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

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm ready for the false antisemitism charge for posting this.

 

[SaintForLife]

It’s not a “plan” - it’s people saying this law applies to this situation.

Seems like a huge stretch. What's your prediction about how the Supreme Court come down on this case? I'm thinking they strike it down 9-0 or 8-1.

Did you have a response to this post where I replied to your post:

States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification

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...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[Booker]

Or it's more like MLK and the movement never finds another voice as persuasive again. Just hollow, ineffectual echoes.

I would point to the Long political family in Louisiana. There were a bunch of them that rode Huey’s coattails to office, but none of them ever captured a following like he did.

 

[SaintForLife]

in a few moments, someone will arrive to tell you that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written at a time that was specifically about the Conferderates attempting to hold federal office.
In other words, its outdated.

Then ask them about the 2nd amendment. ( gun control etc )

And just sit back and enjoy the show.

They have this process to change the Constitution. I'm not sure if you are aware of it.

 

[MT15]

I'm ready for the false antisemitism charge for posting this.

So? What difference does it make? It’s not anti-Semitic to point out who is funding a lawsuit. But if you are going to go around alleging a “plan” which is just another word for a conspiracy - then you might be getting close to anti-Semitic.

Here is something I don’t remember you responding to: why are so many conservative legal and/or Constitutional scholars behind this effort?

Why do you support someone who tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power? Who tried to use fake electors to turn an election loss into a victory? It’s hard to escape the conclusion that people who support such a person don’t like America very much.

 

[SaintForLife]

So? What difference does it make? It’s not anti-Semitic to point out who is funding a lawsuit. But if you are going to go around alleging a “plan” which is just another word for a conspiracy - then you might be getting close to anti-Semitic.

Oh then I might be getting close to antisemitism? I knew that charge was coming from you.

Here is something I don’t remember you responding to: why are so many conservative legal and/or Constitutional scholars behind this effort?

Are those people anything like the 51 intelligence officials that said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation?

How do you think SCOTUS will vote on this case?

I think it will be 9-0 or 8-1 with them striking it down. If that happens, what should we think of those legal or constitutional scholars opinions on the case?

Why do you support someone who tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power? Who tried to use fake electors to turn an election loss into a victory? It’s hard to escape the conclusion that people who support such a person don’t like America very much.

Because Biden is an authoritarian who supports the war machine.

Trump is a populist and Biden is part of the establishment. It's a fight against the establishment.

 

[superchuck500]

Seems like a huge stretch. What's your prediction about how the Supreme Court come down on this case? I'm thinking they strike it down 9-0 or 8-1.

Did you have a response to this post where I replied to your post:

States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification

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...

madaboutpolitics.com

If it’s such a junk partisan election interference and ploy, why are a pair of Federalist conservative/originalist advocates, among others, contending that it applies?

I can’t guess as to the Court because you really need to see the arguments and their support in the briefs - otherwise you’re just going off of gut reaction. The words in Section 3 have their meaning and we know what Trump did.

You can make all the supposition you want about Jack Smith and why or why not he charged or didn’t charge Trump but it doesn’t really matter unless a conviction is required to trigger Section 3. There doesn’t appear to be such a requirement - maybe Trump will argue that, I don’t know.

 

[MT15]

Because Biden is an authoritarian who supports the war machine.

This is just projection.

Trump has promised he will shut down TV channels who disagree with him or who criticize him. He praises Xi and Kim Jong Un because they rule their countries with an “iron fist”. Those are his words. He has promised to put people in jail who criticize him or disagree with him.

There are populist traces to Trump, just like there were with Hitler and Mussolini. That’s how dictators get into power. Don’t be such a patsy.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is just projection.

Trump has promised he will shut down TV channels who disagree with him or who criticize him. He praises Xi and Kim Jong Un because they rule their countries with an “iron fist”. Those are his words. He has promised to put people in jail who criticize him or disagree with him.

There are populist traces to Trump, just like there were with Hitler and Mussolini. That’s how dictators get into power. Don’t be such a patsy.

I'm worried about Biden's authoritarian actions while you are worried about Trump's words.

Trying to link populists with Hitler. Yawn. That sounds like something an establishment supporter would say.

 

[SaintForLife]

If it’s such a junk partisan election interference and ploy, why are a pair of Federalist conservative/originalist advocates, among others, contending that it applies?

I can’t guess as to the Court because you really need to see the arguments and their support in the briefs - otherwise you’re just going off of gut reaction. The words in Section 3 have their meaning and we know what Trump did.

You can make all the supposition you want about Jack Smith and why or why not he charged or didn’t charge Trump but it doesn’t really matter unless a conviction is required to trigger Section 3. There doesn’t appear to be such a requirement - maybe Trump will argue that, I don’t know.

What about what someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the Supreme Court in 2010 said in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States?

Shouldn't those Federalist/conservative/orginalists advocates have known about how the Supreme Court has addressed that?

Once again, I'm not saying there needs to be a conviction. But it's obvious why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection. He would have have to claim Trump's speech was the cause despite him not advocating violence and also telling his supporters to protest peacefully.

 

[MT15]

I'm worried about Biden's authoritarian actions while you are worried about Trump's words.

Trying to link populists with Hitler. Yawn. That sounds like something an establishment supporter would say.

What authoritarian actions? Please be specific.

 

[FullMonte]

What case was that? The Constitution specifically refers to the "Office of the President of the United States" a bunch of times and someone who holds an office is literally an officer, so according to the US Constitution, the president is in fact a literal officer of the US.

In Free Enterprise Fund vs Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight board, Roberts stated "the people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States., rather officers are appointed by the president pursuant to Article II, section 2." Also, the Constitution's impeachment clause said that the president, vice president, "and all officers of the United States," not "all OTHER officers of the United States."

Furthermore, the original draft of the 14th amendment specifically listed several offices, including the Office of the President, until it was trimmed down to just the blanket statement of all officers of the US.

Which supports my argument, I think. If the original draft listed Senator, Representative, President, and Elector of President or Vice President, and then President was removed, that would imply they did not want to include the President. I can see no logical reason why they would specify Senator, Representative, and even state appointed elector, but lump President in with "all officers." They felt the need to specifically state that someone who was barred could not sign the certificate saying who a state's electoral votes went to, but including the 9 letters of "President" made it too long?

So even if the Supreme Court ruled in one instance that the president is not an officer, it's going to be hard to explain how the 14th amendment doesn't specifically include the holder of the "Office of the President" as is referred to several times within the Constitution itself. There's plenty of historic texts that show the framers of the 14th amendment wrote it in response to Confederates, but they intended it to be open ended and not limited to just Confederates.

I didn't say it was limited to just Confederates. I said that it was designed to prevent states from sending insurrectionists into federal offices that other states had no way of preventing.

Edited to add: In digging around, I did find something that is interesting, and would be karma in one of the best ways. In 2020, Trump argued (in an effort to move a trial to federal court), that he was a federal officer so the suit should be moved to federal court. The appellate court uphold that argument and moved the case. The district court then dismissed the suit for "failure to state a claim." It would be most appropriate if SCOTUS ruled, based on Trump's own arguments, that he was an officer of the United States, so the Colorado ruling stands.

 

[MT15]

Edited to add: In digging around, I did find something that is interesting, and would be karma in one of the best ways. In 2020, Trump argued (in an effort to move a trial to federal court), that he was a federal officer so the suit should be moved to federal court. The appellate court uphold that argument and moved the case. The district court then dismissed the suit for "failure to state a claim." It would be most appropriate if SCOTUS ruled, based on Trump's own arguments, that he was an officer of the United States, so the Colorado ruling stands.

Yes, I saw this online as well. It‘s one of several times Trump’s legal team is arguing out of both sides of their mouths. You have to think it will eventually catch up to him.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Alrighty then...

Chalmette woman files suit seeking to remove Trump from Louisiana ballot

Petitioner cites 14th Amendment rule disqualifying insurrectionists

www.fox8live.com

 

[superchuck500]

What about what someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the Supreme Court in 2010 said in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States?

Shouldn't those Federalist/conservative/orginalists advocates have known about how the Supreme Court has addressed that?

Once again, I'm not saying there needs to be a conviction. But it's obvious why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting or participating in an insurrection. He would have have to claim Trump's speech was the cause despite him not advocating violence and also telling his supporters to protest peacefully.

What about something someone said about some case?

What case?

 

[SaintForLife]

What about something someone said about some case?

What case?

States may move to keep Trump off the ballot based on 14th Amendment disqualification

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...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally in a decision that has potential Electoral College consequences.

While Maine has just four electoral votes, it’s one of two states to split them. Trump won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.

The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado is a Democratic-leaning state that is not expected to be competitive for Republicans in November.


Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.……..

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states' authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state became the first election official to take action unilaterally as the Supreme Court is set to rule if Trump remains eligible to run.

apnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally in a decision that has potential Electoral College consequences.

While Maine has just four electoral votes, it’s one of two states to split them. Trump won one of Maine’s electors in 2020, so having him off the ballot there should he emerge as the Republican general election candidate could have outsized implications in a race that is expected to be narrowly decided.

The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a December ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado is a Democratic-leaning state that is not expected to be competitive for Republicans in November.


Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.……..

Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states' authority to block former president

Maine’s Democratic secretary of state became the first election official to take action unilaterally as the Supreme Court is set to rule if Trump remains eligible to run.

apnews.com

Authoritarianism at work.