So now that Colorado has done it, do there even need to be future lawsuits in any state to follow?
I imagine there might be a lawsuit challenging the state doing it, but thats different than having to prove it in the first place like in Colorado
Most states that are considering this are probably waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in.
Can they really weigh in on how a state runs its elections?
I think they could say they incorrectly found as a matter of fact that Trump incited insurrection.
If they nullify that, then they wouldn’t be able to ban him under the 14th.
Edit: if they force the Supreme cout to rule on this though (did he incite insurrection), that will set precedent country wide, and ban him from the presidency completely I imagine?
I think it’s not state election instruction that’s under question. It’s whether it’s sound to invoke the 14th amendment.
I’m no expert, but it seems logical that you could still win enough electoral votes from states that are not CO.
Dems have won CO every presidential election since 2008, so maybe not a huge issue for Trump? Again - I’m just guessing here.
The idea is that since Presidence has been set, more states will follow. But yes, probably still only states that wouldn’t have voted for him anyway.
Let’s hope more states do it. Maybe it would send a message to the boomers about a potential Trump 2nd term.
It’s just the deep state afraid of the truth! Time and persistence shows the real intentions!
/s
The death of states rights here /s
Just convince them to try again next time after all of Trump’s appeals surely succeed and he is ushered into the throne in the White House.
you don’t need every legal option. the law is clear as day, all we need to do is follow it and wait for the openly corrupt supreme court to decide that it doesn’t count in this case because they’d rather it didn’t.
I see it more as to explore and close every loophole that could be used to prevent or discredit disqualification and make it as airtight as possible.
No matter what happens with Trump, the present GOP is planning to seize and consolidate power.
why? he doesnt have a chance in hell of CA anyway, why spin your wheels?
i guess im curious which of these states might split their electoral votes
This is for the primary ballots so it would mean he cant win Republican primary votes in that state. That means another Republican candidate could beat him and become the nominee if I’m understanding correctly.
If enough of a spook is raised about losing any chance of an EC win, or if enough conservatives try running to pick those states up themselves, it will divide the right wing ballot.
My guess: With the Colorado Supreme Court decision, he wants to build momentum of states disqualifying him. It would also send a message to the Supreme Court that this might be the right decision.
I mean they should still do it because it’s the right thing to do, but yes it won’t carry much meaning in the upcoming election.
So what happens if Trump wins the electoral college but California and other states don’t recognize the insurrectionist shit bag?
How would he win the electoral college without being on the ballot? I guess more than half could write his name in.
If, say, half the states don’t have him on the ballot though, that’s a pretty unlikely thing to happen to win the necessary votes for the whole country.
If he’s on in red states and purple states but not on the blue states.
I’m gonna be frank and say it’s a long shot of Trump winning Colorado and California. He didn’t win those states the last two times.
If he’s not on the ballot in those two states, he could still win the EC as he did in 2016. The comment you’re replying to is wondering what California and Colorado will do, should Trump win the EC.
deleted by creator
I’m surprised this had to be said. 6 days before the balots are ordered.
“The constitution is clear: you must be (at least) 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist,”
"In her letter, Kounalakis acknowledged there would be ‘political punditry’ about a potential decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot but said ‘this is not a matter of political gamesmanship.’ "
Bullshit.
Not only is this gamesmanship, it’s foolish gamesmanship… Dems are gonna shoot themselves square in the foot with this shit.
If you do declare trump ineligible, what goes on the ballot? You gonna have one of them third world elections with just one name on it? No, you’re gonna have trumps mini-me clone… Fucking desantis…
You got Colorado right now. That’s not gonna have a huge impact on it’s own. Those electoral votes were going to be bidens regardless, so it’s something the GOP can, and likely will, completely ignore. In terms of the gamesmanship, all thatx happened is Colorado having made a statement.
If California joins them, it’s just as irrelevant (California’s electorals also belong to Biden), however, it’s now doubled as a statement. It’s twice as loud, and half as ignorable.
The real danger is that a state that matters jumps on the bandwagon. Notably Arizona… If a state that has the capability to determine the outcome opts to bar trump, the GOP will drop him and run desantis in 50 states. You’ll have every single red state supporting fucking desantis, and the potential to pull “martyr” votes in the battleground states for fucking desantis.
