• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

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

Trausti said:
If you don't file your papers on time you're not really banned. You just missed the deadline.
Click to expand...

The Great Zaganza said:
A deadline set by the federal election, not the State one.
Click to expand...

My state has filing deadlines. RFK Jr. sued and won to have his untimely candidacy papers accepted here. Filing deadlines cannot be used as a bar to eligibility, at least in my state.
 
This thread seems to have drifted very far from the topic. Please return to discussing the 14th Amendment in this thread, and take other Trump-related discussion to more appropriate threads.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
What happens if an Elector is a true Election Denier, and thinks Trump won the 2020 election?
Wouldn't he have to refuse to vote for Trump, as he would be disqualified from being elected for a 3rd time?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
What happens if an Elector is a true Election Denier, and thinks Trump won the 2020 election?
Wouldn't he have to refuse to vote for Trump, as he would be disqualified from being elected for a 3rd time?
Click to expand...

Are electors legally required to only vote for people who are eligible to be president?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Are electors legally required to only vote for people who are eligible to be president?
Click to expand...


In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced, and in two of these states they may also be fined.
 
Hercules56 said:
In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced, and in two of these states they may also be fined.
Click to expand...

Which apparently means that if they were pledged to a candidate who was ineligible they still would have to vote for that candidate.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Which apparently means that if they were pledged to a candidate who was ineligible they still would have to vote for that candidate.
Click to expand...

If candidate is on the ballot and wins, Electors have no right to reject the will of the voters.

At least not in 14 states.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
What happens if an Elector is a true Election Denier, and thinks Trump won the 2020 election?
Wouldn't he have to refuse to vote for Trump, as he would be disqualified from being elected for a 3rd time?
Click to expand...

Yes but that's far-fetched because electors aren't likely to do that.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Are electors legally required to only vote for people who are eligible to be president?
Click to expand...
I doubt that is spelled out in any state law.

In some states the electors are bound to only vote for the candidate they were assigned. I'm not sure which states might still allow traitor electors.
 
You do realize that before you can hold someone liable for insurrection, there must be a trial and conviction for insurrection first? You know, proof and evidence presented to a Jury of 12, then a finding by that Jury. In the case of a President perhaps a trial in the Senate may work as well. Do you have any of these things?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
You do realize that before you can hold someone liable for insurrection, there must be a trial and conviction for insurrection first? You know, proof and evidence presented to a Jury of 12, then a finding by that Jury. In the case of a President perhaps a trial in the Senate may work as well. Do you have any of these things?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not at all. You need to stop reading MAGA-alt-right crap and go back to school.

How did Congress intend to apply Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualified insurrectionists from future office-holding?

...

One theme, more than any other, dominated the congressional debates [on the 14th Amendment]: repentance.

Farnsworth and the supporters of his bill insisted that they would only restore the right to hold office to those who had shown “proper repentance since the war.” Ex-Confederates needed to offer evidence of their contrition by renouncing rebelism, promoting peace, obeying the law, upholding the Constitution, and encouraging a spirit of national loyalty in others. Relief from Section Three disabilities was intended, as Farnsworth put it, for one “who now puts his shoulder to the wheel to support the Government.”
Click to expand...
https://time.com/6333998/insurrection-clause-trump-longstreet/

It is obvious that Donny has shown none of those attributes necessary to show he is not an insurrectionist. He is not contrite about his actions, he boasts of them. He affirms daily he is going to rebel against government bodies, laws and even the constitution. He is totally promoting national divisionism. He talks of promoting civil wars, not peace. And he refuses to show the slightest bit of loyalty to anyone but himself. Your guy is a train-wreck and an insurrectionist by definition.
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
Where does it say that in the law? Several have already been disqualified without a conviction.
Click to expand...

Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995)
(quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States §627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.
It's on page 7 of the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Added info: The law would be 18 U.S.C. 2383
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995)
(quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States §627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.
It's on page 7 of the 9-0 Supreme Court ruling here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Added info: The law would be 18 U.S.C. 2383
Click to expand...
Did you read from page 15 onwards?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 803–804 (1995)
(quoting 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States §627, p. 435 (3d ed. 1858)). But nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. ...
Click to expand...


Says nothing about conviction required first.

So basically you LIED.
 
Norman Alexander said:
It is obvious that Donny has shown none of those attributes necessary to show he is not an insurrectionist. He is not contrite about his actions, he boasts of them. He affirms daily he is going to rebel against government bodies, laws and even the constitution. He is totally promoting national divisionism. He talks of promoting civil wars, not peace. And he refuses to show the slightest bit of loyalty to anyone but himself. Your guy is a train-wreck and an insurrectionist by definition.
Click to expand...

He's already been found an insurrectionist by a majority vote of the senate following a trial.

