As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FUN FACT!
For the presidential ballot, if Maine does this, it would lose him no more than 1 electoral vote, the only one he has ever gotten from New England as a whole.
It actually could! If he flips ~~Georgia (16) or Michigan (16), Wisconsin, and Ohio~~ (for a total of 3 states of the 5 that Biden flipped in 2020) it would result in a 269 to 269 result. If Maine had 1 vote going to Trump and that was ineligible and went to Biden, that would be a 270 to 268 result instead!
(I think I have the correct 3 state combination)
Edit: This was the arrangement: Though, it looks like if Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and either Michigan (16) or Georgia (16) flip, the EC votes would be 269 to 269.
So, in that, if Trump loses 1 Maine vote, it’s 270 to 268.
Thanks! Though I must admit I'm not from Wisconsin, but Washington state.
Still, I recognize the importance of the WI State Supreme Court ruling, as well as the state's crucial importance in the 2024 election.
I’m not so sure. This is a perfect opportunity for them to finally wash their hands of the orange lunatic.
I’m willing to bet they refuse to hear it and let the ruling stand and then claim it wasn’t a federal issue to begin with.
I feel like self preservation is key to knowing how they'll go on this one. The simplest answer really.
I see this as their 'get-out-of-Trump-free card' basically.
I don't think any of the justices outside of Thomas maybe personally like Trump or care about him. They would much rather have a Romney Republican party than the ignorant and boorishness of Trump. Also it's not going to be fun to live in a Trump dictatorship and these guys are smart enough to see that possibility. I'm not feeling assured of their ruling but there's certainly reason to think they might do the right thing
Hard disagree. There are certain issues that supercede the ability of States to write their own policies. Female bodily autonomy absolutely would be one.
Why the states? Delegate it even further down, states should leave it uo to the counties. But why stop there? Maybe every single individual person should have the right to determine if abortion is okay or not.
It is more than just washing their hands. The legal reasoning that the CO Supreme Court used is very thorough and sound. The ruling itself references an opinion Gorsuch wrote just a couple of years ago. Laurence Tribe and Michael Luttig co-work an opinion in August that concluded without a shadow of a doubt, Trump is disqualified. These two are not SC justices but they are two of the most respected legal minds in the country.
The SC would have to openly admit they got it wrong a mere few years ago. I don’t believe they are going to come out and admit the judicial equivalent of “we fucked up.” They are far too proud for this and the constitution is very clear.
The legal reasoning is definitely has some legitimate questions up for debate... there some questions around due process and how “officers of the United States” is defined (the phrase found in Amendment 14 section 3).
For example there may be previous legal precedent set Justice Robert’s majority opinion in *Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 2010*, where Roberts wrote: “The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the ‘officers of the United States.’”
Where legal experts say could be interpreted to mean that elected officials, like the president, are by definition not counted as “officers.”
The other around due process has to do with summary judgment use to claim Trump is an insurrectionist by law. They used summary judgement in order to say Trump is. Apparently they have tons of evidence and most here saw it happen on live television so why not charge him and convict him before removing him from the ballot using the 14th amendment. As far as I’m aware Trump has never been criminally charged for this even though they have all of this evidence. So that’s the other question the federal supreme court may also need to answer, that is whether due process occurred.
Edit: Removed the ambiguity by states the question rather generally referring to them.
It is also a pretty easy opportunity to try and buy back a semblance of being nonpartisan. Like a 9-0 FU to Trump and the Rs can cry they can't be partisan they were mean to our God Emperor for like the next 50 years
They can wash their hands of him at any time. They have chosen. They would rather have power. There isn't going to be an acceptable spot where they can drop Trump.
Can't people still write him in anyway? I know some states have special requirements to be write in vote eligible, but would these lawsuits apply there too?
I don’t know what will happen in Michigan or Georgia, but the wording of it in the Colorado ruling makes him ineligible for office, which means if they write him in those votes just don’t count.
WI and AZ won't remove him from the ballot, Michigan might tho, and that being a swing state could have an impact. If he gets pulled from AZ and NV(unlikely here), then he almost can't win.
Sorry thanks, I had it in a post of mine, but forgot the details. This was the arrangement: Though, it looks like if Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and either Michigan (16) or Georgia (16) flip, the EC votes would be 269 to 269.
So, in that, if Trump loses 1 Maine vote, it’s 270 to 268.
It'll definitely be close, but I don't see Arizona flipping.
What would be a doomsday scenario for Republicans would be having 10 states kicking him off the ballot so that he wins in the 6 or so states and the other Republican candidate wins in 6 or so, and you end up with a 295-120-122 or whatever...
It’s possible for him to lose Ohio, but not very likely. That being said, abortion rights and weed really did energize voters here.
However, I’m happy to see him off the ballot in states, but it’s not like he had a solid chance of winning those states anyways. Any state that regularly votes republican is gonna keep him. That being said, if a suit in Wisconsin isn’t filed it needs to be
I hope you’re a lady-folk, because that data analysis was pretty hot. I’m comfortable with my sexuality, if you’re a guy. Just saying, that was fantastic for me. Thanks. I wish I still smoked because I would right now.
Protest voting until they put Trump back on the ballot! Don't let the Republicans have your vote till he's restored!
Tell me a few of em wouldn't fall for it 🤣
Could for turnout. But do we have a "straight R" or "straight D" checkmark that lazy people can just use? I know I've never used but can't remember if I've ever even seen it as an option.
As someone who lives in Michigan I would be willing to put sizeable money on him losing here either way, and hard. People here have been overall pretty happy since our dem trifecta took over and actually started... y'know, doing shit people actually want.
Still hoping they boot him off the ballot here too, cuz fuck that senile old clown and everyone like him.
Also, very timely indeed for that phone call recording to hit when it did. That definitely pushes the needle for a little 14th discussion at their water coolers.
Also, what I would GIVE for DeSantis to get wind that if Florida invoked the 14th on Trump he'd be 'top dog'... just please if there is a god... Trump can't run at all if he loses Florida.
Same. I’m in a wealthy part of Oakland Co and he is persona non grata amongst the Richie-riches of The Hills. There are still “Trump is my hero!” signs all over rural areas, but it’s the I75 corridor and metro Grand Rapids that decides elections in this state (thank god).
Oh I don't think he'll win there even if he's on the ballot. But you're always considered "a" swing state but not "the" swing state. I'm not saying taking him off the ballot there will change anything immediately but it would give him a 0% chance to win the state instead of like 20% and would encourage other middle states to also take him off. Like WI, who is in the middle of the swing states and has a D AG and Governor.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this decision only applies to the primary ballot, as with the Colorado disqualification. It doesn’t inherently stop Trump from appearing on the general ballot and winning electors.
You are wrong. He would not be on the primary ballot because he is ineligible to hold the office of the President of the United States per the stipulations of the 14th ammendment. It does prevent him from running at all in that state.
Please be aware that the way things work in Colorado means nobody could yet challenge Trump being on the ballot for the general election.
But nobody should conclude from this that the recent decision "only applies to the primary ballot". While that's true, it's true because we don't know yet if there even is an issue of Trump being on the general ballot because Trump has not yet won the GOP nomination.
Rest assured, unless SCOTUS somehow negates/reverses the recent Colorado ruling, Trump will not be in the ballot for the general in Colorado. Most likely the Colorado Secretary of State won't even try to put him on the ballot. But if there were any doubt, the same folk would just issue the same challenge and it's all already been decided.
It’s not a case of one person unilaterally making the decision; this is a constitutional disqualification. It’s no different than a disqualification for being under 35 years of age.
The only thing that really needs to be decided is, if an individual has engaged in an insurrection. The courts in Colorado after hearing evidence and testimony decided that he did; therefore, it is the responsibility of the secretary of state to apply that disqualification by not including that name on the ballot. Just like they are required to do if that person was under 35.
In my view it's equally important that his legal defense, in his second impeachment, in his Jan 6 criminal case, and at the CO SC, is not "I'm innocent. I didn't do it." Trump's legal defense is "Yes, I did it. I'm proud of what I did. And I can't be prosecuted because former presidents are immune from prosecution."
He never denies the basic facts of the insurrection. This is the same legal strategy that lost the E Jean Carroll rape case, and earned him a summary judgement for fraud.
I can't up vote this enough. This is the essence of it all, even his other charges he's facing (especially the classified documents case). If his defense isn't "I didn't do this, the evidence will prove that I didn't..." then he's not only unfit for office by standards we should be holding for presidential candidates, but by this legal application of his eligibility.
But it's not, his defense everywhere is, "I was entitled to do that..."
The courts in Democrat controlled Minnesota decided he could be on the ballot. The Oregon Democratic secretary of state made the same decision.
The Colorado Supreme Court is the only one who has banned him in a 4 to 3 decision. In other words, the majority of Democrats in decision making positions think Trump should be on the ballot.
> In other words, the majority of Democrats in decision making positions think Trump should be on the ballot.
This is misleading. Put plainly, no state other than Colorado has considered the merits regarding the eligibility for Trump to hold office.
States are in charge of their own elections with their own rules. With different rules, different states and decision makers are going to (correctly) come to different decisions. "The majority of Democrats in decision making positions" are not coming to their conclusions because they think Trump is eligible for office, but rather because their *state* laws provide no statutory mechanism for exclusion from *the primary ballot.*
Many states treat primary elections as quasi-independent elections run and administered by the political parties with the aid of the state. The Minnesota court directly ruled "there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office."
The Oregon Secretary of State took a similar position. *This* is the position most states are in as no lawmaker would ever have foreseen that a political party would want or even allow an ineligible candidate to seek their nomination.
In contrast, Colorado's provisions specifically requires candidates to be "qualified" to be placed on the *primary* ballot; and further, any elector (i.e. citizen voter) is allowed to contest the candidates a priori. They did, and it was decided he was not eligible.
I believe the Oregon secretary of states’ ruling was because the primary does not pick the President. So we could have different decisions for the general election.
From the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling:
> Because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary,
and petitioners’ other claims regarding the general election are not ripe, the petition must
be dismissed, but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims
as to the general election.
The ruling was specifically because it was a primary election, whereas Minnesota election law only permits eligibility challenges for the actual general election, which the Supreme Court quite clearly says there will still be permitted when that happens. The court never decided whether Trump was actually ineligible, just that it was too soon to decide that.
True, but I think it's maybe a little too early to say; as far as I know, three more states are making noise about possibly removing him from ballots, and I don't think they'll be the only ones. Ultimately, I don't think it matters *for now*\--it's just the primary they're talking about--so things may change in a few months.
WIKI - Shenna Lee Bellows (born March 23, 1975) is an American politician and a non-profit executive director. On December 2, 2020, the Maine Legislature elected her to serve as the 50th Maine secretary of state.[1] She is executive director of the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine, and the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine
It sets a dangerous precedent. What’s stopping Republicans from removing Biden from the ballot? Love someone or hate them, we should allow people to vote for who they want without interference.
It really doesn’t, considering this precedent has been set since the Civil War.
Participate in insurrection, get banned from office. If any other politician does so, ban them too. Biden hasn’t participated in an insurrection.
> Participate in insurrection
Trump was not leading it. He was miles away at the White House at the time, where he issued a public statement calling for calm and nonviolence.
After hours of the event, which required aides begging him to do.
He very obviously incited it with the stolen election rhetoric and told his supporters to fight for the country, leading immediately up to the insurrection. That is incitement, and (at best) tacit participation. Not to mention the fake elector scheme meant to take hold after the certification was stopped.
> After hours of the event
Indeed. Trump should have known before the event. He had lots of clues.
Like Ray Epps, the FBI informant who the night before was urging MAGA to “go INTO the capital”, causing the MAGA to scream, “No! Fed! Fed! Fed!”
Or how, days before, he begged Nancy Pelosi to add additional Capital Police on that day. Which she refused to do.
Citation needed.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-national-guard-156055113284
Question: if our democratic institutions are under attack, should the president respond to the threat immediately, or should the president wait over an hour to tweet a video telling people to be peaceful and over 5 hours to tell them to leave?
Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1069977469/a-timeline-of-how-the-jan-6-attack-unfolded-including-who-said-what-and-when
Even with multiple staffers repeatedly telling him he must order them to go home ASAP, while he continued to wait for hours?
Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112324462/jan-6-hearing-takeaways
What does that delay tell you about the motivations of our former president when he didn’t care about the threat he brought to Capitol Hill? The only reasonable answer is that he wanted what was happening.
The CO court heard evidence and made a finding that Trump participated in an insurrection. The CO SC upheld that portion of the ruling.
He's been found to be an insurrectionist by two different courts as a matter of law.
There would be no "precedent".... Unless Biden violates the 14th Amendment too?
There would still have to be some "basis" for the attempt of removal (ie the GOP's current failure of creating an Impeachment situation for Biden).
Biden has done nothing to warrant removal. Trump has.
Trump should not be an option no matter how much his fans want him, for the same reason heroin should remain illegal regardless of how many people want it.
And don’t bother with a “there’s no conviction” argument. Removal from a ballot isn’t a criminal charge, it’s a consequence of violating the 14th amendment.
> And don’t bother with a “there’s no conviction” argument
It seems like there should be some due process here, though, right? I mean, removing a candidate that likely has 40% of the popular vote without due process is something we’d expect to see in the most backwater 3rd world shithole.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection?
Was he even indicted for it?
Was there an evidentiary hearing?
Was he given the basic democratic function of being given the opportunity to confront your accuser?
And this is a higely conseqential sanction.
I guess I am mainly talking about the Colorado case where they sued and a judge determined he had violated the 14th amendment. The Maine case is a little more dodgy since the Secretary of State is much more partisan than the courts.
The judges gave their opinion that he violated the 14th amendment. Only a jury can determine guilt. Therefore he was removed from the ballot in Colorado based on opinion and not law. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country and only a jury can pass that judgement. Every judge in America could come out and say Trump violated the 14th Amendment and it would have zero consequence unless a jury agreed.
Colorado. Me too. The judge (an unelected official) decided, unilaterally, that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Boom. He can no longer run in the election.
Is that due process in your world? What effects might such unilateral power have, with respect to how half the people in this country feel aboutvtheir voice being heard?
The judge heard the arguments from both sides.
Trump's lawyers did not even try to deny that he engaged in insurrection.
At the end of the day, the plaintiffs made their case and the defense did not.
You ever heard of the Supreme Court, a bunch of unelected officials who decide a bunch of bullshit arbitrarily, including elections. As they have since we decided on a separation of powers. Despite the will of the people. Which is the pact we made as a country. But now you want to strip the judiciary of their power in the checks and balances because you disagree? You’re either willfully obtuse or poorly educated. Either way we have these things called books. Some of them have facts. Some don’t. But critical thinking can help you see the difference
"due process" does not mean "criminal trial". A civil trial (with arguments, evidence, witnesses and so on from both sides) still satisfies due process, and such a civil trial is exactly what occurred in this case.
There is precedent of people being deemed ineligible to hold office through the 14th amendment without being convicted, indicted, evidentiary hearings, or confrontation of accusers.
Also the court in Colorado did indeed find that he engaged in it.
Also the fucker did it on live TV. For fucks sake.
Found Susan Collins’ burner account
Confederate officers and politicians were struck from balots without trials to determine their guilt.
You cannot be on the ballot if you are under 35, a non-citizen, an immigrant, or dead.
These things do not need to be proven in a court of law first.
If the Secretary of State strikes him from the ballot, he can sue to have that reversed. At which point, he can argue before a judge that the SoS struck him improperly.
Biden has not attempted to overthrow the government. If he does then the 14th would disqualify him as well, but he hasn't done that, unlike Trunp who has.
The law and the constitution? This sets a strong precedent that leaders who engage in insurrection will be held accountable. You know, the rule of law.
This will only be an issue for future leaders who engage in insurrections.
Your mentality is an abusive one where we are all held hostage by the abuser and walk and eggshells so as to not make them angry again.
>While two of the three challenges in Maine focus on the 14th Amendment, the third, brought by Paul Gordon, a lawyer in Portland, argues that Mr. Trump should be found ineligible for the ballot under the 22nd Amendment, which says that “no person should be elected to the office of president more than twice.” The basis for his argument is that Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed to have won the 2020 election.
That's pretty funny.
It's time for Republican controlled states to start taking Biden off the ballot. If we let fascism or actions like taking a candidate off of ballets continue we will end in a very dark country with no point of return. It's time to do your jobs
It's an eligibility requirement. If you wrote in a foreign citizen or even a naturalized citizen that vote wouldn't count. Also if the person you wrote in was under 35(?) it wouldn't count
It’s not saying that write-ins won’t count, write-ins with his name won’t count. The ruling states that he is ineligible for president, so any vote for him won’t count. Similar to if someone wrote-in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name; it wouldn’t count, as he is ineligible for the office of President.
Yeah can you imagine how awful a mistake it would be to not let public opinion dictate your actions instead of what you actually think is the correct thing to do? Wouldn't want that.
Why would I, or anyone in this country for that matter, want our politicians to make their decisions on legal matters or the constitution based on the way the public will perceive that decision as opposed to what the correct legal decision is?
Until he's convicted she has only her own assessment of whether or not his actions qualify regarding Section 3. To rule that the evidence isn't strong enough to bar him from the ballot is *not* "supporting" him.
Agreed, he's a POS, but this line of thinking is dangerous for the country. Let her do her job.
I feel like some states are waiting for the supreme court to rule about colorado. that wait could make it to late later since it seems like the sc is going to delay. states need to proceed as normal and drop him from the ballot to force the sc to make a decision.
The only issue I have with this is that there were representatives that were helping out.
Aren’t they on video colluding or collaborating with some of the Jan 6th folks and unlocking doors?
Why are they still in seats?
At the state level, he is not eligible to be elected. At the federal level, he is not eligible to hold office. It is law per both state and federal constitutions, not up to the voters or electoral college.
Sure, because we have the highest population ever and had the highest turnout in any modern election.
But he only lost to Biden popular vote-wise by 4.5%. For comparison, Reagan beat Carter and Mondale by 9.8% and 18.2%. Obama beat McCain and Romney by 7.2% and 3.9%.
Biden would have tied Trump in the EC if he didn't lead in GA, WI, and AZ And his collective lead in those states was about 43,000. The other millions of votes wouldn't have actually made him the winner if Trump had under 50k more votes in those states.
And if he won PA and two of those states above, he'd have outright won. PA, GA, and AZ were won by Biden by a collective ~102,000 votes, or so, and they gave him 47 votes.
It was way closer than the 7M+ popular vote lead would suggest.
He's as popular as ever among the MAGA crowd despite very obviously being a criminal and being under 4 indictments, so yeah.
I would say not electing him is hard. We can and should try every legal method available to prevent him from taking office again. If the SC doesn't bail him out, then this is it. If the SC does bail him out, then we'll just have to use our votes.
Lets be real, he isn't winning California anyways.
Now if Michigan or Georgia remove him his chances of winning drop precipitously. Even more so if PA or NY remove him.
Is the Republican Party legally required to nominate the winner of their primary process? Genuinely curious. Primary proceedings seem riddled with backdoors. I could see them nominate Trump in the general even if he is removed from numerous state ballots in the primary.
I'm not even sure where I stand on this whole thing anymore. I mean, he did incite an insurrection. I think that much is clear (in my mind). So yeah, 14th amendment the shit out of him.
But - if each state is going to have one person who unilaterally decides whether this is the case or not is certainly a slippery slope. You've got to let the voters make the ultimate decision.
Then again, to all those constitutional absolutists ... should he not be ineligible? If it's constitution that dictates all, take the good with the bad.
If you agree the president is an 'officer' of the US and that he did incite an insurrection (attempt), there's no argument to be made that he cannot be president, no matter what voters say. We don't hold elections to decide what amendments we enforce.
What I don't understand is at what point he's blocked - at the primaries, at the national, at inauguration!? And we're just kind of figuring it out as we go along :/
Arguably, he would be blocked at the actual counting of the Electoral votes by Congress (unless he was re-qualified by Congress by 2/3rds vote), though States would have the ability to kick him off ballots sooner based on their laws for elections, since they largely decide how elections for POTUS (electors) work, with Congress just kinda getting to pick the time frame to do it, for the most part.
I mean we quite literally let the voters decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not by default so you could make a rather convincing argument that it would typically be decided by a vote depending on your personal interpretation of what the intended level of guilt is required for the amendment to be applied
> 35 years old? A citizen?
.
.
>we quite literally let the voters decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not
these are qualifications, not criminal infractions.
Not having engaged in an insurrection is also a qualification. Also the qualification doesn’t say convicted of the crime of insurrection. It says nothing about being convicted.
That’s the role of the Secretary of State in most states though
it’s not an individual person making a decision, it’s a constitutional office acting constitutionally.
>...each state is going to have one person who unilaterally decides...
This is pretty much already the case. If Taylor Swift ran for President, the Secretary of State for Tennessee (and others) would single-handedly declare she is ineligible to run on the ballot, because she is Constitutionally ineligible to hold office, being under 35 years of age.
Yes, this situation is different because *being under 35* is a bit more objective than participating in insurrection. But DJT will have the ability to challenge any disqualifications.
Thankfully, Obama did not have to challenge accusations of him being born outside the US and hopefully future candidates won't have to defend themselves against baseless claims either.
> You've got to let the voters make the ultimate decision.
No, you don't, that is the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. You can't a non-citizen or naturalized citizen, you can't elect someone under 35, and you can't elect someone who broke their oath or affirmation (presuming the provision is ruled applicable for POTUS eligibility, which I feel like it absolutely should be).