If you had to choose trump or desantis, would you go with desantis? That answer should definitely be no, because a lot of the shit cited as being what’s wrong with trump is more attributable to desantis than to trump himself.
Dems are playing with fire with this bullshit, and saying it ain’t gamesmanship is as valid in my opinion as trump saying he wasn’t responsible for the rioting. Possible, but I got some doubts :)
“We shouldn’t uphold the Constitution because it might hurt ME Politically!”
So you believe in “shall not be infringed” then?
Constitution is usually those other guys… Ya know?
That guy may not, but I do. So, yes to recognizing the validity of the 14th Amendment’s applicability to Trump thereby rendering him ineligible for office, and to all gun laws being an infringement. If you go left far enough, you get your guns back.
Not sure if that’s “left”, as it’s kinda hard to define those terms anymore, but i exist in a similar place I think :)
My objections are actually related to due process. I feel there’s definitely shadow of doubt there, and while I don’t like trump, I’m not willing to ignore that shadow, and the current bullshit going on in Texas with Biden is a pretty solid example of why… Not to say they’re the same thing at all, the Biden thing is not even a shadow, it’s just outright bullshit, but if you don’t need an actual conviction, then that’s going to be the inevitable outcome…
Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat? I don’t. I certainly don’t think it means Republican either though. Not trying to stir any pots or anything, it’s just kinda rare for me to agree with a sentiment as much as I agree with yours and I’m genuinely curious about your opinion on the matter :)
Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat?
In principle? No. In practice? The US’s elections are governed by first past the post voting. Until we reform how politicians are elected by enacting more sensible term limits, make lobbying illegal and remove other moneyed interests from public service, and institute ranked choice voting or something similar, the only responsible party to vote for winds up being the Democratic Party despite them not aligning with my preferences on either end of the spectrum.
Ultimately, I think I’m something like a Libertarian who supports taxes for the betterment of society. I think centralized government’s responsibility is to provide services for the constituents they represent and to ensure that our laws are centered on maintaining as much individual liberty as possible.
DeMocRaCy aT woRk
explain to me why this and only this constitutional amendment should be ignored
‘Explore every legal option’ to remove him from the ballot. Sure sounds awfully much like ‘Any excuse that the plebs will fall for’ to remove him from the ballot… Also, if you believe so much in the legal system, why does it only apply to the poor? Have a good day sir or ma’m.
A string of non sequiturs does not an argument make.
If you find those sentences confusing, I feel sorry for you.
Meaningless, he’ll never carry California, but liberals are setting a precedent that I guarantee will be used against them later.
Well, should a Liberal incite an insurrection against the United States, that precedent should be used against them.
Tennessee State General Assembly: I saw a Democrat with a Biden T-shirt set fire to a trash can! It’s totally justified to disqualify Biden!
My State will sadly pull some stupid stunt like this for sure. I get your sentiment but for a lot of us red States our government will absolutely trip over themselves to demonstrate their “hold my beer” skills.
That’s not to say Trump shouldn’t be disqualified, but boy oh boy is it opening a box that looks like no one should open it. I really hope SCOTUS comes back and says something like “it went through three different courts and because of THAT reason we’re up holding it.” Just simply saying “well States should decide” will pretty much mean I’ll never get to vote.
Red states can, and likely will try something like that, but SCOTUS should reverse the decision if it violates the U.S. constitution. States have tried messing with who can and can’t be on the ballot before, and SCOTUS used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment saying you can’t arbitrarily keep a person off the ballot. SCOTUS might do the same for Colorado and California since Trump has not been found guilty of anything involving an insurrection yet. But yeah, if SCOTUS goes full “state’s rights,” saying states can mess with elections however they want, the U.S. will likely become more like a confederacy of sovereign states. And I think states that currently have red governors or legislatures have more electoral votes and house seats than blue states, so we would have a perpetual Republican federal government.
As I understand it, so far, the courts aren’t disputing that Trump incited an insurrection, they’re disputing if the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the President.
Does the 2nd ammendment apply to my AK-47 even though it’s not explicitly determined in the wording? Then the 14th should also apply to office of the president.
