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

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

But those states wouldn't have a "constitutional reason" to prevent Biden from being on the ballot. The constitution only allows disqualification for specific reasons - age, citizenship, residence, insurrectionizing. The movement to have Trump declared ineligible has not used justifications such as his business dealings with foreign governments while he was president, which were arguably a violation of the constitution. They have only used the justification that he participated in an insurrection, which is expressly a cause for ineligibility.

 

[TragicMonkey]

...Are you asking for good faith and reason here? From them? That's adorable.

 

[Aridas]

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.

It's pretty much a given that she'd have handled it competently and well, that far, far fewer would have died and much less economic pain would have resulted. Republicans (and the media) would still be much harder on her than they were on Trump, even with dramatically less to work with than the absolute nightmare of dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption that Trump's hand ensured.

 

[Hercules56]

But those states wouldn't have a "constitutional reason" to prevent Biden from being on the ballot. The constitution only allows disqualification for specific reasons - age, citizenship, residence, insurrectionizing. The movement to have Trump declared ineligible has not used justifications such as his business dealings with foreign governments while he was president, which were arguably a violation of the constitution. They have only used the justification that he participated in an insurrection, which is expressly a cause for ineligibility.

Red states could easily argue that Biden is allowing in millions of migrants as part of an insurrection against the American people, to add more Democratic voters and SNAP/TANF and Obamacare recipients.

And then declare Biden disqualified to run.

Because of today's ruling, States cannot do that.

 

[Hercules56]

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.

"Biden gave aid and comfort to BLM rioters, therefore he committed insurrection and is banned from the ballot".

Its that easy. Today's ruling makes it legally impossible.

 

[Aridas]

Red states could easily argue that Biden is allowing in millions of migrants as part of an insurrection against the American people, to add more Democratic voters and SNAP/TANF and Obamacare recipients.

And then declare Biden disqualified to run.

Because of today's ruling, States cannot do that.

With the added caveat that yes, everyone even remotely familiar with what's going on knows that doing so would be a dishonest, power mad move made in very bad faith that makes a mockery of being "conservative." That's not a real defense against such happening. It would be challenged, of course, but there's a limited amount of trust that courts stacked with politically motivated stooges can be entrusted with.

 

[JayUtah]

Red states could easily argue that Biden is allowing in millions of migrants as part of an insurrection...

No, that's not an easy argument. Colorado spent quite a lot of energy looking to historical and legislative sources to argue that what Trump did constituted an insurrection as the term was understood in the 1860s. Notably, the Supreme Court did not reach that analysis because it decided the case on purely federalist principles.

What would be the equivalent argument for the scenario you propose?

to add more Democratic voters and SNAP/TANF and Obamacare recipients.

You do realize that resident aliens (paroled or otherwise) can't vote, right?

The question of whether resident aliens qualify for entitlement benefits requires more information, but how does that qualify as an "insurrection?" The both-sidesing you've done in this thread is truly mind-boggling.

 

[JayUtah]

"Biden gave aid and comfort to BLM rioters, therefore he committed insurrection and is banned from the ballot".

A riot is not an insurrection, per the GOP.

 

[Tero]

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.

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.

The amendment merely suggests that congress can act laws based on the amendment. It does not say the laws are needed. With the lack of law, the state should be use the amendment to block a candidate. They did. It's nonsense that Colorado would rule for the country. Until congress passes laws, the states can only act on this matter individually. Federal law in this case IS the amendment. if the amendment is somehow confusing, congress needs to clarify it. THEN the court can decide if Congress understood the amendment.

 

[Sherkeu]

But those states wouldn't have a "constitutional reason" to prevent Biden from being on the ballot. The constitution only allows disqualification for specific reasons - age, citizenship, residence, insurrectionizing. The movement to have Trump declared ineligible has not used justifications such as his business dealings with foreign governments while he was president, which were arguably a violation of the constitution. They have only used the justification that he participated in an insurrection, which is expressly a cause for ineligibility.

They (a state, or merely that state's election authority) can make such a case- and it will fit, with their own reasoning that they get to decide, on their own- without a need for federal review.

Who will tell them they cannot do it? And by what authority?

 

[Hercules56]

No, that's not an easy argument. Colorado spent quite a lot of energy looking to historical and legislative sources to argue that what Trump did constituted an insurrection as the term was understood in the 1860s. Notably, the Supreme Court did not reach that analysis because it decided the case on purely federalist principles.

What would be the equivalent argument for the scenario you propose?



You do realize that resident aliens (paroled or otherwise) can't vote, right?

The question of whether resident aliens qualify for entitlement benefits requires more information, but how does that qualify as an "insurrection?" The both-sidesing you've done in this thread is truly mind-boggling.

Im playing Devil's Advocate, bro.

Red states wouldn't need logic or reason to disqualify Biden if they had the authority to ban candidates on 14th Am grounds. They could declare "insurrection" to mean anything they like and apply it to anyone they want.

