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

[JayUtah]

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

Consider the hypothetical state of Nebrahoma in which a state law allows the secretary of state to remove from the ballot any candidate for federal office that is not qualified under the Constitution. It provides a cause of action for any "elector" (the general term in state law for someone qualified to vote in that state) to bring suit in state court challenging the eligibility for any candidate for federal office.

Now let's say a challenge is made against a candidate for House for residency. The Constitution requires a member of the House to be three years a resident of the district from which elected. In court, there is an inconclusive showing of fact and the court rules that the candidate is not eligible and mandates the secretary of state to remove the name from the ballot. The state's application of a federal qualification for office is proper. Appeal to the U.S. judiciary is possible, but the showing of fact remains largely unchanged.

Now consider the real state of Utah in which the lieutenant governor (our federal election officer) has no discretionary authority to remove any name from a ballot. To apply to run for House, one swears an affidavit of eligibility. But there is no cause of action or remedy, so long as that candidate remains the official nominee of one of our seven recognized political parties, or has amassed enough voter signatures to qualify for an acclamation of candidacy. The candidate may in fact be similarly unable to demonstrate the residency requirement by means of evidence, but in our case no cause of action allows a challenge on those grounds.

In one case a state has exercised discretionary authority over a candidacy for federal office. In other, a state no such discretion is possible. Is the election to House from these states consistent in the meaningful way you outline above?

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

"Starting...NOW!" So everything before now is juuuust fine.

 

[Random]

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

Oh absolutely. They will just take their sweet time about it. Gotta put those criminal cases off until after the election. If Trump wins, he can use his power as President to stop the cases or pardon himself for having the prosecutors murdered or something.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Quite possibly. As late as last week I heard some profs talking about why the Court took so long to grant cert on the immunity question, if not simply for the obvious delay tactic in the majority. There are some procedural reasons, but I'll go into them in the appropriate thread if there's interest. But the predictable bargain may be in play: the Court agrees to assertively shoot down section 3 in exchange for assertively shooting down criminal immunity.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh absolutely. They will just take their sweet time about it. Gotta put those criminal cases off until after the election. If Trump wins, he can use his power as President to stop the cases or pardon himself for having the prosecutors murdered or something.

Trump has zero authority to influence the NY case in any way.

Pushing to get all Federal cases against him dismissed would be an impeachable offense.

 

[gabeygoat]

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?

Insurrectionist isn't a protected class.

 

[Random]

Trump has zero authority to influence the NY case in any way.

Pushing to get all Federal cases against him dismissed would be an impeachable offense.

Impeachable schmeachable. Holding up military aid for Ukraine until Zelenski manufactured false information on Biden was an Impeachable offense. Trying to stop the legal transfer of the office of the Presidency was an Impeachable offense. So what?

As long as there are 34 Senators willing to look at whatever President Trump does and say, "That's fine.", Trump would stay in power.

 

[JayUtah]

Pushing to get all Federal cases against him dismissed would be an impeachable offense.

Just like inciting an insurrection was. Impeachment is no longer a credible remedy for bad leaders.

 

[Ziggurat]

Insurrectionist isn't a protected class.

True but not relevant. Doesn't change the fact that states do not have complete control over every aspect of elections.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

True but not relevant. Doesn't change the fact that states do not have complete control over every aspect of elections.

But if I get enough signatures to get my cute baby on the Ballot in my State, it will require a vote by Congress to keep her off the ballot.
Nothing the State gets to decide.
And, by the way, I'll sue to have the minimum number of signature requirements waived, because States are not allowed to legislate who gets on the Presidential Ballot.

 

[Aridas]

Just like inciting an insurrection was. Impeachment is no longer a credible remedy for bad leaders.

Were impeachment currently a credible remedy for serious Republican Presidential wrongdoing, Trump would have been removed the first time he was impeached. Republicans made it perfectly clear that they don't care, though. They reinforced that the second time that they prevented Trump's removal for insurrection.

Trump has been pretty much openly promising to engage in massive wrongdoing, should he manage to become President again. To a large extent, Republicans, their political leaders especially, have and are showing that they just don't care. Impeachment is indeed not a credible remedy.

Preventing Trump from being on the ballot was a credible remedy for his past wrongdoings and promises to commit many more with the assistance of the Republican Party, albeit a long shot one - long shot primarily because of the Republican Party's aiding and abetting such wrongdoing.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't help thinking just how different the country would be now if Clinton had been elected instead of Trump. I blame each and every Trump voter for the chaos and right-wing extremism we're now experiencing.