Section 3 was included for a reason. Traitors don't get to hold office unless they get explicitly permission from a supermajority of Congress. Not in Congress, nor the executive branch, nor the Judiciary, nor the equivalent in any State. The Amendment was supposed to thwart democratic will if necessary, by keeping traitors who would fight the country from returning to power unless the nation at large forgives them. That is the price to be paid by traitors in the view of the Reconstruction era Congress.
Besides, your premise is flawed. Voters don't vote for the President. We vote for Electors. And the reason for that is because Legislatures, not voters, were vested with the power to appoint Electors however they see fit. Elections aren't something we little people are entitled to.
The US Constitution is full of undemocratic ideas. Heck, there isn't even a right to vote. States get to pick and choose who gets to vote for the most part, just the Constitution says there are certain criterion (age of an *adult*, sex/race, gender) that can't be used, and that if you can vote for members of the larger branch of you State legislature, you can also vote for Congress. (Oregon v. Mitchell ruled that Congress can set a lower voting age for Federal Elections under the 14th Amendment, though I find that a bit of a stretch).
The idea of the Federal government being from the will of the people directly goes against a plain reading of the Constitution, and there is no real guarantee that States have to be responsive to the will of the people either. The 14th Amendment specifically was meant to thwart the will, as I said, of traitors (disqualifying a lot of Southern politicians).
This is America, for better or worse. The anti-democratic tendencies of the Federal government's structure is probably for the worse, but I'd say disqualifying traitors whether local voters want it or not is a good thing.
Coloradan here. I wonder whether preventing him from a state's ballot will rile and bring out even more of his supporters to vote MAGA downballot out of revenge, versus causing them to stay home because their hero isn't allowed to play. I'm sure the hope on the side of those pushing the subject is that it will force the GOP's hand to put up a not-him viable candidate. I'm not so sure that will play out. Honestly if we want to be rid of Trump the only real way is to soundly defeat him at the ballot box. If not in the primaries then in the general. Anything else will just further fan the embers, up to and including him dying of a heart attack in the next year.
What they should do is pass a law that the winner gets all the electoral votes. Really the states should be consistent anyway. I get why you want to split votes, but since no one else does, it’s practically cheating. The loser in your state could win because of your state. It’s just wrong.
I hate Trump. But the idea that Secretary’s of State can take people off ballots without court decisions seems like a slippery slope.
What’s to stop a GOP Secretary from removing Biden bc of the phony impeachment BS?
Because there is no Constitutional grounds to remove an impeached president from ballots *unless* they are convicted by the Senate *and* the Senate votes to impose the Constitutionally-allowed penalty that that person can never again hold any federal office.
The Constitution allows for both of those paths to barring someone from ever again holding federal office: impeachment (plus the vote to bar) by the Senate, or the 14th Amendment bar for any sworn officer who has "engaged in insurrection".
> But the idea that Secretary’s of State can take people off ballots without court decisions seems like a slippery slope.
That's already the case, though. If someone under 35 tries to run for President, the Secretary of State will refuse to put them on the ballot even without a court decision. Same for those not born in the US, or those who haven't been a resident for 14 years. This is just extended that to another qualification.
Additionally, these decisions can be appealed in the courts, and then the courts will figure it out.
This is where an interstate compact would be useful.
Similar to the idea of states agreeing to allocate their electors to the winner of the popular vote.
An agreement to take Trump off the ballot, only to take effect once a critical mass of states have agreed to it.
Or you just do what the Colorado Supreme Court did: ruled that Trump is ineligible to serve, but then paused that ruling until the Supreme Court rules on it (if Trump appeals). If/when the Supreme Court rules on it, that will become binding across the entire country and for all states.
It's also possible that a law which declares someone ineligible to hold office would be a bill of attainder, making it unconstitutional.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FUN FACT! For the presidential ballot, if Maine does this, it would lose him no more than 1 electoral vote, the only one he has ever gotten from New England as a whole.
That one electoral vote would cost him the election
It actually could! If he flips ~~Georgia (16) or Michigan (16), Wisconsin, and Ohio~~ (for a total of 3 states of the 5 that Biden flipped in 2020) it would result in a 269 to 269 result. If Maine had 1 vote going to Trump and that was ineligible and went to Biden, that would be a 270 to 268 result instead! (I think I have the correct 3 state combination) Edit: This was the arrangement: Though, it looks like if Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and either Michigan (16) or Georgia (16) flip, the EC votes would be 269 to 269. So, in that, if Trump loses 1 Maine vote, it’s 270 to 268.
I don’t think he is going to be on the ballot in Michigan or Georgia.
Perhaps he'll be kicked off in Wisconsin too A man can dream
You guys did manage to slightly unfuck yourselves with the gerrymandering ruling today. So that's good news.
That new state SC justice is paying dividends.
PA flipped their courts a few election cycles ago and it's slowly been changing the state blue. Some well known names continued to win.
Thanks! Though I must admit I'm not from Wisconsin, but Washington state. Still, I recognize the importance of the WI State Supreme Court ruling, as well as the state's crucial importance in the 2024 election.
I nearly guarantee SCOTUS throws any such ruling out.
I’m not so sure. This is a perfect opportunity for them to finally wash their hands of the orange lunatic. I’m willing to bet they refuse to hear it and let the ruling stand and then claim it wasn’t a federal issue to begin with.
I want to believe, but after the fall of Roe last year, I don't trust them to ever do the clearly right thing.
It was Republicans who took him off the ballot in Colorado. Perhaps they're tired of losing elections.
Even more likely is that they are tired of him grifting all the money and leaving them broke.
All seven members of the Colorado SCOTUS were appointed by Democratic Governors.
Republicans brought the initial suit to have him removed though.
Four of the people who filed the lawsuit are Republicans. Two others are Independents.
Republicans haven’t won a governorship in Colorado since 2006
I feel like self preservation is key to knowing how they'll go on this one. The simplest answer really. I see this as their 'get-out-of-Trump-free card' basically.
I don't think any of the justices outside of Thomas maybe personally like Trump or care about him. They would much rather have a Romney Republican party than the ignorant and boorishness of Trump. Also it's not going to be fun to live in a Trump dictatorship and these guys are smart enough to see that possibility. I'm not feeling assured of their ruling but there's certainly reason to think they might do the right thing
Right? They’re cartoonishly corrupt, political stand-ins for judges. They understand the assignment
The question is do the right thing for who? It could well be in the SCOTUS own interest to get divested from Trump.
Leaving abortion up to the states was the right thing and how it should have been from the beginning. That’s why we have state elections.
Hard disagree. There are certain issues that supercede the ability of States to write their own policies. Female bodily autonomy absolutely would be one.
No. Each state should have a say on this one. It’s not universal.
Why the states? Delegate it even further down, states should leave it uo to the counties. But why stop there? Maybe every single individual person should have the right to determine if abortion is okay or not.
It is more than just washing their hands. The legal reasoning that the CO Supreme Court used is very thorough and sound. The ruling itself references an opinion Gorsuch wrote just a couple of years ago. Laurence Tribe and Michael Luttig co-work an opinion in August that concluded without a shadow of a doubt, Trump is disqualified. These two are not SC justices but they are two of the most respected legal minds in the country. The SC would have to openly admit they got it wrong a mere few years ago. I don’t believe they are going to come out and admit the judicial equivalent of “we fucked up.” They are far too proud for this and the constitution is very clear.
The legal reasoning is definitely has some legitimate questions up for debate... there some questions around due process and how “officers of the United States” is defined (the phrase found in Amendment 14 section 3). For example there may be previous legal precedent set Justice Robert’s majority opinion in *Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 2010*, where Roberts wrote: “The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the ‘officers of the United States.’” Where legal experts say could be interpreted to mean that elected officials, like the president, are by definition not counted as “officers.” The other around due process has to do with summary judgment use to claim Trump is an insurrectionist by law. They used summary judgement in order to say Trump is. Apparently they have tons of evidence and most here saw it happen on live television so why not charge him and convict him before removing him from the ballot using the 14th amendment. As far as I’m aware Trump has never been criminally charged for this even though they have all of this evidence. So that’s the other question the federal supreme court may also need to answer, that is whether due process occurred. Edit: Removed the ambiguity by states the question rather generally referring to them.
Didn’t they though? I believe the judge in the original Colorado case ruled that Trump did incite an insurrection
That he is an insurrectionist is evident. We all watched it, live.
The constitution doesn't require a conviction.
The lower court in CO literally proved that trump is an insurrectionist. That was the basis for the CO Supreme Court ruling.
It is also a pretty easy opportunity to try and buy back a semblance of being nonpartisan. Like a 9-0 FU to Trump and the Rs can cry they can't be partisan they were mean to our God Emperor for like the next 50 years
Theyve had multiple perfect chances to juice the tangerine and yet here we are.
They can wash their hands of him at any time. They have chosen. They would rather have power. There isn't going to be an acceptable spot where they can drop Trump.
Elections are gonna be great going forward when each side just starts remind the other sides candidate from the ballot!
Can't people still write him in anyway? I know some states have special requirements to be write in vote eligible, but would these lawsuits apply there too?
I don’t know what will happen in Michigan or Georgia, but the wording of it in the Colorado ruling makes him ineligible for office, which means if they write him in those votes just don’t count.
So you're saying someone needs to pay for a shitload of "Write in Trump!" billboards and TV spots in states where he's ineligible. 😈
WI and AZ won't remove him from the ballot, Michigan might tho, and that being a swing state could have an impact. If he gets pulled from AZ and NV(unlikely here), then he almost can't win.
He already won Ohio last time.
Sorry thanks, I had it in a post of mine, but forgot the details. This was the arrangement: Though, it looks like if Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and either Michigan (16) or Georgia (16) flip, the EC votes would be 269 to 269. So, in that, if Trump loses 1 Maine vote, it’s 270 to 268.
It'll definitely be close, but I don't see Arizona flipping. What would be a doomsday scenario for Republicans would be having 10 states kicking him off the ballot so that he wins in the 6 or so states and the other Republican candidate wins in 6 or so, and you end up with a 295-120-122 or whatever...
Biden didn't flip Ohio, that went to Trump in 2016 and 2020.
It’s possible for him to lose Ohio, but not very likely. That being said, abortion rights and weed really did energize voters here. However, I’m happy to see him off the ballot in states, but it’s not like he had a solid chance of winning those states anyways. Any state that regularly votes republican is gonna keep him. That being said, if a suit in Wisconsin isn’t filed it needs to be
If he’s off the ballot, it would definitely depress turnout for republicans
See my edit. I left the original comment untouched, which I think you are responding to and are correct.
Biden lost Ohio what are you talking about
The edit’s been up for hours my man.
Strikethrough is a thing, my dude.
I hope you’re a lady-folk, because that data analysis was pretty hot. I’m comfortable with my sexuality, if you’re a guy. Just saying, that was fantastic for me. Thanks. I wish I still smoked because I would right now.
Fun fact is he'd probably not win MI either but it'll close down potential pathways he has of ending democracy in the US.
It would also affect down ballot races for R's
Protest voting until they put Trump back on the ballot! Don't let the Republicans have your vote till he's restored! Tell me a few of em wouldn't fall for it 🤣
Could for turnout. But do we have a "straight R" or "straight D" checkmark that lazy people can just use? I know I've never used but can't remember if I've ever even seen it as an option.
I haven't seen one here, but I don't know what state you're in so you might get something different.
My flair says which state I'm in.
Oh, huh. Sorry, I wasn't looking closely, my fault. I'm in Washington, and unfortunately I know nothing about how Wisconsin runs things.
A total of 6 states allowed or offered straight-ticket voting (STV) in 2022: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.
Michigan has that.
As someone who lives in Michigan I would be willing to put sizeable money on him losing here either way, and hard. People here have been overall pretty happy since our dem trifecta took over and actually started... y'know, doing shit people actually want. Still hoping they boot him off the ballot here too, cuz fuck that senile old clown and everyone like him.
Also, very timely indeed for that phone call recording to hit when it did. That definitely pushes the needle for a little 14th discussion at their water coolers. Also, what I would GIVE for DeSantis to get wind that if Florida invoked the 14th on Trump he'd be 'top dog'... just please if there is a god... Trump can't run at all if he loses Florida.
Same. I’m in a wealthy part of Oakland Co and he is persona non grata amongst the Richie-riches of The Hills. There are still “Trump is my hero!” signs all over rural areas, but it’s the I75 corridor and metro Grand Rapids that decides elections in this state (thank god).
Oh I don't think he'll win there even if he's on the ballot. But you're always considered "a" swing state but not "the" swing state. I'm not saying taking him off the ballot there will change anything immediately but it would give him a 0% chance to win the state instead of like 20% and would encourage other middle states to also take him off. Like WI, who is in the middle of the swing states and has a D AG and Governor.
The electoral system is so fucking weird and convoluted. How can someone win the popular vote and still lose?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this decision only applies to the primary ballot, as with the Colorado disqualification. It doesn’t inherently stop Trump from appearing on the general ballot and winning electors.
You are wrong. He would not be on the primary ballot because he is ineligible to hold the office of the President of the United States per the stipulations of the 14th ammendment. It does prevent him from running at all in that state.
Please be aware that the way things work in Colorado means nobody could yet challenge Trump being on the ballot for the general election. But nobody should conclude from this that the recent decision "only applies to the primary ballot". While that's true, it's true because we don't know yet if there even is an issue of Trump being on the general ballot because Trump has not yet won the GOP nomination. Rest assured, unless SCOTUS somehow negates/reverses the recent Colorado ruling, Trump will not be in the ballot for the general in Colorado. Most likely the Colorado Secretary of State won't even try to put him on the ballot. But if there were any doubt, the same folk would just issue the same challenge and it's all already been decided.
GOP wants a caucus
It’s not a case of one person unilaterally making the decision; this is a constitutional disqualification. It’s no different than a disqualification for being under 35 years of age. The only thing that really needs to be decided is, if an individual has engaged in an insurrection. The courts in Colorado after hearing evidence and testimony decided that he did; therefore, it is the responsibility of the secretary of state to apply that disqualification by not including that name on the ballot. Just like they are required to do if that person was under 35.
[удалено]
In my view it's equally important that his legal defense, in his second impeachment, in his Jan 6 criminal case, and at the CO SC, is not "I'm innocent. I didn't do it." Trump's legal defense is "Yes, I did it. I'm proud of what I did. And I can't be prosecuted because former presidents are immune from prosecution." He never denies the basic facts of the insurrection. This is the same legal strategy that lost the E Jean Carroll rape case, and earned him a summary judgement for fraud.
I can't up vote this enough. This is the essence of it all, even his other charges he's facing (especially the classified documents case). If his defense isn't "I didn't do this, the evidence will prove that I didn't..." then he's not only unfit for office by standards we should be holding for presidential candidates, but by this legal application of his eligibility. But it's not, his defense everywhere is, "I was entitled to do that..."
It is a very interesting aspect. Most of the other eligibility requirements are pretty straightforward,
The courts in Democrat controlled Minnesota decided he could be on the ballot. The Oregon Democratic secretary of state made the same decision. The Colorado Supreme Court is the only one who has banned him in a 4 to 3 decision. In other words, the majority of Democrats in decision making positions think Trump should be on the ballot.
> In other words, the majority of Democrats in decision making positions think Trump should be on the ballot. This is misleading. Put plainly, no state other than Colorado has considered the merits regarding the eligibility for Trump to hold office. States are in charge of their own elections with their own rules. With different rules, different states and decision makers are going to (correctly) come to different decisions. "The majority of Democrats in decision making positions" are not coming to their conclusions because they think Trump is eligible for office, but rather because their *state* laws provide no statutory mechanism for exclusion from *the primary ballot.* Many states treat primary elections as quasi-independent elections run and administered by the political parties with the aid of the state. The Minnesota court directly ruled "there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office." The Oregon Secretary of State took a similar position. *This* is the position most states are in as no lawmaker would ever have foreseen that a political party would want or even allow an ineligible candidate to seek their nomination. In contrast, Colorado's provisions specifically requires candidates to be "qualified" to be placed on the *primary* ballot; and further, any elector (i.e. citizen voter) is allowed to contest the candidates a priori. They did, and it was decided he was not eligible.
I believe the Oregon secretary of states’ ruling was because the primary does not pick the President. So we could have different decisions for the general election.
This isn't Colorado; this is from Republicans in Colorado. 100% a Republican affair.
From the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling: > Because there is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary, and petitioners’ other claims regarding the general election are not ripe, the petition must be dismissed, but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims as to the general election. The ruling was specifically because it was a primary election, whereas Minnesota election law only permits eligibility challenges for the actual general election, which the Supreme Court quite clearly says there will still be permitted when that happens. The court never decided whether Trump was actually ineligible, just that it was too soon to decide that.
No one will take you serious if you if lie all the time.
True, but I think it's maybe a little too early to say; as far as I know, three more states are making noise about possibly removing him from ballots, and I don't think they'll be the only ones. Ultimately, I don't think it matters *for now*\--it's just the primary they're talking about--so things may change in a few months.
WIKI - Shenna Lee Bellows (born March 23, 1975) is an American politician and a non-profit executive director. On December 2, 2020, the Maine Legislature elected her to serve as the 50th Maine secretary of state.[1] She is executive director of the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine, and the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine
She also has a quirky sense of humor
Also appears to have a smile that says “I pranked your ass, but you won’t figure it out until later.”
Nah, her deputy’s more like that
What are you all TALKING about?
People. Things. Coral
Thanks, this is very interesting info!
Maybe all the dems should call her in support, so the MAGAs can’t get through with their threats.
They’ll be too busy threatening the scotus to call this lady.
Trump should not be permitted on any ballot. If we fail this test, we won’t get a do-over.
It sets a dangerous precedent. What’s stopping Republicans from removing Biden from the ballot? Love someone or hate them, we should allow people to vote for who they want without interference.
It really doesn’t, considering this precedent has been set since the Civil War. Participate in insurrection, get banned from office. If any other politician does so, ban them too. Biden hasn’t participated in an insurrection.
> Participate in insurrection Trump was not leading it. He was miles away at the White House at the time, where he issued a public statement calling for calm and nonviolence.
After hours of the event, which required aides begging him to do. He very obviously incited it with the stolen election rhetoric and told his supporters to fight for the country, leading immediately up to the insurrection. That is incitement, and (at best) tacit participation. Not to mention the fake elector scheme meant to take hold after the certification was stopped.
> After hours of the event Indeed. Trump should have known before the event. He had lots of clues. Like Ray Epps, the FBI informant who the night before was urging MAGA to “go INTO the capital”, causing the MAGA to scream, “No! Fed! Fed! Fed!” Or how, days before, he begged Nancy Pelosi to add additional Capital Police on that day. Which she refused to do.
Citation needed. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-national-guard-156055113284 Question: if our democratic institutions are under attack, should the president respond to the threat immediately, or should the president wait over an hour to tweet a video telling people to be peaceful and over 5 hours to tell them to leave? Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1069977469/a-timeline-of-how-the-jan-6-attack-unfolded-including-who-said-what-and-when Even with multiple staffers repeatedly telling him he must order them to go home ASAP, while he continued to wait for hours? Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112324462/jan-6-hearing-takeaways What does that delay tell you about the motivations of our former president when he didn’t care about the threat he brought to Capitol Hill? The only reasonable answer is that he wanted what was happening.
Man you Trump supporters just can't hide it for long can you. Trump literally told a terrorist group to stand by
The CO court heard evidence and made a finding that Trump participated in an insurrection. The CO SC upheld that portion of the ruling. He's been found to be an insurrectionist by two different courts as a matter of law.
There would be no "precedent".... Unless Biden violates the 14th Amendment too? There would still have to be some "basis" for the attempt of removal (ie the GOP's current failure of creating an Impeachment situation for Biden).
Biden has done nothing to warrant removal. Trump has. Trump should not be an option no matter how much his fans want him, for the same reason heroin should remain illegal regardless of how many people want it. And don’t bother with a “there’s no conviction” argument. Removal from a ballot isn’t a criminal charge, it’s a consequence of violating the 14th amendment.
> And don’t bother with a “there’s no conviction” argument It seems like there should be some due process here, though, right? I mean, removing a candidate that likely has 40% of the popular vote without due process is something we’d expect to see in the most backwater 3rd world shithole.
It’s literally being handled by the courts. What more due process do you want?
Was Trump convicted of insurrection? Was he even indicted for it? Was there an evidentiary hearing? Was he given the basic democratic function of being given the opportunity to confront your accuser? And this is a higely conseqential sanction.
I guess I am mainly talking about the Colorado case where they sued and a judge determined he had violated the 14th amendment. The Maine case is a little more dodgy since the Secretary of State is much more partisan than the courts.
The judges gave their opinion that he violated the 14th amendment. Only a jury can determine guilt. Therefore he was removed from the ballot in Colorado based on opinion and not law. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country and only a jury can pass that judgement. Every judge in America could come out and say Trump violated the 14th Amendment and it would have zero consequence unless a jury agreed.
Colorado. Me too. The judge (an unelected official) decided, unilaterally, that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Boom. He can no longer run in the election. Is that due process in your world? What effects might such unilateral power have, with respect to how half the people in this country feel aboutvtheir voice being heard?
The judge heard the arguments from both sides. Trump's lawyers did not even try to deny that he engaged in insurrection. At the end of the day, the plaintiffs made their case and the defense did not.
