Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

Hercules56 said:
Considering their previous rulings and public statements, how do you and your lawyer buddies think the current SCOTUS will rule on the CO case?
Click to expand...

No one I've talked to really knows.

Do you think they may simply wash their hands of the issue and say the states can do what they like?
Click to expand...

No. Everyone I've talked to is reasonably sure the Colorado case will be overturned somehow. But exactly how is up for grabs. No one seems really confident on this, either because the legal issues are novel and a bit murky, or because the Supreme Court is too mercurial.
 
I'm sure Colorado will be overturned. The SCOTUS majority is working on a good excuse that sounds legal.
 
JayUtah said:
No one I've talked to really knows.

No. Everyone I've talked to is reasonably sure the Colorado case will be overturned somehow. But exactly how is up for grabs. No one seems really confident on this, either because the legal issues are novel and a bit murky, or because the Supreme Court is too mercurial.
Click to expand...

I doubt they will simply say "Trump cannot be barred from the ballot".

I think if they want to pass the buck they will say its up to Congress to decide if he belongs on the ballot or not, when they decide to accept or reject Electoral slates on January 6.

Which means Trump will be on every ballot and we will need the Dems to get majority of the House to reject any Electoral slates.
 
Hercules56 said:
I doubt they will simply say "Trump cannot be barred from the ballot".
Click to expand...

No, not at all. They will have to agree to an argument in favor of the conclusion that the Colorado court erred in some way: nominally in one of the ways alluded to in the petition, but in any case according to the arguments raised in the brief on the merits due Thursday.

I think if they want to pass the buck they will say its up to Congress to decide if he belongs on the ballot or not, when they decide to accept or reject Electoral slates on January 6.
Click to expand...

Oddly, even though I brought that up weeks ago, I don't get any traction on that from Con Law professors. All the Court needs is some off-ramp. They need a reason to say Colorado did it wrong, and they can do that without necessarily saying what needs to have gone right. The Con Law argument I think makes most sense to me is that Congress needs to have defined what constitutes a finding that someone "engaged in insurrection" for the purposes of section 3. It need not be a criminal statute. But it needs to define in more precise terms what an insurrection is and what one must have done to engage in one. So the Court just finds that the Colorado court engaged in impermissible lawmaking by applying its own standard to Trump's actions absent a statutory definition. Even that has problems, though.
 
Hercules56 said:
He is not disqualified from the NV ballot.

He simply did not apply for the ballot correctly.
Click to expand...

It's even murkier than that. The article linked to above doesn't really explain what's going on.

There will be a state-run GOP primary in Arizona. It has absolutely no effect on the nomination. There will also be a party-run GOP caucus in Arizona. The caucus—and only the caucus—determines who gets Arizona's GOP delegates in the national convention. The fact that Trump isn't on the ballot for the state-run primary has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his eligibility for office, or even whether Arizona can vote its delegates for him for the nomination.

Arizona state law mandates a primary election. The Arizona GOP basically said, "Aw, that's cute."
 
JayUtah said:
Hercules56 said:
He is not disqualified from the NV ballot.

He simply did not apply for the ballot correctly.
Click to expand...

It's even murkier than that. The article linked to above doesn't really explain what's going on.

There will be a state-run GOP primary in Arizona. It has absolutely no effect on the nomination. There will also be a party-run GOP caucus in Arizona. The caucus—and only the caucus—determines who gets Arizona's GOP delegates in the national convention. The fact that Trump isn't on the ballot for the state-run primary has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his eligibility for office, or even whether Arizona can vote its delegates for him for the nomination.

Arizona state law mandates a primary election. The Arizona GOP basically said, "Aw, that's cute."
Click to expand...


That´s how I understand it, too, though it is Nevada being discussed not Arizona.

Confusing process Republicans are being subjected to there. Here is a link from the original story (glad JU actually read it unlike anybody else who commented).

https://thenevadaindependent.com/ar...at-will-exclude-candidates-who-run-in-primary
 
psionl0 said:
Can't they rule that this is a federal issue and beyond the jurisdiction of a state court?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14236100#post14236100
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The assumption of appellate jurisdiction over a federal question is implied in the appeal itself. But it's not an error per se for a state court to interpret the Constitution as it applies to their state law. The Supreme Court has to show by what erroneous line of reasoning the Colorado court interpreted the Constitution wrongly. It can't just say, "You swerved outside your lane."

But it's quite simple. The Colorado law requires a candidate to be Constitutionally eligible for President in order to appear on the primary ballot. The Supreme Court can't touch the part of the state law that applies the restriction. But it can rule on whether Trump is eligible according to the 14th Amendment. And it's okay that the Colorado Supreme Court first rendered an opinion on that. They're allowed. But on that part of the question, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
 
JayUtah said:
But it's not an error per se for a state court to interpret the Constitution as it applies to their state law.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that either somebody was eligible to hold an office "under the United States" in all 50 states or none of them.

By this logic, a state court in one state could rule that Trump is eligible to hold an office "under the United States" while a different state court in another state could rule that Trump is not eligible to hold an office under the same United States.

