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

 

[SaintForLife]

Yep

 

[MT15]

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

Mueller couldn’t charge him with anything because of the DOJ ruling on a sitting president. However, Mueller made it very clear that he obstructed justice. And he did it repeatedly.

I don’t know exactly why Smith chose the charges he did, but I would guess he picked charges that were still felonies, but came with an easier burden of proof.

 

[FullMonte]

Why didn't Jack Smith charge him for inciting an insurrection?

According to what I've read on another thread here, this is apparently evidence that Jack Smith is protecting Trump, and giving him special treatment. Apparently, that's what it means when someone isn't charged.

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

I know. I only wish Mueller had spelled out in his long report what this was all about...All he had to do was spend a couple of paragraphs pointing out that there was a standing DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, state that he could be prosecuted after he left office, and then list the examples of actions take that could be considered obstruction.

I seriously wonder why Mueller didn't do that.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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

The Supreme Court will overturn it.

Trump is Mr. "Election interference".

 

[MT15]

So, this particular amendment has never required a conviction for insurrection any of the times it’s been used in the past.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

Has he been charged or convicted of incitement of an insurrection or whatever the specific charge would be?

He was found by the Colorado Supreme Court to have.

 

[MT15]

So here is how it was explained to me: Chuck, please correct if I get something wrong.

First, what Chuck said. They had an evidentiary hearing in CO and found he had committed insurrection.

The wording of the Amendment also stipulates “aiding or abetting insurrectionists”, which you could make the case he has done that as well by his legal and verbal support of people who actually were convicted of insurrection.

 

[superchuck500]

Yep

I'm not sure what you think due process is but this case began with a petition in state district court - and Trump opposed it. And then, after proceeding and ruling by the district court, it went to the state appellate court, where Trump was the appellee. And finally it was heard and decided by the Colorado Supreme Court after full briefing and oral argument.

That, my friend, is due process.

I'm not by any means saying I think this is clear cut - there is an interpretive process going on here. And ultimately because the clause being interpreted is in the federal Constitution, the SCOTUS will have jurisdiction and justiciability. But dismissing this as nothing more than election interference dismisses the very clear record on what Trump did. And whether that amounts to engaging in insurrection will ultimately be for the Supreme Court - but ballot eligibility is a matter for state courts as an initial matter and the Colorado result has clear and obvious support. It may be found that it's not quite enough to meet the definition of insurrection, but there are no other formal requirements. There is no requirement that Trump have been charged or convicted of anything - it's purely on the historical record alone.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

With all due respect to Steve (and I think he would concede this), if 1 and 2 are true, that renders Trump ineligible as a matter of law without further consideration. We're not re-writing the clause here based on what result we'd be better or worse off with here - and the only way to get to 3 when 1 and 2 are true is to say that well, we're just not going to apply it. That isn't rule of law, that's rule of convenience.

 

[MT15]

With all due respect to Steve (and I think he would concede this), if 1 and 2 are true, that renders Trump ineligible as a matter of law without further consideration. We're not re-writing the clause here based on what result we'd be better or worse off with here - and the only way to get to 3 when 1 and 2 are true is to say that well, we're just not going to apply it. That isn't rule of law, that's rule of convenience.

Yes, I took number 3 as strictly his opinion - that he agrees with the ruling and thinks it is correct. But that he knows how crazy MAGA is as a group and this will lead to violence at some point. And he thinks a loss by votes will be preferable.

However, we all know Trump will never accept a loss at the ballot box, and will try to overturn it by any means he or his sycophants can muster. So, I’m fine with the courts saving us from Trump. In my ideal world the GOP would have done the right thing years ago. But we no longer have an honorable GOP.

 

[MT15]

This idea that I’m seeing everywhere from MAGAs that this is a Democratic scheme to keep Trump off the ballot is just stupid. The plaintiffs were mostly registered Republicans and an Independent or 2, IIRC. No Democrats would be able to file this, as I understand it, since it was concerning the primary.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is actually my thought.