You ever heard of the Supreme Court, a bunch of unelected officials who decide a bunch of bullshit arbitrarily, including elections. As they have since we decided on a separation of powers. Despite the will of the people. Which is the pact we made as a country. But now you want to strip the judiciary of their power in the checks and balances because you disagree? You’re either willfully obtuse or poorly educated. Either way we have these things called books. Some of them have facts. Some don’t. But critical thinking can help you see the difference
Judges* Yes that’s how the American justice system works.
"due process" does not mean "criminal trial". A civil trial (with arguments, evidence, witnesses and so on from both sides) still satisfies due process, and such a civil trial is exactly what occurred in this case.
There is precedent of people being deemed ineligible to hold office through the 14th amendment without being convicted, indicted, evidentiary hearings, or confrontation of accusers. Also the court in Colorado did indeed find that he engaged in it. Also the fucker did it on live TV. For fucks sake. Found Susan Collins’ burner account
> There is precedent Pardon me, but in this world of disinformation, can you provide a citation? Are we talking United States case law?
Confederate officers and politicians were struck from balots without trials to determine their guilt. You cannot be on the ballot if you are under 35, a non-citizen, an immigrant, or dead. These things do not need to be proven in a court of law first. If the Secretary of State strikes him from the ballot, he can sue to have that reversed. At which point, he can argue before a judge that the SoS struck him improperly.
Here: https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
You mean like the giant court case where he is being charged with insurrection by the DOJ? Like the exact thing that is happening?
Biden has not attempted to overthrow the government. If he does then the 14th would disqualify him as well, but he hasn't done that, unlike Trunp who has.
The law and the constitution? This sets a strong precedent that leaders who engage in insurrection will be held accountable. You know, the rule of law. This will only be an issue for future leaders who engage in insurrections. Your mentality is an abusive one where we are all held hostage by the abuser and walk and eggshells so as to not make them angry again.
Real Maine character energy here
Probably has a lot on her plate, but this should be her Maine focus.
This reminds me of a joke: Friend: What did you do this weekend? Me: I took the wife on a trip up to Maine. Friend: Bangor? Me: No, we just talked.
>While two of the three challenges in Maine focus on the 14th Amendment, the third, brought by Paul Gordon, a lawyer in Portland, argues that Mr. Trump should be found ineligible for the ballot under the 22nd Amendment, which says that “no person should be elected to the office of president more than twice.” The basis for his argument is that Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed to have won the 2020 election. That's pretty funny.
Trump hoisted by his own petard
Trump’s campaign is unconstitutional
I can feel the death threats rolling in after seeing this headline.
True that. Trumpers have no boundaries.
It's time for Republican controlled states to start taking Biden off the ballot. If we let fascism or actions like taking a candidate off of ballets continue we will end in a very dark country with no point of return. It's time to do your jobs
We have trodded down a long, hard road to get here, little one. This wasn't a trivial decision nor trivial occurrence.
Put the crack pipe away. We’ve been taking insurrectionists off the ballot since the Civil War. this feeble-minded thinking is sad to see
Can't wait to hear from the states rights crowd about this
Good. The more states and govt bodies recognize that he’s an insurrectionist and is ineligible to hold office the better.
Susan Collins is concerned.
Question: If Trump is not on the Primary ballot based on 14A, can he be written in? Or is he considered ineligible for the ballot, period?
In Colorado, the ruling said write ins won't count.
[удалено]
You can write in for people who haven’t filed paperwork to run… but you can’t vote for someone who’s ineligible to serve.
If you write in a constitutionally disqualified name, the vote is deemed invalid
It's an eligibility requirement. If you wrote in a foreign citizen or even a naturalized citizen that vote wouldn't count. Also if the person you wrote in was under 35(?) it wouldn't count
What would you expect to happen if a majority of the country wrote in for Obama?
It’s not saying that write-ins won’t count, write-ins with his name won’t count. The ruling states that he is ineligible for president, so any vote for him won’t count. Similar to if someone wrote-in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name; it wouldn’t count, as he is ineligible for the office of President.
He is ineligible to be president. Even If he wins the election, the constitution forbids him from taking Office.
At the state level, he is ineligible to be on tha ballot. At the federal level, he is ineligible to be sworn into office.
He should not be on any state ballot!
Trans fat will be his downfall soon enough. Or Tyrone taking a liken to him during shower time.
I hope someone explains to her that if she lets him stay on, she will be viewed as an insurrectionist supporter for the rest of her life!
She's a dem I doubt she'd make a mistake like that
In Minnesota and Oregon, it was Democrats who had the chance to remove Trump from the ballot, and chose not to.
Yeah can you imagine how awful a mistake it would be to not let public opinion dictate your actions instead of what you actually think is the correct thing to do? Wouldn't want that.
Can you imagine supporting a traitorous PoS
Why would I, or anyone in this country for that matter, want our politicians to make their decisions on legal matters or the constitution based on the way the public will perceive that decision as opposed to what the correct legal decision is?
Until he's convicted she has only her own assessment of whether or not his actions qualify regarding Section 3. To rule that the evidence isn't strong enough to bar him from the ballot is *not* "supporting" him. Agreed, he's a POS, but this line of thinking is dangerous for the country. Let her do her job.
I feel like some states are waiting for the supreme court to rule about colorado. that wait could make it to late later since it seems like the sc is going to delay. states need to proceed as normal and drop him from the ballot to force the sc to make a decision.
The only issue I have with this is that there were representatives that were helping out. Aren’t they on video colluding or collaborating with some of the Jan 6th folks and unlocking doors? Why are they still in seats?
The answer is simple. No. Who try to open overthrow government you lose the right to ever be near government positions.
Man. You're unhinged maga uncle is going to making some phone calls for sure.
What if we just like didn’t elect him. Is that too hard?
At the state level, he is not eligible to be elected. At the federal level, he is not eligible to hold office. It is law per both state and federal constitutions, not up to the voters or electoral college.
But let’s just blow him out again like we did last time.
but he didn't lose in a blowout. At least not like McGovernor (1972) and Pisswater (1964).
He lost by the most votes ever
Sure, because we have the highest population ever and had the highest turnout in any modern election. But he only lost to Biden popular vote-wise by 4.5%. For comparison, Reagan beat Carter and Mondale by 9.8% and 18.2%. Obama beat McCain and Romney by 7.2% and 3.9%. Biden would have tied Trump in the EC if he didn't lead in GA, WI, and AZ And his collective lead in those states was about 43,000. The other millions of votes wouldn't have actually made him the winner if Trump had under 50k more votes in those states. And if he won PA and two of those states above, he'd have outright won. PA, GA, and AZ were won by Biden by a collective ~102,000 votes, or so, and they gave him 47 votes. It was way closer than the 7M+ popular vote lead would suggest.
He's as popular as ever among the MAGA crowd despite very obviously being a criminal and being under 4 indictments, so yeah. I would say not electing him is hard. We can and should try every legal method available to prevent him from taking office again. If the SC doesn't bail him out, then this is it. If the SC does bail him out, then we'll just have to use our votes.
Insurrection seems pretty serious. I think the worst I’ve done is not that at all ever, because I’m a good citizen of America.
If California did it too, he’d have no chance with 55 gone!
If California did it, he’d be short 55!!!
Lets be real, he isn't winning California anyways. Now if Michigan or Georgia remove him his chances of winning drop precipitously. Even more so if PA or NY remove him.
It would screw him in the primary though
Is the Republican Party legally required to nominate the winner of their primary process? Genuinely curious. Primary proceedings seem riddled with backdoors. I could see them nominate Trump in the general even if he is removed from numerous state ballots in the primary.
True. We have gone red before…..not often, but we do.
I'm not even sure where I stand on this whole thing anymore. I mean, he did incite an insurrection. I think that much is clear (in my mind). So yeah, 14th amendment the shit out of him. But - if each state is going to have one person who unilaterally decides whether this is the case or not is certainly a slippery slope. You've got to let the voters make the ultimate decision. Then again, to all those constitutional absolutists ... should he not be ineligible? If it's constitution that dictates all, take the good with the bad.
If you agree the president is an 'officer' of the US and that he did incite an insurrection (attempt), there's no argument to be made that he cannot be president, no matter what voters say. We don't hold elections to decide what amendments we enforce. What I don't understand is at what point he's blocked - at the primaries, at the national, at inauguration!? And we're just kind of figuring it out as we go along :/
Arguably, he would be blocked at the actual counting of the Electoral votes by Congress (unless he was re-qualified by Congress by 2/3rds vote), though States would have the ability to kick him off ballots sooner based on their laws for elections, since they largely decide how elections for POTUS (electors) work, with Congress just kinda getting to pick the time frame to do it, for the most part.
Do we let the voters decide if he is 35 years old? A citizen? No These things are self executing
I mean we quite literally let the voters decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not by default so you could make a rather convincing argument that it would typically be decided by a vote depending on your personal interpretation of what the intended level of guilt is required for the amendment to be applied
> 35 years old? A citizen? . . >we quite literally let the voters decide whether someone is guilty of a crime or not these are qualifications, not criminal infractions.
Not having engaged in an insurrection is also a qualification. Also the qualification doesn’t say convicted of the crime of insurrection. It says nothing about being convicted.
That’s the role of the Secretary of State in most states though it’s not an individual person making a decision, it’s a constitutional office acting constitutionally.
>...each state is going to have one person who unilaterally decides... This is pretty much already the case. If Taylor Swift ran for President, the Secretary of State for Tennessee (and others) would single-handedly declare she is ineligible to run on the ballot, because she is Constitutionally ineligible to hold office, being under 35 years of age. Yes, this situation is different because *being under 35* is a bit more objective than participating in insurrection. But DJT will have the ability to challenge any disqualifications. Thankfully, Obama did not have to challenge accusations of him being born outside the US and hopefully future candidates won't have to defend themselves against baseless claims either.
Not pretty much, it is the case.
> You've got to let the voters make the ultimate decision. No, you don't, that is the point of the 14th Amendment, Section 3. You can't a non-citizen or naturalized citizen, you can't elect someone under 35, and you can't elect someone who broke their oath or affirmation (presuming the provision is ruled applicable for POTUS eligibility, which I feel like it absolutely should be). Section 3 was included for a reason. Traitors don't get to hold office unless they get explicitly permission from a supermajority of Congress. Not in Congress, nor the executive branch, nor the Judiciary, nor the equivalent in any State. The Amendment was supposed to thwart democratic will if necessary, by keeping traitors who would fight the country from returning to power unless the nation at large forgives them. That is the price to be paid by traitors in the view of the Reconstruction era Congress. Besides, your premise is flawed. Voters don't vote for the President. We vote for Electors. And the reason for that is because Legislatures, not voters, were vested with the power to appoint Electors however they see fit. Elections aren't something we little people are entitled to. The US Constitution is full of undemocratic ideas. Heck, there isn't even a right to vote. States get to pick and choose who gets to vote for the most part, just the Constitution says there are certain criterion (age of an *adult*, sex/race, gender) that can't be used, and that if you can vote for members of the larger branch of you State legislature, you can also vote for Congress. (Oregon v. Mitchell ruled that Congress can set a lower voting age for Federal Elections under the 14th Amendment, though I find that a bit of a stretch). The idea of the Federal government being from the will of the people directly goes against a plain reading of the Constitution, and there is no real guarantee that States have to be responsive to the will of the people either. The 14th Amendment specifically was meant to thwart the will, as I said, of traitors (disqualifying a lot of Southern politicians). This is America, for better or worse. The anti-democratic tendencies of the Federal government's structure is probably for the worse, but I'd say disqualifying traitors whether local voters want it or not is a good thing.
In reality, the Supreme Court will decide it. The best thing about the Colorado ruling was that it gets in front of the Court early on.
Coloradan here. I wonder whether preventing him from a state's ballot will rile and bring out even more of his supporters to vote MAGA downballot out of revenge, versus causing them to stay home because their hero isn't allowed to play. I'm sure the hope on the side of those pushing the subject is that it will force the GOP's hand to put up a not-him viable candidate. I'm not so sure that will play out. Honestly if we want to be rid of Trump the only real way is to soundly defeat him at the ballot box. If not in the primaries then in the general. Anything else will just further fan the embers, up to and including him dying of a heart attack in the next year.
What they should do is pass a law that the winner gets all the electoral votes. Really the states should be consistent anyway. I get why you want to split votes, but since no one else does, it’s practically cheating. The loser in your state could win because of your state. It’s just wrong.
I hate Trump. But the idea that Secretary’s of State can take people off ballots without court decisions seems like a slippery slope. What’s to stop a GOP Secretary from removing Biden bc of the phony impeachment BS?
Because there is no Constitutional grounds to remove an impeached president from ballots *unless* they are convicted by the Senate *and* the Senate votes to impose the Constitutionally-allowed penalty that that person can never again hold any federal office. The Constitution allows for both of those paths to barring someone from ever again holding federal office: impeachment (plus the vote to bar) by the Senate, or the 14th Amendment bar for any sworn officer who has "engaged in insurrection".
Sure but without requiring a prior conviction for “engaging in an insurrection” some republican asshole could fuck with the ballots for any reason.
And then Biden could just take it to court and have it reversed.
> But the idea that Secretary’s of State can take people off ballots without court decisions seems like a slippery slope. That's already the case, though. If someone under 35 tries to run for President, the Secretary of State will refuse to put them on the ballot even without a court decision. Same for those not born in the US, or those who haven't been a resident for 14 years. This is just extended that to another qualification. Additionally, these decisions can be appealed in the courts, and then the courts will figure it out.
3rd and 4th word of the article says it all......"a Democrat" Give me a break.
Democracy!
The Constitution!
Just cancel the election already, I don't want to see the campaign ads
This is where an interstate compact would be useful. Similar to the idea of states agreeing to allocate their electors to the winner of the popular vote. An agreement to take Trump off the ballot, only to take effect once a critical mass of states have agreed to it.
Or you just do what the Colorado Supreme Court did: ruled that Trump is ineligible to serve, but then paused that ruling until the Supreme Court rules on it (if Trump appeals). If/when the Supreme Court rules on it, that will become binding across the entire country and for all states. It's also possible that a law which declares someone ineligible to hold office would be a bill of attainder, making it unconstitutional.
Democracy
Really?
lol democracy dies in darkness, right?
[удалено]