That it fell short of the threshold for removal from office is not relevant, nor is that it wasn't a criminal trial. We are past the "whether" here. It's just a matter of application.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
You do realize that before you can hold someone liable for insurrection, there must be a trial and conviction for insurrection first? You know, proof and evidence presented to a Jury of 12, then a finding by that Jury. In the case of a President perhaps a trial in the Senate may work as well. Do you have any of these things?
Click to expand...
That's the way it should be. It's ridiculous that Trump could be tried in one state and found not to have engaged in insurrection while another state court on the same facts concludes he has. It is double jeopardy.

Of course, since congress has not passed any laws allowing a federal court to hear such a case (and probably never will) there is no way to find Trump guilty.
 
Thank heavens the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Colorado's ludicrous argument that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump from the ballot.

It is shocking that any state supreme court could have made such an obviously bogus argument. Yet, until the U.S. Supreme Court imposed some much-needed sanity on the subject, there were plenty of liberal "legal scholars" (read: political hacks) who were defending Colorado's ridiculous argument.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Thank heavens the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Colorado's ludicrous argument that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump from the ballot.

It is shocking that any state supreme court could have made such an obviously bogus argument. Yet, until the U.S. Supreme Court imposed some much-needed sanity on the subject, there were plenty of liberal "legal scholars" (read: political hacks) who were defending Colorado's ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

There were also conservative legal scholars defending it, I've heard some liberals arguing against it too, it's not so clear cut really.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Thank heavens the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Colorado's ludicrous argument that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump from the ballot.

It is shocking that any state supreme court could have made such an obviously bogus argument. Yet, until the U.S. Supreme Court imposed some much-needed sanity on the subject, there were plenty of liberal "legal scholars" (read: political hacks) who were defending Colorado's ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

It wasn't unanimous.

Justice Barrett:
I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that. This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
Click to expand...

Justices Sotomayer, Kagan and Jackson:
Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.
Click to expand...
 
It was unanimous, those were concurrences, they disagreed on some nuance. But then I guess, it could be argued that, "yes, but...." isn't actually a yes.

Again, not nearly so clear cut as partisans want us to believe.
 
It’s hilarious to watch Trump supporters continually lower the bar for what “victory” means.

Congrats on your guy not getting disqualified from the ballot for the insurrection he fomented. That’s quite the feather in your cap.
 
Thankee, Jesus!

mikegriffith1 said:
Thank heavens the U.S. Supreme Court...(read: political hacks)
Click to expand...

made damn sure that mikegriffith1 and me can vote for a treasonous traitorous lying moron criminal son of a bitch whenever we want to!

Whooie. Got to catch my breath. I'll try & catch yours too, mike.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Thank heavens the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Colorado's ludicrous argument that the 14th Amendment disqualified Trump from the ballot.
Click to expand...
That was a terrible ruling. Now we won't be able to try Trump in 50 different states over the same act and get 50 different rulings.
 
psionl0 said:
That was a terrible ruling. Now we won't be able to try Trump in 50 different states over the same act and get 50 different rulings.
Click to expand...
So what if they did? They already have 50 different rules for a bunch of stuff. If the highest law in the land says they each have to make up their minds about Presidential candidates then what is the problem? If the Yanks don't like it, they can always amend the top law to change or clarify that.
 
Norman Alexander said:
So what if they did? They already have 50 different rules for a bunch of stuff. If the highest law in the land says they each have to make up their minds about Presidential candidates then what is the problem? If the Yanks don't like it, they can always amend the top law to change or clarify that.
Click to expand...
You would be happy to do away with the entire bill of rights if it meant that we could get Trump.
 
It would be interesting to see if Jack Smith, as a special prosecutor could bring a case barring Trump in Washington DC. It probably wouldn't work but it would suck more money from Trump's campaign working through the courts to SCOTUS.
 
psionl0 said:
. . . and we don't have 50 states and 50 different rules for a bunch of stuff or laws that say the states have to make up their minds about presidential candidates.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah. That's the state of laws in the USA. So they have 50 potentially different rules for validating presidential candidates. That's "states' right", according to the conservatives. So let it roll. They want to change that, they can change the laws.

What's your point? Are you retracting your argument?
Click to expand...
What is the matter with you? What argument? I'm saying "let things roll on as they are". Is that concerning to you somehow?
 
Craig4 said:
It would be interesting to see if Jack Smith, as a special prosecutor could bring a case barring Trump in Washington DC. It probably wouldn't work but it would suck more money from Trump's campaign working through the courts to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
There would probably be heaps of instances he could use. If the SCOTUS is not interested in enforcing a federal ban on Trump due to 14th Amendment violations (and clearly it isn't), then 50 individual states it is! That's 50 cases Smith can bring, to start with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom