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

 

[J-DONK]

What a mature, thoughtful response.

He spent days freaking out in this thread. Now it was never in doubt.

 

[MT15]

He spent days freaking out in this thread. Now it was never in doubt.

He never ever sees what is painfully obvious to everyone else here. Just like his simultaneous assertions that Biden is a mastermind who is directing all sorts of conspiracies and also a dementia patient. It makes zero sense to everyone who is reality based.

 

[MT15]

9-0....

Duly noted that you have nothing of value to say. Probably because you have very little understanding of the issue and cannot converse about it with any integrity.

 

[LA - L.A.]

9-0....

Slavery was abolished. Persistence is futile.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US supreme court “erred badly” in rulingColorado was wrong to seek to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for inciting the January 6 insurrection, a leading historian and analyst of presidential politics said.

The court handed down its unanimous ruling on Monday, a day before Colorado became one of 16 states and one US territory to hold a Super Tuesday primary.

“The supreme court erred badly based on our amicus brief and our review of history, in claiming that a candidate for federal office can only be disqualified by an act of Congress,” Allan Lichtman said, speaking to reporters with three other historians who signed the brief arguing Trump should be removed.


Lichtman is a professor at American University in Washington DC who has correctly predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984, using a system of “keys to the White House” he co-devised.

With Trump closing on the Republican nomination, Lichtman recently said Joe Biden held five keys to Trump’s three, with five up for grabs…..


Lichtman spoke to reporters with three other signatories to the amicus brief: Manisha Sinha, of the University of Connecticut; Brooks D Simpsonof Arizona State University; and Orville Vernon Burton, of the University of Illinois.

Lichtman said the brief “decisively proved [that] not a single one of the thousands of ex-Confederates who were disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment were disqualified under an act of Congress. They were automatically disqualified, as Jefferson Davis himself [the former Confederate president] recognised in his trial and the two judges in the trial agreed.”

Lichtman said he identified some good in the Colorado ruling. First, the court “did not buy into Trump’s argument that section three of the 14th amendment excluded the presidency” as an office subject to sanction.

“Secondly, the supreme court, consistent with our brief, did not buy into the argument that section three only applied to ex-Confederates – clearly in this ruling [the court] indicated that it applies indefinitely.


“So these positive aspects [warn] future insurrectionists that you will not necessarily get away scot free. You can be disqualified by the states if you try to run for a state office, and you can be disqualified to run for a federal office by an act of Congress.”

Like Lichtman, Sinha noted that the four women on the court – the liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative – issued something of a rejoinder to the five men, saying they went too far by stating only Congress could disqualify a candidate for federal office.

But Sinha said the ruling left her “a little more pessimistic”. Speaking ironically, she said: “Let me congratulate the conservatives for giving up on their deep respect for states’ rights that they have always showed in their decisions but strangely enough in this particular decision they upheld the federal and national authority of the 14th amendment. So that was quite out of character.”

The liberals who agreed there should not be a “patchwork” state-based system of disqualification, Sinha said, “don’t seem to understand that if the supreme court had rendered a decision disqualifying Trump that would have had a national effect, it would not have meant that each state gets to decide. The decision as it stands now has a national effect: that Trump cannot be barred from any states.”……..

Sinha said: “It seems to me that [the court] fast track all the decisions in all the cases that let Trump off the hook and they’re slow-pedaling all the decisions that don’t let Trump off the hook.

“This is primary season and I think it’s going to have an effect politically. Trump is going to seal the deal” with the Colorado decision.…..

US supreme court ‘erred badly’ with Trump ruling, leading US historian says

Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted outcome of every US election since 1984, disagrees with decision on Colorado ballot

www.theguardian.com

 

[FullMonte]

Rapist.....

12-0…

 

[FullMonte]

9-0

and the appellate court unanimously ruled that Judge Cannon issued a completely made up, ridiculous ruling, making arguments for Trump that his team didn’t make.

 

[SaintForLife]

Biden is a

Rapist.....

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Those were my opinions before the court ruled. I'm aware that's not how they decided the case.

I've never said Section 3 doesn't exist, but as SCOTUS said Congress has to act on it and not far left judges in Colorado.

It wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.

 

[SaintForLife]

He spent days freaking out in this thread. Now it was never in doubt.

Normal people get concerned about authoritarian measures by one party to try to prevent their political opponent from being on the ballot or trying to put him in jail.

It's preposterous that the authoritarian Biden administration claims to be protecting democracy. Is Biden trying to be like Putin?

 

[samiam5211]

Normal people get concerned about authoritarian measures by one party to try to prevent their political opponent from being on the ballot or trying to put him in jail.

It preposterous that the authoritarian Biden administration claims to be protecting democracy. Is Biden trying to be like Putin?

Does the Biden admin control the state of Colorado?

Do you need a civics lesson?

 

[SaintForLife]

Does the Biden admin control the state of Colorado?

Do you need a civics lesson?

Have you heard of Jack Smith? Or that Fani coordinated with the Biden White House?

 

[superchuck500]

Those were my opinions before the court ruled. I'm aware that's not how they decided the case.

I've never said Section 3 doesn't exist, but as SCOTUS said Congress has to act on it and not far left judges in Colorado.

It wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.

Being purely objective, I would agree that it's not unreasonable to argue that the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters, in and of itself, was a politically motivated riot intended to disrupt but not usurp the constitutional process for electing the president and transferring power. But that's only looking at one element of it - it didn't happen spontaneously nor without direction or coordination that included Trump himself and those connected with Trump . . . as a last play in a playbook that had lasted for many weeks and served one purpose: to prevent the electoral certification and inauguration of Joe Biden, who won the election. The playbook included court challenges (which are entirely legitimate - but failed to produce any meaningful evidence that the election results were wrong) and then a series of unconstitutional/unlawful activities that included efforts to present fake "electors", and a tremendous effort (including threats of violence and death) to pressure the vice president to take action that his lawyers and other White House lawyers (and Justice Department lawyers) agreed the vice president does not have . . . which is to refuse to accept the electoral count in the joint session. Finally, with all else failing, Trump unleashed his mob - which included paramilitary organizations with advance scouting and plans to take hostages or worse if that scenario became available.

It's a failed coup, there's no other way to accurately describe it. Republicans in Congress called it an insurrection. Members of the press on the political right called it an insurrection. Everyone saw it all play out . . . you can call it whatever you want, but it was an organized attempt to use unlawful activity to prevent the results of an American presidential election that culminated in a riotous attack on the federal Capitol building that Trump himself fomented. That's an insurrection. I know it's hard to admit it to yourself, but come on.

 

[samiam5211]

Have you heard of Jack Smith? Or that Fani coordinated with the Biden White House?

Yes, i have heard of those, that doesn't have anything to do with the SCOTUS ruling.

When you commit many crimes, you are going to have issues in many jurisdictions.

I'm sorry that you worship Trump and think that him being prosecuted is unfair.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump may be the only person about whom prominent conservatives think innocence is irrelevant.

Voters in many states filed lawsuits arguing that Trump was constitutionally disqualified from the presidency, under section 3 of the 14th amendment, having committed treason against the United States when resisting by force the peaceful transfer of presidential power. The Colorado supreme court agreed.

Trump and his lawyers responded by waving numerous constitutional technicalities that they claimed exempted traitors from constitutional disqualification, while barely making any effort to refute charges that the former president committed treason on 6 January 2021.

On Monday, all nine justices on the US supreme courtagreed that Donald Trump should remain on the presidential ballot even if he is, in the words of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “an oathbreaking insurrectionist”. No one challenged that finding.

Proponents of law and order – who, for decades, railed against judicial decisions that freed from criminal sanction suspected and convicted criminals based on due process rights that are unconnected to guilt or innocence – now celebrate the possibility that a contemporary Benedict Arnold may hold the highest office of the land.

They rejoice that the supreme Court kept the former president on the ballot in all 50 states by relying on alleged constitutional rules that do not require Trump to defend himself against treason allegations…….

Chanting “Is Innocence Irrelevant?” conservative judges sharply narrowed constitutional rights against police searches and self-incrimination. They drastically reduced the occasions on which persons suspected or convicted of ordinary crimes may assert what remain constitutional rights.

Conservative justices have so gutted federal habeas corpus review that the underlying principle seems “better some innocent persons rot in prison than one guilty prison be freed on a constitutional technicality.”

American prisons are now overpopulated by people who have had their constitutional rights violated during the process of investigating or prosecuting their crimes.

Prominent conservatives make no such demands for proof of innocence when Trump is at the bar of disqualification. In the disqualification hearings, Trump’s lawyers made only perfunctory efforts to deny his culpability in the insurrection of 6 January 2021.

His lawyers barely mentioned matters of guilt or innocence when filing briefs before the supreme court or in oral argument.

Conservative commentators who insist that Trump remains qualified to hold the presidency do not spend their energies documenting why Trump is not a traitor.