It would be different if the state courts were ruling on a state law but this case is about "insurrection" which would be a federal crime meaning that we have 2 conflicting rulings on the same act. Even if it were not a federal crime, the events took place in Washington and not Colorado.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
But it's quite simple. The Colorado law requires a candidate to be Constitutionally eligible for President in order to appear on the primary ballot. The Supreme Court can't touch the part of the state law that applies the restriction. But it can rule on whether Trump is eligible according to the 14th Amendment. And it's okay that the Colorado Supreme Court first rendered an opinion on that. They're allowed. But on that part of the question, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.
Click to expand...

Could the US Supreme Court rule that the Colorado law is unconstitutional in that it interferes with the rights of political parties to select whomever they want to be their candidate?
 
psionl0 said:
By this logic, a state court in one state could rule that Trump is eligible to hold an office "under the United States" while a different state court in another state could rule that Trump is not eligible to hold an office under the same United States.
Click to expand...

No. As I said, the Supreme Court has final say on federal questions. But very often, federal questions are first raised in state courts and applied to state law. The Supreme Court does not often grant certiorari on these questions if they are straightforward. This one isn't straightforward. The fact that the Court has granted certiorari on it indicates they plan to rule for the entire country whether Trump is disqualified by the 14th Amendment. Any pending state actions will then have to conduct further proceedings consistent with the ruling on that narrow point. Subsequent state actions may not retry the question of whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump.

It would be different if the state courts were ruling on a state law but this case is about "insurrection" which would be a federal crime...
Click to expand...

No. Criminal law and criminal procedure do not apply. Section 3 says that certain actions disqualify you from office, regardless of whether they satisfy criteria for other legal causes of action.

The Supreme Court has final say over whether Trump is eligible as President under the 14th Amendment. But Colorado has final say over whether someone who is constitutionally disqualified can be removed from its primary ballot. In my state, to the contrary, no law allows the lieutenant governor to remove a party's candidate from the primary ballot, even if there is a judgment at the federal level that the candidate is disqualified.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Could the US Supreme Court rule that the Colorado law is unconstitutional in that it interferes with the rights of political parties to select whomever they want to be their candidate?
Click to expand...

There's no such right protected by the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution grants states the power to conduct elections for President as they see fit. Disallowing unqualified candidates from the ballot falls squarely within that power.
 
JayUtah said:
There's no such right protected by the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution grants states the power to conduct elections for President as they see fit. Disallowing unqualified candidates from the ballot falls squarely within that power.
Click to expand...

I believe that the Colorado Republican Party actually did make such a claim, that their 1st amendment right of freedom of association was being violated. I should have looked this up before I posted.

https://missouriindependent.com/bri...mp-from-ballot-appealed-to-u-s-supreme-court/
 
JayUtah said:
There's no such right protected by the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution grants states the power to conduct elections for President as they see fit. Disallowing unqualified candidates from the ballot falls squarely within that power.
Click to expand...

Everyone is over looking the real Question, this will all most likely boil down to what my Senator Mitch McConnell wants, Mitch wants to Retake the Senate and keep the house, he might see Trump as an Obstruction in the Way of that.
If Trump wins the Nomination he will be on Trial in March, and will most likely be convicted. The Republicans will be stuck with his Legal Fees and Lawsuits that will most likely bleed funding from Senate and House candidates. This may be a Way for Mitch McConnell's Court to get rid of a thorn in his side, and move on to a better Canidate more inline with Mitch McConnell's plans to keep the House and retake the Senate.
 
JayUtah said:
There's no such right protected by the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution grants states the power to conduct elections for President as they see fit. Disallowing unqualified candidates from the ballot falls squarely within that power.
Click to expand...

TellyKNeasuss said:
I believe that the Colorado Republican Party actually did make such a claim, that their 1st amendment right of freedom of association was being violated. I should have looked this up before I posted.

https://missouriindependent.com/bri...mp-from-ballot-appealed-to-u-s-supreme-court/
Click to expand...

One way to think of it is that the party is free to choose a candidate who is ineligible to be president, but that does not change the management of the elections by the state government.

So the state may choose to not allow ineligible candidates to be on the primary ballot because issuing the primary ballots and running the primary election is a function of the state government. The precise rules each state have for the primaries varies, some states may allow ineligible candidates to be on the primary ballot, some don't. Colorado doesn't.

Then the party is still free to choose an ineligible candidate - but not through a primary. They can do it party caucuses or other mechanisms that don't involve the state government. They can do that because they have freedom of speech and association. Many political parties do that - only two parties participate in the primary but a dozen or so parties will have candidates in the general election.

And once again the state government is still free to decide that ineligible candidates may not be on the general election ballot.

That still leaves the party open to field that ineligible candidate - as a write in. They can do that because they have freedom of speech and association as needed to organize, fund, and run a campaign. They are not going to be prosecuted for fielding an ineligible candidate, they have all the freedom to do that. But they maybe just can't get him on the ballot. But again, a person does not need to be on the ballot to garner votes via write-ins.

But whether or not Mr. Ineligible gets votes, whether or not those votes are counted or not would be a moot point. Mr. Ineligible still can't be president.

So I suppose the final stop would potentially be the Senate and VP. It would be illegal for them to accept the Electoral College votes of someone not eligible to be president.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom