Not sure why everyone around here thinks this okay to do because of “state rights.” The argument makes sense…if a state can decide, according to their own definition, that someone shouldn’t be allowed to be on a Presidential ballot, it will open the doors to chaos…
There’s a long history of states deciding to keep people off the ballot for other reasons the Constitution disqualifies them, such as not being 35. It’s also pretty common for minor-party candidates to only qualify for the ballot in some states.
None of this has caused chaos.
You’re talking about enforcing certain laws to keep them off, that’s different than what Colorado’s doing. Colorado is deciding on their own that Trump is guilty of something, and therefore, must be kept off the ballot. Our voting system can’t allow states to determine who’s guilty of what, and who to keep of the ballots, simply based on opinion.
We literally have an amendment to the constitution to keep insurrectionists off the ballot. That’s a form of law
Trump was found guilty of an insurrection? I didn’t know that…
Finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection was part of how Colorado got to booting him from the ballot.
A criminal conviction has never been a requirement for keeping somebody out of office under the 14th amendment
SCOTUS disagrees with you. And their opinion of Constitutional legality is ultimately the only one that has any relevance
They haven’t actually issued a ruling at this point. And I don’t have to agree even if they do
Breaking: Constitution Ruled Unconstitutional
It’s because trump hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection yet.
That’s likely to take longer than next election, which is one of many reasons our justice system moves too slow.
14A arguments have been used to DQ people many times in the past without court proceedings.
The Supreme Court is obviously going to put Trump on the ballot, but we shouldn’t pretend they have any justified reason to do so.
Let’s just ignore loopholes because Republicans would never use the same one twice!
/s
If we fight fascism with inaction, I do t like our chances.
We need to do shit not just say “it would happen anyways, nothing we can do”
We need to do shit
And what would that be. Let me guess: peacefully protest? Yeah that’s going to surely change their minds.
I’m afraid this issue (contingent on the expected result of failure of the “justice” system) can no longer be solved peacefully. This is the moment all those 2nd amendment goons were keeping their
dicks hardguns ready for, and they’re all in arms to support the domestic enemy. There’s nothing left to do. Get a gun.There’s nothing left to do. Get a gun.
And then what?
Good question. My suggestion: The gun is for self-defense first and foremost, and best used in an open display of force to counter police/armed rednecks. Organize your neighbors and friends. Have a discussion. Abandon the idea of controlled peaceful protest. Abandon the idea of “spreading the message.” People already have the message by now, you’re not looking to convert anyone still sitting on the fence by that point. Stop traffic (don’t glue yourself down, that’s to make it harder for police to pull you off. You want to aim to make police afraid to approach you) Paint gaffiti (it has an enormously demoralizing/enraging (angry people make mistakes) effect on a cop to see a seven-foot mural of a uniformed officer fucking a pig on the local donut/coffee shop), smash windows of government offices (not including emergency services, except cops if you think you can get away with it). Start local and specific. Think “How can my friends and I best interrupt the flow of money locally?” Protests do not have to be peaceful- Most peaceful protests are not effective. Effective protests spread like a disease.
used in an open display of force
That’s called brandishing, and it’s a federal crime, meaning that it is illegal in every single state.
Did you mean open carry? That’s not legal in most states if you are participating in a known protest.
Learn firearm laws before continuing to say more dumb shit and making firearm owners look bad.
You are considered what most of us gun people call a Fudd.
Are you referring to 14A arguments outside of sec. 3? I ask because section 3 has only been applied to one non-confederate
Section 3 has been invoked since the Confederate issue was settled, but just once.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/11/14th-amendment-trump-insurrection-impeachment/
In a sense, yes. To be precise, the blame for this lies solely with inept, cowardly Merrick Garland, who took two and a half years to begin doing anything at all to hold Trump accountable. If not for Garland’s incomprehensible delays, the matter would have been settled well before ‘24 election season.
No blame for the president who though Garland would be a good SC pick and then made him AG?
I’m not saying “don’t blame Garland” btw.
I’m pointing out one of the main reasons we’re losing so hard is we’re not even trying
Considering holding the orange dotard accountable was essentially his whole campaign platform, yeah, plenty of blame for Biden on this one too. But it was Garland’s job to do the needful and he slept on it, until finally calling in Jack Smith at the 11th hour to do something.
Too little, too late, once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - the DNC.
A guilt verdict for insurrection was not required for any of the other people made ineligible by the 14th Amendment, why does a different standard apply only to Donald Trump?
Couy Griffin, for a recent example, was removed from office in 2022 based on the 14th Amendment; the only thing he was found guilt of was trespassing. And after the 14th Amendment was ratified thousand of Confederates who had been convicted of nothing filed amnesty requests with Congress to remove their disqualification under the 14th Amendment because it was well understood that a conviction wasn’t required.
Go tell the SC.
I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m saying what the SC is using for an excuse.
Or this article:
Where the judge explains why she ruled different for a president.
She was then overruled in treating him differently.
You don’t need to be. Why do u think otherwise?
Why do you think I’m a SC justice?
I don’t. You obviously don’t have the reading comprehension to be one,based on your response.
Trump’s main argument, though he doesn’t admit to insurrection, is that he isn’t technically an officer under the united states and so technically the 14th amendment doesn’t apply.
He could be arguing, strongly, that he didn’t commit insurrection but he’s not. His lawyer basically said, “yeah, we don’t admit that but it doesn’t matter because of this technicality”.
Its a super weak argument. Trumps lawyer gave the scotus very little reason to find in his favor other than, “if you find against us there will be a tit for tat among the states leading to chaos” which, yeah, but that’s not a legal argument.
That’s like sovereign citizen level bullshit. Crazy they’re going with that.
Crazy but not surprising. Im sure Maga has many sovereign citizens in its roster.
Yeah, but he hasn’t been found guilty yet …
He obviously should, and probably will.
But it hasn’t happened yet, and likely won’t before the election.
Which is why I’m complaining about how long our justice system takes for the rich, they can stall
He was found by a court in Colorado to have engaged insurrection. A criminal conviction is not necessary. Just like there’s no conviction necessary for any other disqualification like age, citizenship, residency, and all the others.
This?
That’s a lawsuit, not a criminal trial.
Like, OJ wasn’t found guilty of murder in criminal court, but he lost the civil trial.
I’m pretty sure that’s the distinction
Show me where in the 14th Amendment a criminal trial is specified?
What purpose would a criminal trial serve?
The 14th amendment requires no criminal conviction. Your whole argument about needing to be convicted of insurrection is just flat out wrong based on the actual text of the amendment. You can argue it’s poorly written, and I might agree with you, but it says what it says.
The remedy for being disqualified by the 14th is to petition congress to remove the disqualification. Such remedies were petitioned for and approved in the 1860s and 70s without much fuss.
See, while what you’re saying is true, it’s not the whole truth.
The remedies in the late 1800’s were required because Congress had already taken action to define the events of the Civil War as an insurrection. It was an act of Congress that they were having to appeal. There has been no similar act of Congress that Trump would need to appeal.
The core question, and one that the justices seem to be asking pointedly, is who determines whether someone’s actions constitute “insurrection”? In the past, it was Congress. There’s certainly an argument to be made that if someone was convicted of criminal insurrection, that would suffice. But absent those two, how do you make that determination, and who makes that determination.
I think the court feels that, while the 14th doesn’t explicitly state how to make that determination, absent a criminal conviction or act of Congress, that there is no grounds to disqualify a candidate due to 14th amendment rules.
And I think I kind of agree. Or, at least, I think there should be some sort of objective metric that gets defined before making a determination. Especially since the last major use of the 14th was literally the Civil War, which, as bad as Jan6 was, is a pretty huge amount worse. And if we’re plotting them along a continuum, to the left of Jan6 you have things like mass protests that attempt to shut down government functions to push certain agendas, which I think we all agree is well within the bounds of freedom of speech.
I’m not defending Trump, let me be clear. I am simply advocating that we note that there is nuance to this issue. Life is not painted in black and white. Just because something was bad, and even that it should be disqualifying, doesn’t mean that it’s easy to justify that fact in the current legal framework we exist in.
The state of Colorado has found, as a matter of fact, that Trump engaged in insurrection.
To argue that it takes an act of congress to declare someone an insurrectionist when the remedy for such a declaration is also congress doesn’t make any sense. You can’t have the same body deciding such things because you’d just have a chicken and egg situation (which is exactly what trump wants).
Indeed. As with any controversial topic there are a lot more facts and nuances beyond knee-jerk reactions to headlines.
And so, I applaud you for taking the time to outline the issue with the depth it deserves.
I mean, Trump can go to hell, don’t get me wrong.
But I am mildly frustrated that something this important is treated so superficially by so many in this and other threads. What can you do though?
No. It isn’t. If you read the summaries I saw from today, it says the Justices didn’t even discuss whether he participated in insurrection. (Ed. nor anything about conviction. What have you been reading??)
Also if you look at the original Colorado ruling, it lays out in pretty great detail, based on the evidence presented, that Trump did, in fact, participate in insurrection.
It doesn’t matter if Colorado lays out that Trump is an insurrectionist.
It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist
It matters if he has been found guilty of insurrection, or an insurrection-like offense, through a final judgment on the merits
It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist
That’s incorrect. It absolutely does matter if the candidate is an insurrectionist. It’s literally the only thing that matters.
Read Section 3 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion ):
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The language is deliberately vague here. It doesn’t say a person needs to be convicted of anything, only that they committed the act. Colorado put forth an excellent case that the actions Trump engaged in count as insurrection.
During oral arguments in the court today, the justices hand-waved this aside and changed the subject, asking “what if” questions about them allowing Trump’s removal, speculating that any state could easily gin-up boloney insurrection arguments against any candidate and have them yanked off the ballot. “What would we do then?” they kept asking.
From home, I’m yelling “You do your fucking job.” Let the speculative bullshit charges be made, appealed, heard and rejected for the bullshit that they are, shaming the shit-slinging politicians for wasting the peoples’ time.
It’s hilarious that you got this exactly wrong. Nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted. Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.
“Colorado laid out in detail why someone shouldn’t be on their ballot…” So, by allowing this, any state in the country can do this…“Texas laid out in detail why Biden shouldn’t be on their ballot, therefore, he’s not…”
Texas use word salad. Co used evidence from congressional hearings. These are not the same.
I mean, think of the chaotic implications of letting states determine who is eligible to be on their ballots by following a federal standard laid out in the constitution.
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
The problem is that Republicans will obviously abuse this. They’ve wrecked our justice system across all levels.
⬆️ This is the correct answer.
If they allow individual states to make their own “objective” legal determinations regarding what is or is not an insurrection then you will never have a democratic candidate on the ballot in any Republican majority controlled state ever again. They will take that as carte blanche authority to say that every single Democrat is a traitor to the Constitution, and is unfit to hold office.
No.
Making legal rulings based on obviously fallacious reasonings because of what Republicans might do or how they’ll abuse that ruling is morally wrong and absolutely unjust. What SCOTUS should do (assuming they want to find Colorado correct, which… Roberts’ Court 🤷) is issue the ruling saying Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot, then when GOP fascist states try to remove Biden, take those inevitable cases and judge them on their merits, upholding or overturning them as the facts allow.
They’re judges. This is their job.
So, Colorado determines who their residents are allowed to vote for, because THEY determine that Trump did something unconstitutional? I don’t get that…I mean, isn’t that what communist countries do? They pick and choose who the people can vote for?
I mean, it never really should’ve gotten to the Colorado court in the first place.
And like, we already can’t vote someone under 35, or a foreign national into the Whitehouse. Honestly I think “no insurrectionists” is the most reasonable restriction of the three.
It’s called having eligibility criteria, and it’s a fact of life everywhere. You wouldn’t want a five year old driving a car or drinking alcohol, and the law addresses this. Insurrectionists are disqualified in the Constitution, plain and simple. At least Trump doesn’t have to worry about being disqualified for being a rapist or bad businessman as the Constitution is silent on both of those items.
First my dude, none of us “pick” who to vote for. The parties decide who to put in front of us. But you’re still free to write-in Trump if you want. Also the GOP could decide to run a candidate who is Constitutionally eligible, but they don’t have the spine/guts/balls/chutzpah/decency/insert whatever adjective you want here to do that.
Second, no, a court decided based on the facts that Trump is ineligible. Feel free to read their opinion and cite what part of the analysis you think they got wrong.
And third, my dude, think about what year you were born. Then look up every single law passed before that, going all the way back to the Constitution. And then realize that you are expected to follow each and every one of those laws, despite having no say in their passing. That is far closer to the Conservative’s boogeyman definition of “cOMmUNIsm” than the Colorado court case.
I was thinking this too. But let’s suppose the Democratic run states decide to play dirty (I know, I know). Now nobody gets past the post in a presidential election… Now what?
Learn some 8th grade civics.
If a candidate for President fails to receive 270 [electoral college] votes, the House itself will choose the President from among the three individuals who received the most electoral votes. In this process, each state receives one vote, and it’s up to the House members from that state to decide how to cast it. The election has gone to the House twice, in 1801 and 1825.
And if the House cannot do it, the Speaker becomes President until the House elects someone.
Learn some 8th grade civics
🙄
They would need proof.
Fine, then the civil war that’s been brewing finally kicks off and we can deal with fascists in the appropriate manner. That’s not a compelling reason to implicitly allow fascists to participate in elections after attempting a coup, which would be the message sent if this is denied.
Ok I mean we can’t have no laws because some leader is corrupt.
This is always such a spurious argument; Republicans will do what they’re going to do regardless of precedent. There was no precedent for their attempt to throw out the results of last election but they did it anyway.
Exactly. Precedents only give them more ideas, but they’re perfectly capable of coming up with them on their own. Besides, if we keep worrying about how bodies of government doing their damn jobs to kepp the R’s in line will later be abused by republicans, then that’s just giving that full control to the republicans in a lot fewer steps
Republicans straight up dont give a flying fuck about rules, laws or precedent. They will always do whatever the fuck they want to do. Damn the consequences.
Are you serious? So, every state in the country should just throw out whoever they wan.t…allowing their residents to ONLY vote for the people that the state government wants them too? Sounds very…communist.
Just so you know, that’s not what communist means.
And if leading a riot into the capital to overturn an election counts as insurrection, then anyone could be taken off the ballet!
I mean, you could exclude like half the Republican caucus. Imagine what a bunch of fresh blood would do to the place!
Fixed it…
“I mean, you could exsanguinate like half the Republican caucus. Imagine what a bunch of fresh blood would do to the place!”
What happened to State’s Rights?
Those are only for Republican-leaning states.
States should decide who can run for President?
I think it was more a rhetorical point about how Feiblicans insist issues dear to them should be decided by each state, but are happy to forget about that when they want a certain policy nationally.
Anyway, yes. I thought states were free to choose how to run their own elections.
Oh look the fully predictable result has occurred.
We all knew it wasn’t going to happen, right? Like no one actually believed he would be kept off the ballots, did they?
More of an outside chance. The Supreme Court might decide that saving the Republican party is more important than helping Trump.
God forbid we have more than ONE political party in power right? I mean, hey, let’s just let Democrats decide and control everything!
One of the two powerful parties have collapsed before. It doesn’t mean one party rule forever. At most, they dominate a couple of election cycles.