Six supreme court justices in Trump v Andersonrefused to comment on whether Trump committed treason. That defense case, they implicitly recognized, cannot be made.

Trump, his lawyers and his supporters respond to charges that Trump is a traitor with numerous assertions that have nothing to do with whether Trump incited and participated in the January 6 insurrection.

They claim that section 3 exempts treasonous former presidents or permits traitors to be elected president of the US. They insist that traitors can be disqualified under the 14th amendment only if Congress authorizes the disqualification.

They claim that section 3 disqualifies only persons who committed treason during the civil war and does not disqualify persons who lead violent secession movements now……

Trump’s apologists say it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty of insurrection. That’s not true | Mark Graber

Conservatives who used to rail against rulings that freed criminal suspects on technicalities now say the question of Trump’s guilt doesn’t affect whether he can be president

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Normal people get concerned about authoritarian measures by one party to try to prevent their political opponent from being on the ballot or trying to put him in jail.

It's preposterous that the authoritarian Biden administration claims to be protecting democracy. Is Biden trying to be like Putin?

We are still waiting for how a lawsuit brought in CO by R and independent voters (Trump voters!) is an authoritarian act by the Biden Administration. Or by Democrats. Or your explanation for why you support a complete conman and cheater. Adjudicated rapist, adjudicated insurrectionist.

Even the R controlled Supreme Court didn’t disagree with the CO Supreme Court finding that Trump committed insurrection. And the CO Supreme Court had no dissenters in that particular finding either.

Your entire response to any of these issues is to “score” them like a ball game. Most people grow out of that mentality by the end of adolescence when not, you know, discussing actual ball games.

You just stick your head in the sand and pretend you don’t read the posts asking you inconvenient questions. It sure isn’t a mature way to interact with people now, is it?

 

[SaintForLife]

Being purely objective, I would agree that it's not unreasonable to argue that the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters, in and of itself, was a politically motivated riot intended to disrupt but not usurp the constitutional process for electing the president and transferring power.

The electoral vote counting on January 6th is primarily ceremonial.

But that's only looking at one element of it - it didn't happen spontaneously nor without direction or coordination that included Trump himself and those connected with Trump

There is zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his Administration coordinated with the Oath Keepers or anyone else that committed violence.

. . . as a last play in a playbook that had lasted for many weeks and served one purpose: to prevent the electoral certification and inauguration of Joe Biden, who won the election.

As I said above, the electoral vote counting is primarily ceremonial.

The playbook included court challenges (which are entirely legitimate - but failed to produce any meaningful evidence that the election results were wrong) and then a series of unconstitutional/unlawful activities that included efforts to present fake "electors", and a tremendous effort (including threats of violence and death) to pressure the vice president to take action that his lawyers and other White House lawyers (and Justice Department lawyers) agreed the vice president does not have . . . which is to refuse to accept the electoral count in the joint session. Finally, with all else failing, Trump unleashed his mob - which included paramilitary organizations with advance scouting and plans to take hostages or worse if that scenario became available.

Once again there is zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his Administration coordinated with those paramilitary organizations.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection because Trump's speech, where he said to be peaceful, is protected free speech.

It's a failed coup, there's no other way to accurately describe it. Republicans in Congress called it an insurrection. Members of the press on the political right called it an insurrection. Everyone saw it all play out . . . you can call it whatever you want, but it was an organized attempt to use unlawful activity to prevent the results of an American presidential election that culminated in a riotous attack on the federal Capitol building that Trump himself fomented. That's an insurrection. I know it's hard to admit it to yourself, but come on.

It's not an insurrection no matter how many times you say it. Jack Smith could have charged Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection, but he didn't. It's hard to buy the excuses about why he didn't.

Do police usually fire projectiles into calm crowds to try to antagonize them into an aggressive response during insurrections?

 

[samiam5211]

The electoral vote counting on January 6th is primarily ceremonial.


There is zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his Administration coordinated with the Oath Keepers or anyone else that committed violence.


As I said above, the electoral vote counting is primarily ceremonial.


Once again there is zero evidence that Trump or anyone in his Administration coordinated with those paramilitary organizations.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection because Trump's speech, where he said to be peaceful, is protected free speech.

It's not an insurrection no matter how many times you say it. Jack Smith could have charged Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection, but he didn't. It's hard to buy the excuses about why he didn't.

Do police usually fire projectiles into clam crowds to try to antagonize them into an aggressive response during insurrections?

Roger Stone was definitely part of Trump's team.

Of course, he couldn't be part of the administration, because he's such a dirtbag that not even Trump would try to give him an official position.