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

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Taurus]

It's sad that we all know SCOTUS will find a way to keep Cheato on the ballot.
The only real unknown is what knots they'll tie themselves into in order to do it.

 

[Lapaz]

It seems that the more states that agree that Trump is ineligible, and provide their reasoning, the more likely it becomes that he will be barred. I know it is still unlikely, but if each state decision provides any additional insights, it has to make it tougher to overturn the states.

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maineand elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.

Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.

The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.…….

Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack

Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to ban him over Capitol attack.

apnews.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The decision was unanimous as well.

 

[DaveXA]

The decision was unanimous as well.

Yeah, not really surprising.

 

[MT15]

The decision was unanimous as well.

Yes, but there were some differences. I’m just starting to read about them, but evidently all the men on the court went a bit farther than any of the women thought they should. Barrett wrote her own opinion, and the three other women wrote their own as well. While concurring with the result, they (esp. the 3) note that the men went much farther than they should have by saying that the legislature has to set up enforcement procedures. I’m going from memory, and not much reading yet, so maybe Chuck can clarify. In essence the conservative men are being activists on the bench at this point.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not legal expert, but it was an easy call when I said in this thread that it would be overturned 8-1 or 9-0.

I guess all those so-called legal experts who filled amicus briefs supporting removing Trump from the ballot were either full of shirt or they weren't actual experts. Similar to the 51 intelligence officials.

This was funny:

 

[FullMonte]

If *THAT* is something that bothers you in this particular case...

You must be completely BESIDE YOURSELF that Judge Aileen Cannon, who's entire criminal trial history amounts to less than 14 full days, is presiding over a federal criminal trial involving classified materials and a former president.

 

[SaintForLife]

If *THAT* is something that bothers you in this particular case...

You must be completely BESIDE YOURSELF that Judge Aileen Cannon, who's entire criminal trial history amounts to less than 14 full days, is presiding over a federal criminal trial involving classified materials and a former president.

9-0

 

[superchuck500]

I'm not legal expert, but it was an easy call when I said in this thread that it would be overturned 8-1 or 9-0.

I guess all those so-called legal experts who filled amicus briefs supporting removing Trump from the ballot were either full of shirt or they weren't actual experts. Similar to the 51 intelligence officials.

This was funny:

You clearly have no idea how any of this works. Every single case before the US Supreme Court has well presented, well crafted arguments. Trump’s immunity argument - which I disagree with - is well crafted and presented. These are challenging legal issues with various forms of argument constructing including precedent, legislative history, and other tools of interpretation. The Court’s job is to determine which elements it finds most persuasive - but that doesn’t mean that that the arguments it rejected were full of shirt or inexpert. The decision is simply the devions of the Court - even that doesn’t always mean that it’s the better of the arguments, the Court’s decisions, at times that are thankfully limited, come with legitimate criticism.

You never said why it was an easy calls did you? It’s like a homer saying their team is gonna win! So what.

 

[SaintForLife]

You clearly have no idea how any of this works. Every single case before the US Supreme Court has well presented, well crafted arguments. Trump’s immunity argument - which I disagree with - is well crafted and presented. These are challenging legal issues with various forms of argument constructing including precedent, legislative history, and other tools of interpretation. The Court’s job is to determine which elements it finds most persuasive - but that doesn’t mean that that the arguments it rejected were full of shirt or inexpert. The decision is simply the devions of the Court - even that doesn’t always mean that it’s the better of the arguments, the Court’s decisions, at times that are thankfully limited, come with legitimate criticism.

I said I'm not a legal expert, but it was easy to see that the effort to remove Trump from the ballot was pure authoritarianism.

It's laughable that the Colorado Court thought they could remove Trump for insurrection when he was never charged or convicted.

The Democrats multiple efforts by NY and Atlanta prosecutors and Jack Smith are doing everything they can to try to make sure Trump won't win.

You never said why it was an easy calls did you? It’s like a homer saying their team is gonna win! So what.

It was obvious what it was to anyone who wasn't a partisan Democrat.

So those legal experts who filed the amicus briefs were full of shirt.

 

[MT15]

9-0

What a mature, thoughtful response.

 

[superchuck500]

I said I'm not a legal expert, but it was easy to see that the effort to remove Trump from the ballot was pure authoritarianism.

It's laughable that the Colorado Court thought they could remove Trump for insurrection when he was never charged or convicted.

The Democrats multiple efforts by NY and Atlanta prosecutors and Jack Smith are doing everything they can to try to make sure Trump won't win.

It was obvious what it was to anyone who wasn't a partisan Democrat.

So those legal experts who filed the amicus briefs were full of shirt.

Yeah those are some nice personal opinions you have but that’s not why the Court ruled the way it did. According to you, Section 3 doesn’t exist and Trump didn’t engage in insurrection. But that’s not what the Court said.

 

[MT15]

but it was easy to see that the effort to remove Trump from the ballot was pure authoritarianism.

This is laughable. Explain how it was authoritarianism. In your own words without posting a wall of tweets.

It's laughable that the Colorado Court thought they could remove Trump for insurrection when he was never charged or convicted.

And yet, every time the 14th was invoked in the past, the person was neither tried nor convicted of anything. Your post is what is laughable.

So those legal experts who filed the amicus briefs were full of shirt.

Another absolute gem here.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is laughable. Explain how it was authoritarianism. In your own words without posting a wall of tweets.


And yet, every time the 14th was invoked in the past, the person was neither tried nor convicted of anything. Your post is what is laughable.


Another absolute gem here.

9-0....

 

[CoolBrees]

Rapist.....