They want to eat their cake and have it, and the hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them at all. They use laws, procedure and precident when it helps their case. They blatantly ignore it the rest of the time.
The suit in Colorado was brought by 6 republicans.
what is the precedent? if you get yourself tagged as an insurrectionist, you cant be president?
or are you implying that conservatives are such outright, terrible human beings they would just lie in the future and call whomever they want an insurrectionist to keep them off the ballot? i think the morons down in texas already have that in progress
It would have been used against them anyway, so they might as well use it where it actually applies.
Not trying to be hyperbolic but states selectively choosing who is allowed to be voted on as opposed to having it run as intended can cause a justification for a second civil war. This shouldnt be allowed. I dont care how vile Trump is to you. There is no rule that it can be left to the states to withhold votes in a federal election.
This isn’t states choosing. It’s the US constitution rightly preventing those who tried to destroy the country from ever holding office.
Was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion? Please remind me when he went to jail for insurrection. Ill agree with you 100% if he was proven guilty in a trial for insurrection. If not, then the state is taking it upon themselves to make shit up.
The precedent is that he doesn’t need to be convicted of insurrection for the insurrection clause to apply.
You can be guilty of something without being guilty of something. Thats an interesting way to frame it. What is the precedent here?
A criminal conviction is not required to be disqualified under the 14th amendment. It’s not a criminal punishment, but a requirement for holding public office, in the same vein as being at least 35 is a requirement to be President. There haven’t been many that have been disqualified under the 14th amendment, but none of them were convicted either.
Whats the precedent here then? Or is the intent for this to be the precedent? I will actually send you a crisp $100 dollar bill if this doesnt get overturned by the US supreme court.
What’s going to qualify as “precedent” to you? Another elected official being disqualified from public office after their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, even though they weren’t convicted of insurrection? Or something else? Please be specific, I could really use that hundred bucks.
What is the precedent here?
Former Confederates were barred from holding public office regardless of whether they were actually charged with treason, or anything else
The argument is that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing which in legal terms means that he doesn’t have to be convicted for it to take effect. Similarly, we don’t have to obtain a court ruling that Vladimir Putin isn’t eligible to run for US president, for example, because the part of the Constitution requiring presidential candidates to be natural born citizens is also self-executing.
Whether or not section 3 is in fact self-executing is not settled law, so that could be one way the SCOTUS overturns the Colorado decision, as I think is likely.
The upshot is that given the above, you are in fact incorrect as a legal matter since it’s well within the Colorado supreme Court’s remit to rule that section 3 is self-executing whether we agree or not.
Were any of the Confederate leaders convicted? No, because the earliest incarnation of the law you’re referring to weren’t created until 50 years later. That was not the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, as it would have hurt the reconciliation process to imprison all former Confederate leaders. They were nevertheless prevented from holding federal office.
Funny that you don’t even try to deny that Trump may have been involved in inciting/leading an insurrection. It’s only that he hasn’t been found guilty of it by the courts. How will the goalposts shift if he is found guilty?
Dont get me wrong, i am only trying to defend the process. I would never vote for trump, he is an incarnation of everything we should not like about a portion of our society. Trump should have been thrown in prison years before he was even president for his many instances of fraud.
With that said if trump is found guilty of insurrection, which he absolutely should be, then i would say toss him in jail and let him rot. He is a disgusting human being and society is better without him.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment. It’s in the constitution. This Isn’t just random fuckery, he incited a violent mob to try to overthrow the government, therefore he is ineligible for office. Because no shit, but ALSO because it’s written into the rules of the country.
Read section 3 for me please. Tell me where it says the states can take it upon themselves to decide to absolve. It does say insurrectionists would be inelligible for office but its not up to the state to decide that.
But either way, shouldnt he be charged with insurrection before you make decisions like these? Literally proving his point that they will try any way to get him off the ballot, legal or not. I wonder why other states like Minnesota and Michigan refused to take him off the ballot…
Again, the Colorado court ruled that section 3 is self-executing. That’s a thing, whether you like it or not. I suggest you Google the term.
Explain how someone can be labeled as “traitor of the union” in only certain states. Explain how only 1 state in the union can come to a conclusion that a person falls under self execution of a certain statute within the constitution.
Maybe don’t try to overthrow the government, mmk?