 

[Norman Alexander]

They (a state, or merely that state's election authority) can make such a case- and it will fit, with their own reasoning that they get to decide, on their own- without a need for federal review.

Who will tell them they cannot do it? And by what authority?

The SCOTUS just did exactly that.

 

[johnny karate]

The cool part is that if Biden loses the election, he can openly engage in an insurrection to keep himself in office, and red states can’t do anything about it.

 

[Sherkeu]

The SCOTUS just did exactly that.

Exactly.

And because each state decision on Presidential eligibility affects the entire nation, any interpretation of constitutional law seeking to bar a National candidate should need a reasoning that has been decided by a majority of all the representatives- in Congress. The right of the state is limited in this case.

Otherwise, you'd have a whole bunch of unintended avenues for election interference by each state, all with different rules, and including the power to remove a President currently holding office, for the same 'insurrection' reasoning.
All of which would end up at SCOTUS, again and again and again.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Exactly.

And because each state decision on Presidential eligibility affects the entire nation, any interpretation of constitutional law seeking to bar a National candidate should need a reasoning that has been decided by a majority of all the representatives- in Congress. The right of the state is limited in this case.

Otherwise, you'd have a whole bunch of unintended avenues for election interference by each state, all with different rules, and including the power to remove a President currently holding office, for the same 'insurrection' reasoning.
All of which would end up at SCOTUS, again and again and again.

Glad you agree - states do NOT get to vet presidential candidates for the elections they have to run. And there are no laws that have been passed by US Congress to do so either. So the requirements for presidential candidates are unenforceable by law, i.e. toothless.

Which is why I, as a non-citizen, non-resident, plan to nominate myself as a candidate for US president in the state of Colorado. Do I have your vote?

 

[JayUtah]

The amendment merely suggests that congress can act laws based on the amendment. It does not say the laws are needed. With the lack of law, the state should be use the amendment to block a candidate. They did. It's nonsense that Colorado would rule for the country. Until congress passes laws, the states can only act on this matter individually. Federal law in this case IS the amendment. if the amendment is somehow confusing, congress needs to clarify it. THEN the court can decide if Congress understood the amendment.

Ah, I see your reasoning now. This makes more sense under the concomitant powers doctrine. In some cases, granting regulatory power expressly to Congress divests states of the power to regulate, even if they think they have a good reason to. In other cases states may legislate until such time as Congress passes superseding legislation. If you are arguing that §§ 3 and 5 should have been interpreted that way, I don't disagree. The Court disagreed, and here we are.

 

[JayUtah]

And because each state decision on Presidential eligibility affects the entire nation, any interpretation of constitutional law seeking to bar a National candidate should need a reasoning that has been decided by a majority of all the representatives- in Congress. The right of the state is limited in this case.

Again, the point you ignore—and for which I provided a hypothetical that no one has yet addressed—is that some states do right now regulate the other aspects of eligibility for federal office (e.g., age, residency). And they do so in a variety of ways: submission of documents, sworn statements, etc. Until today, no one in the federal judiciary or the Congress cared one whit that this was happening.

All of which would end up at SCOTUS, again and again and again.

To be sure, any application of the U.S. Constitution raises a federal question. So when you say that states have no authority to judge this, they do: but it's always delegated authority that may resumed. What the Supreme Court has done to day is to resume not just the authority over the question but also any possibility of any other answer to the question. Then they also affirmatively dictated a legislative solution.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

They (a state, or merely that state's election authority) can make such a case- and it will fit, with their own reasoning that they get to decide, on their own- without a need for federal review.

Who will tell them they cannot do it? And by what authority?

Colorado has a state law that prohibits people who are ineligible from holding an office from appearing on the ballot. Removing Trump from the Colorado ballet using this law required a court determination that Trump participated in an insurrection, and this decision was appealable to the Colorado Supreme Court. It wasn't simply a matter of some state official unilaterally declaring that Trump was ineligible. The state would have to prove, at least in its own court system, that it had a justification that agreed with both state law and the US constitution for banning Biden from the ballot.

 

[JayUtah]

Red states wouldn't need logic or reason to disqualify Biden if they had the authority to ban candidates on 14th Am grounds.

Where did Colorado's authority to apply the 14th Amendment to their state laws come from?

My state has the authority to strike down state gun control laws by citing to the 2nd Amendment. Where do they get that authority?

 

[Beerina]

Again, the point you ignore—and for which I provided a hypothetical that no one has yet addressed—is that some states do right now regulate the other aspects of eligibility for federal office (e.g., age, residency). And they do so in a variety of ways: submission of documents, sworn statements, etc. Until today, no one in the federal judiciary or the Congress cared one whit that this was happening.


To be sure, any application of the U.S. Constitution raises a federal question. So when you say that states have no authority to judge this, they do: but it's always delegated authority that may resumed. What the Supreme Court has done to day is to resume not just the authority over the question but also any possibility of any other answer to the question. Then they also affirmatively dictated a legislative solution.

With the exception of Birther silliness, which was laughed out because of no serious evidence.