States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,065
    Reaction score
    12,948
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

    1692502254516.png


    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:


     
    Last edited:
    In the ruling above (CO) the judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection though, according to this:

     
    Speaking with MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, former Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that a ruling by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace on Friday may have kept Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot for now but it could blow up on him at a later date.

    Katyal was quick to note that Judge Wallace agreed with the petitioners that the former president took part in an insurrection at the end of his term but used a narrow interpretation to say he is not in violation of the 14th Amendment.

    According to the legal analyst, the ruling was "the very worst decision Trump could get."

    'If I were to put the headline on Friday, as an appeals lawyer, it would be this is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court," he began. "Because it's going to go on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court and there Trump is going to face extreme headwinds."

    "And the reason for that is the fact — there's two parts," he continued. "There's a factual finding, that the judge said, which is Trump committed insurrection, and then there's a legal part that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the presidency. On appeals, Jen, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding."............

     
    Here it is folks. Laying the groundwork for Trump never leaving the presidency if the US is stupid enough to let him back into the WH:

     
    Here it is folks. Laying the groundwork for Trump never leaving the presidency if the US is stupid enough to let him back into the WH:


    The United States is nearing 250 years old. And this is where we are? How could an interpretation like this ever stick?
     
    Boom...


    In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot on Tuesday.

    The court ruled 4-3 that Trump isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

    The ruling will be placed on hold pending appeal until January 4.

    The court upheld a trial judge’s decision that Trump engaged in the January 6, 2021, insurrection — and then overturned her conclusion that the ban doesn’t apply to the presidency.

    The state Supreme Court decision only applies to Colorado but is sure to roil the 2024 presidential campaign.

    It tees up an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which could settle the matter for the entire nation.

    Colorado election officials have said the matter needs to be settled by January 5, which is the statutory deadline to set the list of candidates for the GOP primary.

    Trump denies wrongdoing regarding January 6 and has decried the 14th Amendment lawsuits as an abuse of the legal process. He is under federal and state indictment in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election – and he has pleaded not guilty.

    On the campaign trail, Trump has derided the lawsuits and argued that they are an attempt to use the courts to stop him from returning to the White House while he is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

    More on the 14th Amendment: Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the wording is vague, it doesn’t explicitly mention the presidency, and has only been applied twice since 1919.

     
    Boom...




    Election interference. When you think you can't beat him then just remove him from the ballot right?

    The Supreme Court will overturn it.
     
    Election interference. When you think you can't beat him then just remove him from the ballot right?

    The Supreme Court will overturn it.

    There has to be grounds to make the candidate ineligible - this isn’t some arbitrary conclusion to influence a single election. Do you always just gloss over that part? Do you all just forget that Trump deliberately orchestrated an attempt to derail the election certification process required under the Constitution and federal election law - do you just conveniently forget that happened?

    Because it happened. It is recorded history to be studied and analyzed - it happened. And we all saw it happen.
     
    Last edited:
    There has to be grounds to make the candidate ineligible - this isn’t some arbitrary conclusion to influence a single election. Do you always just gloss over that part? Do you all just forgot that Trump deliberately orchestrated an attempt to derail the election certification process required under the Constitution and federal election law - do you just conveniently forget that happened?

    Because it happened. It is recorded history to be studied and analyzed - it happened. And we all saw it happen.
    yes, but he broke the law with good intentions, so it's ok.. lol..
    it doesn't matter how many judges find him guilty of stuff, it'll be a witch hunt and interference.. smh
     
    If Republicans are smart, the Supreme Court “handlers” will push for them to uphold this and make it apply to all states. Trump has been nothing but a loser for them, ever since he won that one election in 2016. He lost the House in 2018 and 2020 and the Senate in 2020, his hand-picked candidates lost them the Senate again in 2022, and the House was only flipped in 2020 because of new maps in NY state. Several states have flipped governorships, and several states have flipped both chambers to Dems. He’s a loser, politically.

    If Rs want to have a chance to take back the WH, they will need to get Trump off the ballot.
     
    There has to be grounds to make the candidate ineligible - this isn’t some arbitrary conclusion to influence a single election. Do you always just gloss over that part? Do you all just forgot that Trump deliberately orchestrated an attempt to derail the election certification process required under the Constitution and federal election law - do you just conveniently forget that happened?

    Because it happened. It is recorded history to be studied and analyzed - it happened. And we all saw it happen.
    Has he been charged or convicted of incitement of an insurrection or whatever the specific charge would be?
     
    What I love about this logic, he was beaten. That was the whole point of the Jan 6th.

    "You can't beat him, except of course the last time he ran."
    Is he currently leading in the polls against Biden?

    But yeah these are the people that claim they are trying to protect democracy. What a forking joke.
     
    Well, did he try to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power or not?
    Why didn't Jack Smith charge him for inciting an insurrection?

    It reminds me of all the claims of obstruction against Trump yet Mueller failed to charge him with obstruction

    You guys claim these are both iron clad cases but then they just forget or choose not to charge him? Yeah okay
     
    one lawyer on Twitter says that the CO Supreme Court ruling was written with the SCOTUS in mind. It applies only to CO, and since the more conservative SC members are all in on states’ rights, they just might uphold it.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom