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

 

[superchuck500]

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 calm crowds to try to antagonize them into an aggressive response during insurrections?

Yes, precisely - the vote counting is ceremonial and the vice president lacks power to alter any of it. But that didn't stop Trump and his planners from a full-court press on Pence, including with multiple public comments about it and well-documented disgust at Pence's unwillingness . . . that culminated in a documented desire by some in the mob to find him and hang him. It also didn't stop Trump's acolytes in Congress from attempting to subvert the ceremonial counting by objectig on grounds that they knew were false or specious.

There doesn't have to be direct coordination between Trump, personally, and his paramilitary supporters (some of whom were convicted for sedition). Trump made public comments to encourage them ("stand-by"). Roger Stone knew they were in DC before and on January 6. The FBI found at least one call of some length between a Proud Boys principle and the White House. But even that isn't essential when you consider Trump's conduct regarding the "rally" - which he presented as a protest against the election result, one that was "going to be wild", and one that he led an angry speech, encouraged the rally to march on the Capitol - and then attempted to join them only to be rebuffed by Secret Service. And then most damningly, Trump made no effort, for hours after the rally turned into a riot and the Capitol was breached, to stop it or make a statement to end it . . . even after pleading from key people in Trump's circle including Don Jr.

It doesn't matter what he was charged with - prosecutorial discretion drives charging decisions and you charge based on cases you know you can make. How many insurrection criminal cases in your lifetime are you familiar with? Not charging him with insurrection has no bearing on whether that's what it was.

 

[FullMonte]

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

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

Hmmm...didn't you say:

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

Please list the evidence that shows that Joe Biden somehow directed either of these two.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

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.

Yeah. I posted this before the details of the decision really came out. All I could do was laugh at ACB's concurrence as she tried to scold folks. Look in the mirror, you dolt.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Yes, precisely - the vote counting is ceremonial and the vice president lacks power to alter any of it. But that didn't stop Trump and his planners from a full-court press on Pence, including with multiple public comments about it and well-documented disgust at Pence's unwillingness . . . that culminated in a documented desire by some in the mob to find him and hang him. It also didn't stop Trump's acolytes in Congress from attempting to subvert the ceremonial counting by objectig on grounds that they knew were false or specious.

There doesn't have to be direct coordination between Trump, personally, and his paramilitary supporters (some of whom were convicted for sedition). Trump made public comments to encourage them ("stand-by"). Roger Stone knew they were in DC before and on January 6. The FBI found at least one call of some length between a Proud Boys principle and the White House. But even that isn't essential when you consider Trump's conduct regarding the "rally" - which he presented as a protest against the election result, one that was "going to be wild", and one that he led an angry speech, encouraged the rally to march on the Capitol - and then attempted to join them only to be rebuffed by Secret Service. And then most damningly, Trump made no effort, for hours after the rally turned into a riot and the Capitol was breached, to stop it or make a statement to end it . . . even after pleading from key people in Trump's circle including Don Jr.

It doesn't matter what he was charged with - prosecutorial discretion drives charging decisions and you charge based on cases you know you can make. How many insurrection criminal cases in your lifetime are you familiar with? Not charging him with insurrection has no bearing on whether that's what it was.

You forgot the fraudulent Elector plot which was led by Trump attorneys! Not only did they attempt to introduce these fraudulent Electors to Congress on Jan6, they used U.S. Mail to deliver fraudulent documents to D.C. as well. They be stacking felonies!

 

[superchuck500]

You forgot the fraudulent Elector plot which was led by Trump attorneys! Not only did they attempt to introduce these fraudulent Electors to Congress on Jan6, they used U.S. Mail to deliver fraudulent documents to D.C. as well. They be stacking felonies!

Indeed (that was included, just in the previous post that led to that exchange).

 

[MT15]

Indeed (that was included, just in the previous post that led to that exchange).

To my mind, the fake electors scheme is the reason we can say for sure it was an auto-coup. They knew it was fake and not valid, and they did it anyway.

 

[Farb]

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.

a mostly peaceful one at that.

 

[efil4]

a mostly peaceful one at that.

LOL "mostly peaceful riot" - when did it NOT become a peaceful riot?

Is that like a "mostly peaceful carjacking" ? or mostly peaceful armed robbery?

 

[Farb]

Everyone needs to remember that is important for democracy to stop the people from voting for who and what they want to vote for. The only way for democracy to thrive is to make sure that the people can only vote for those that the government wants them to vote for! It is to save our democracy.

 

[Farb]

LOL "peaceful riot" - when did it NOT become a peaceful riot?

Is that like a "peaceful carjacking" ? or peaceful armed robbery?

Or a fiery protest?

 

[efil4]

Or a fiery protest?

didnt ask you that...asked you when it ceased to be mostly peaceful.

When did that happen?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Everyone needs to remember that is important for democracy to stop the people from voting for who and what they want to vote for. The only way for democracy to thrive is to make sure that the people can only vote for those that the government wants them to vote for! It is to save our democracy.

...and when the people make a decision at the booths that goes against you; you lie about voter fraud to your voters and then you conspire to defraud tens of millions of voters by sending fraudulent electors to subvert the election.

 

[DaveXA]

Everyone needs to remember that is important for democracy to stop the people from voting for who and what they want to vote for. The only way for democracy to thrive is to make sure that the people can only vote for those that the government wants them to vote for! It is to save our democracy.

 

[efil4]

didnt ask you that...asked you when it ceased to be mostly peaceful.

When did that happen?

Farb? Farb? Anyone seen Farb?

 

[MT15]

Bringing back the classics, I love it!

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

a mostly peaceful one at that.

what is your definition of peaceful?

If some people came to your house and trahed it, broke windows, furniture, trampled the flowerbeds, would you consider that a peaceful visit becaue only a couple family members were harmed? i'm going with no.

But we all know if Antifa did the same thing to the Whitehouse with Trump in it, those word wouldn't even exist in your vocabulary...

 

[Farb]

didnt ask you that...asked you when it ceased to be mostly peaceful.

When did that happen?

May 26th 2020

 

[Farb]

...and when the people make a decision at the booths that goes against you; you lie about voter fraud to your voters and then you conspire to defraud tens of millions of voters by sending fraudulent electors to subvert the election.

Did I miss the conviction in the courts or are we just going by Operation Mockingbird/MSNBC?

Ok, so because of a protest at the capital, the Government should help us but limiting our choices for a future election which just happens to be the oppositions leading candidate? What did the descents say on the case?