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

[Hercules56]

After a little more consideration, I've decided that I am thrilled by the SC decision. I've always wanted to be on the presidential election ballot, and if individual states can't determine who gets on the presidential ballot then states' legal requirements such as having to get a petition signed by X voters (where X >> 1,000 in most states) are unconstitutional, meaning that it should be easy and inexpensive to get on the ballot.

Silly.

States are still allowed to require signatures to get on the ballot.

This ruling is only about the 14th amendment and nothing else.

 

[Tero]

The decision is faulty. States cannot pull off candidates for a federal election? Then who can? The federal government and the supreme court certainly can't. Only the states can run elections.

 

[theprestige]

The decision is faulty. States cannot pull off candidates for a federal election? Then who can? The federal government and the supreme court certainly can't. Only the states can run elections.

The states provide the infrastructure to run elections, because they already have it for state elections. That doesn't mean that the states have authority over who can run for federal office, in the elections they run.

 

[Hercules56]

The decision is faulty. States cannot pull off candidates for a federal election? Then who can? The federal government and the supreme court certainly can't. Only the states can run elections.

Where did you get your law degree? Harvard or Yale?

 

[Tero]

The states provide the infrastructure to run elections, because they already have it for state elections. That doesn't mean that the states have authority over who can run for federal office, in the elections they run.

Who does? The feds definitely do not. So....it is the states. Prove me wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Who does? The feds definitely do not. So....it is the states. Prove me wrong.

The Supreme Court just ruled that it is indeed the feds, specifically Congress. You are wrong. Q.E.D.

 

[Tero]

Where did you get your law degree? Harvard or Yale?

My pocket consitution. The feds could decide when is election day. But not who gets on the ballot in each state.

Section 4 Congress
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Where did you get your law degree? Harvard or Yale?

Although some graduates of the Harvard and Yale law schools would have you believe those are the country's only legitimate law schools, acting as though you believe those are the country's only legitimate law schools has not convinced me you are a graduate of either.

 

[Hercules56]

Although some graduates of the Harvard and Yale law schools would have you believe those are the country's only legitimate law schools, acting as though you believe those are the country's only legitimate law schools has not convinced me you are a graduate of either.

Who said they were the only legit law school?

Princeton is also great.

 

[Ziggurat]

My pocket consitution. The feds could decide when is election day. But not who gets on the ballot in each state.

Section 4 Congress
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

First, let me note that this section doesn't deal with election of the President, only Senators and Representatives. The relevant section for the President is similar, but the fact that you quoted the wrong thing is still emblematic of the sloppiness of your thinking on the issue.

More substantively, the fact that states manage the details of elections doesn't mean that they can make any and all decisions. For example, I don't think you would dispute the claim that states cannot keep someone off the ballot because of their race, would you? States don't have complete freedom to do anything they like with respect to elections. And note: neither this section nor the corresponding one for the president even say anything about who gets to be on the ballot. The Constitution does not in fact leave that entirely in the hands of the States.

 

[JayUtah]

The states provide the infrastructure to run elections, because they already have it for state elections.

It is a true statement that states have the infrastructure to run elections, but this was not why the election of President was not, and has not been, nationalized. Take, for example, the reason why electors vote in their states on the same day instead of meeting or gathering to vote. This was precisely to preserve the state's autonomy and prevent the coalition of a national cabal to install a President. The original intent was state autonomy, not merely to make the voting convenient.

That doesn't mean that the states have authority over who can run for federal office, in the elections they run.

States have the authority to apply the U.S. Constitution in all respects—but one, now—when deciding who they allow to run for federal office from their state. The so-called "categorical" qualifications for federal office have been enforced by state law and by state officers since Obama's presidency without interference from the federal judiciary. The qualification that requires discretion to apply seems to be the one that no state can enforce.

States, of course, cannot create new qualifications for offices whose qualifications are given in the U.S. Constitution.

To be clear: I would be very much in favor of a resolution from Congress to flesh out section 3 and define in legally enforceable terms what constitutions insurrection. We knew Colorado was going to be overturned, and it became fairly apparent after oral argument that it would be on federalist principles.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Who said they were the only legit law school?

Princeton is also great.

With those goddamn sling-blade mother-*******?

 

[JayUtah]

For example, I don't think you would dispute the claim that states cannot keep someone off the ballot because of their race, would you?

Neither the states nor Congress may create new qualifications for offices whose qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution. However, states may enforce those qualifications against candidates for federal office in elections for those offices they administer, and have for many years without interference.

What separates section 3 qualifications from the others now already enforced by states is the need for a trial of fact—a "determination." The Court feels that states should not be the venue for such a determination.

 

[Hercules56]

Neither the states nor Congress may create new qualifications for offices whose qualifications are spelled out in the Constitution. However, states may enforce those qualifications against candidates for federal office in elections for those offices they administer, and have for many years without interference.

What separates section 3 qualifications from the others now already enforced by states is the need for a trial of fact—a "determination." The Court feels that states should not be the venue for such a determination.

And this was the right decision. We cannot have 50 states making 50 different determinations based on 50 different reasons as to why a candidate has/hasn't committed insurrection.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It seems to me that the SC would have had an even easier off-ramp for the general election: in the general election the voters vote for electors so that only the eligibility of the electors and not the eligibility of the person that they are committed to voting for is relevant.

 

[JayUtah]

And this was the right decision. We cannot have 50 states making 50 different determinations based on 50 different reasons as to why a candidate has/hasn't committed insurrection.

Yes, you've said this twice. So I'll ask you twice now if you have a non-formalistic argument in favor of your agreement? It's one thing to note that the Court's decision is now fait accomplit and the Colorado decision was struck down as we all predicted. The question to you requires you to engage with the Court's reasoning rather than just recite it as formula.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems to me that the SC would have had an even easier off-ramp for the general election: in the general election the voters vote for electors so that only the eligibility of the electors and not the eligibility of the person that they are committed to voting for is relevant.

That might have changed their reasoning, but unfortunately the question presented to them didn't allow it. The question was Colorado's primary election, in which voters do vote specifically for President, albeit it not any way that matters except insfar as Colorado's delegation must follow it at the national party convention. Colorado law allowed for eligibility to be challenged at that time. What the Supreme Court has said is that the challenge for eligibility under section 3 is not properly a matter for a state court. Then they went on to say it's a matter only for Congress, to be acted upon in a certain specific way.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And Congress won't act on it until it wants to stop a Democrat who won an election from taking office. So: January.

 

[The_Animus]

Going forward every President may as well attempt an insurrection before stepping down. If they succeed then they maintain power and if they fail there are no consequences.

 

[Hercules56]

Prediction: Court will rule 9-0 that former Presidents are not immune from criminal protection for acts committed while in office.