropriately?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, why isn't the argument ever - what power are we giving to Joe Biden right now? What is he allowed to do to maintain the presidency?

Or maybe that has been argued?

 

[MT15]

Thomas is just someone I could give multiple throat punches to.

I’ll take Alito and Gorsuch, oh, and Kavanaugh too, while I’m at it.

 

[MT15]

Kavanaugh is a light weight. He should have never been confirmed.

 

[MT15]

They seem to have settled on their off-ramp: states don’t have the right to restrict a federal candidate.

 

[samiam5211]

I kind of think the court will unanimously rule to leave him on the ballot.

I don't like the argument that states can't restrict a federal candidate. Candidates have to qualify for a state's ballot.

How can states require RFK or any other candidate to get signatures on a petition to be on their ballot if the states don't have the right to restrict it?

 

[FullMonte]

So, someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only the being argued is if the 14th amendment applies to the President, right? Trump's lawyers never argued that he didn't engage in insurrection, so that is just taken as fact by court right?

I’ve heard it said (I think it was either Meidas Touch or Legal Eagle) that appellate courts and SCOTUS can not review findings of fact made by lower courts.

So, for example, if a person is found guilty of murder, the appellate courts cannot review the case and say “he is not guilty.” They can only review whether the lower courts’ actions were consistent with the law and constitution. So, they could rule that by allowing (or disallowing) certain evidence, the court created a situation where the jury was not properly informed, and dismiss the verdict and leave it to the lower court whether or not to retry the case.

So, in this case, the appellate courts could not overrule the lower courts fact finding that Trump participated in insurrection. They can only rule on whether or not the ruling/verdict was in line with the law and constitution.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I’ve heard it said (I think it was either Meidas Touch or Legal Eagle) that appellate courts and SCOTUS can not review findings of fact made by lower courts.

So, for example, if a person is found guilty of murder, the appellate courts cannot review the case and say “he is not guilty.” They can only review whether the lower courts’ actions were consistent with the law and constitution. So, they could rule that by allowing (or disallowing) certain evidence, the court created a situation where the jury was not properly informed, and dismiss the verdict and leave it to the lower court whether or not to retry the case.

So, in this case, the appellate courts could not overrule the lower courts fact finding that Trump participated in insurrection. They can only rule on whether or not the ruling/verdict was in line with the law and constitution.

That was my understanding. Trump’s lawyers did not argue that he committed an insurrection in lower courts just that he wasn’t subject to the 14th. So it was accepted as fact by the court that he participated in an insurrection and that can’t be appealed now.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US supreme court heard oral arguments on whether former president Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on Thursday – and most justices sounded deeply skeptical of the effort.

All six of the court’s conservative justices aggressively questioned the arguments that the state of Colorado had been right in determining that Trump should be barred from appearing as a candidate under section three of the US constitution’s 14th amendment. Two of the three liberal justices asked pointed questions as well, an indication that there may be broad consensus to strike down the ruling.

court appears skeptical of Colorado ruling removing Trump from ballot

Here are some key takeaways.

Even the liberal justices seemed skeptical of Colorado’s arguments​

Liberal justice Elena Kagantold Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Coloradans who had sued to remove Trump from their state’s ballot, that disqualifying a president for insurrection “sounds awfully national to me”, and said that the idea that one state could disqualify a candidate and possibly tip a national election was “extraordinary”.

Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed deeply wary of Murray’s arguments that section three of the 14th amendment applies to presidents – pointing out that the clause itself lists out other offices but not the presidency.

“Why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there,” she said during questioning of Murray. “And so I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president.”

As Murray responded with a historical example in which a lawmaker argued presidents should be included, she cut him off.

“Doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity?” she asked. “If there’s an ambiguity, why would we construe it to, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy?”

Conservative justices had raised similar points.

“What about the idea that we should think about democracy?” asked Brett Kavanaugh. “Think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. Because your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.”

There was almost no discussion or debate over whether Trump himself actually committed insurrection​

The most controversial argument in the case – at least among the broader public – is the Colorado supreme court’s determination that Trump committed insurrection. If their ruling stood a chance of surviving, the justices probably would have had to give this issue careful consideration.

But in more than two hours of oral arguments, there was almost no substantive discussion of whether this is true – a sign that they’re likely to toss out the case without even getting so far as to consider this point.

Various justices did question who exactly was expected to make that determination.……..

Five key takeaways from US supreme court’s hearing on removing Trump from the ballot

Both conservative and liberal justices aggressively questioned argument that Colorado was right in barring Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The US supreme court heard oral arguments on whether former president Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on Thursday – and most justices sounded deeply skeptical of the effort.

All six of the court’s conservative justices aggressively questioned the arguments that the state of Colorado had been right in determining that Trump should be barred from appearing as a candidate under section three of the US constitution’s 14th amendment. Two of the three liberal justices asked pointed questions as well, an indication that there may be broad consensus to strike down the ruling.

court appears skeptical of Colorado ruling removing Trump from ballot

Here are some key takeaways.

Even the liberal justices seemed skeptical of Colorado’s arguments​

Liberal justice Elena Kagantold Jason Murray, the attorney representing the Coloradans who had sued to remove Trump from their state’s ballot, that disqualifying a president for insurrection “sounds awfully national to me”, and said that the idea that one state could disqualify a candidate and possibly tip a national election was “extraordinary”.

Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed deeply wary of Murray’s arguments that section three of the 14th amendment applies to presidents – pointing out that the clause itself lists out other offices but not the presidency.

“Why didn’t they put the word ‘president’ in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there,” she said during questioning of Murray. “And so I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focusing on the president.”

As Murray responded with a historical example in which a lawmaker argued presidents should be included, she cut him off.

“Doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity?” she asked. “If there’s an ambiguity, why would we construe it to, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, against democracy?”

Conservative justices had raised similar points.

“What about the idea that we should think about democracy?” asked Brett Kavanaugh. “Think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. Because your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.”

There was almost no discussion or debate over whether Trump himself actually committed insurrection​

The most controversial argument in the case – at least among the broader public – is the Colorado supreme court’s determination that Trump committed insurrection. If their ruling stood a chance of surviving, the justices probably would have had to give this issue careful consideration.

But in more than two hours of oral arguments, there was almost no substantive discussion of whether this is true – a sign that they’re likely to toss out the case without even getting so far as to consider this point.

Various justices did question who exactly was expected to make that determination.……..

Five key takeaways from US supreme court’s hearing on removing Trump from the ballot

Both conservative and liberal justices aggressively questioned argument that Colorado was right in barring Trump

www.theguardian.com

That's disappointing all around. The Constitution is quite clear both in wording and in common sense implications. Removing a person from the ballot may seem extreme, but the person engaged in extreme acts that undermined the very foundation of the country. Grow a spine, ffs.

 

[Taurus]

That's disappointing all around. The Constitution is quite clear both in wording and in common sense implications. Removing a person from the ballot may seem extreme, but the person engaged in extreme acts that undermined the very foundation of the country. Grow a spine, ffs.

I can understand a narrow decision saying it's not the place of an individual state to act on the 14th Amendment. It's an all-50 state disqualification. Just like an individual state can't decide to put a 25 year old Spaniard on the ballot.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I can understand a narrow decision saying it's not the place of an individual state to act on the 14th Amendment. It's an all-50 state disqualification. Just like an individual state can't decide to put a 25 year old Spaniard on the ballot.

But what is the mechanism to trigger that? The courts or Congress?

Basically, the state's already disqualify someoen unilaterally if they are under age, they don't need to wait for other states, or congress to respond, so what's the mechanism here?

 

[J-DONK]

But what is the mechanism to trigger that? The courts or Congress?

Basically, the state's already disqualify someoen unilaterally if they are under age, they don't need to wait for other states, or congress to respond, so what's the mechanism here?

I'm thinking off stuff like needing a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot, ala RFK.

There is some tiptoeing the justices will have to do around requirements like this.

 

[UriUT]

I can understand a narrow decision saying it's not the place of an individual state to act on the 14th Amendment. It's an all-50 state disqualification. Just like an individual state can't decide to put a 25 year old Spaniard on the ballot.

Is this a states rights argument?

The constitution has a requirement on who can be president. The rest is up to the states. Just as the 14th/3 has a broad disqualifying criteria and shouldn't the same hold..that the states are then under that umbrella to act?

Isn't this the reasoning behind dobbs?

 

[Lapaz]

I don’t want Trump anymore than most, but I am troubled that he may be banned without a conviction. Furthermore, there may be disagreement among states on whether what he did was an insurrection. I think it should be determined by the Supreme Court. If another state rules that it wasn’t an insurrection, then I think the Supreme Court would have to rule on it, and it would justify removal from all ballots. We would have even more problems if we allow states to ban people without a conviction. It would weaken Democracy more to have bans based on disparate individual state judgements.

 

[Taurus]

Is this a states rights argument?

The constitution has a requirement on who can be president. The rest is up to the states. Just as the 14th/3 has a broad disqualifying criteria and shouldn't the same hold..that the states are then under that umbrella to act?

Isn't this the reasoning behind dobbs?

I suppose you could say the states can put Trump on the ballot, but the Constitution says he can't serve.