 

[Tero]

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.

Yet, when congress fails to pass laws about who can be on the ballot, such as insurrectionists, states can decide. Colorado quite correctly followed the 14th amendment. Trumps courts and congress on this issue. Congress failed to make laws excluding the president.

I used this part of the constitution as it clearly gives states and congress powers. Noplace here or under the president does it say the Supreme court has any role.

 

[lobosrul5]

I can't help thinking just how different the country would be now if Clinton had been elected instead of Trump. I blame each and every Trump voter for the chaos and right-wing extremism we're now experiencing.

Yeah, but her emails are so much worse than insurrection, sexual assault, extorting foreign governments, voter fraud, and the 100 things I've forgotten about Trump /s

Honestly, she would've been blamed for the government shutdowns, job losses, economic decline etc due to COVID. And Trump probably would've won in 2020. But I guess the Trump "I did that" stickers next to gas pumps would've been a hoot? (lol no they wouldn't have existed).

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, but her emails are so much worse than insurrection, sexual assault, extorting foreign governments, voter fraud, and the 100 things I've forgotten about Trump /s

Honestly, she would've been blamed for the government shutdowns, job losses, economic decline etc due to COVID. And Trump probably would've won in 2020. But I guess the Trump "I did that" stickers next to gas pumps would've been a hoot? (lol no they wouldn't have existed).

I think she would have handled the pandemic in a much better way and there would have been far fewer deaths. She wouldn't have ignored it and told us it would be gone by Easter.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think I will stand for president of the USA. I certainly don't qualify on many grounds, primarily because I am not a citizen or resident of that country. But it is now clear no US state can keep me off the ballot, nor will Congress pass any laws preventing me. So I'm golden!

And so, now, are all the "illegals" pouring in over the southern border right now. Or from any direction, actually. They can now flood the ballots with their own candidates, even if they can't vote for them.

Thinking further, every one of the 9 billion other people on the planet is also eligible and cannot be removed...

Better get ready for chaos, America!

 

[JayUtah]

Yet, when congress fails to pass laws about who can be on the ballot, such as insurrectionists, states can decide.

Sort of. Congress has not, for example, passed laws to enforce other qualifications for office, nor instructed the states how to enforce them. Several states have enacted their own laws to do so, applying the U.S. Constitution and providing causes of action for the state judiciary to act upon. Until today, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has complained about those exercises.

I used this part of the constitution as it clearly gives states and congress powers.

Powers not enumerated to Congress are retained by the states, or by the people. However, the 14th Amendment section 5 expressly enumerates to Congress the power to enforce the amendment amendment. That precludes the states from acting, and is the basis of the Court's decision today. That Congress does not choose to exercise this power does not magically revert it somehow to some other party.

Noplace here or under the president does it say the Supreme court has any role.

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret federal law, of which the Constitution is the highest example. They have the power to dissect all these questions of federalism. As the minority noted, however, they should not have gone farther the the question they were asked. Instead, the Court arrogated power to foreclose other possible methods of enforcing section 3.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

But if I get enough signatures to get my cute baby on the Ballot in my State, it will require a vote by Congress to keep her off the ballot.
Nothing the State gets to decide.
And, by the way, I'll sue to have the minimum number of signature requirements waived, because States are not allowed to legislate who gets on the Presidential Ballot.

If I were a lawyer, I seriously would try to get on the ballot on the grounds that the STATE laws requiring a certain number of signatures, etc., cannot be enforced. The only thing stopping me from doing this is that I can't afford a lawyer to file a suit should the state try to enforce its rules.

 

[Sherkeu]

True but not relevant. Doesn't change the fact that states do not have complete control over every aspect of elections.

Exactly.

If they did, you bet we'd see a few swing states, like Nevada and Ohio, along with Texas, Florida, et al- with Republican governors deem Biden off the ballot for 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.
Reason? For deliberate and willful inaction to use executive powers to secure the border and allowing for a drastic increase in foreign enemy persons into the country and endangering the homeland and its citizens.

Poof! Biden is off the ballot. And Biden's team and all the other voters in other states, who just had the power of their own votes diminished, just need to accept it.

It doesnt matter who else disagrees or think it isnt valid. If those states decide to remove him for that constitutional reason, then they can do it.
And they would do it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Of course they would. Even if it wasn't true. Just like Trump didn't incite insurrection.