• jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I’m mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I’m also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection.”

    I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    1 year ago

    The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, but it’s only about states’ rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it’s just federal power all the way down.

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?

        This is bad precedent.

        • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress

          It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.

          This is bad precedent.

          Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?

            That’s what the people who are taking offence to what I’m saying are not seeing.

            • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?

              Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.

              Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?

                My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.

                I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.

                • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  without being convicted by congress or the court.

                  Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.

                  My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president

                  Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?

                  Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?

                  Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          On what grounds would they be removed? They can’t kick somebody off the ballot if it won’t stand up in court.

            • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.

              Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.

        • Chaser@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          But then the argument is we shouldn’t follow the law because the GOP might break it

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                I told you my reasoning, I clarified it and if you’re looking for an argument about it you’re not getting it from me.

                Have a nice day and thanks for the conversation.

                • Chaser@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can’t deal with that, that’s your business

                • Chaser@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can’t deal with that, that’s your business

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly do you think that will matter? What’s to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?

      • Chocrates@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing, I think they will do it.

        But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn’t think it applied, but I’m an idiot on my couch with no legal training.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No.

          The people.

          Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn’t announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren’t anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When some states allow him and some block him, that’s the argument for the Court to step in.

      • Nobody@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.

        • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.

  • zenitsu@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When you’re such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.

    • kelargo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. Didn’t Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?

      • woodenskewer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re referring to, then, apologies.

        • Estiar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any real impact from blue states barring Trump, or are we just hoping to set enough of a precedent for a red state to actually grow a pair and kick him too?

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      He is blocked from the primary. Blue states still vote in the Republican primary, this means Maine and Colorado will be won by someone else. There is a chance if enough states do it, won’t have enough votes to be the nominee

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that happens the pay will just change the rules and select him at the convention.

        They’re all-in with this doomsday cult.

    • Aztechnology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t Maine not all of nothing for electoral college votes? So while minor if trump did run he would lose some amount?

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s fine, right now it’s the momentum that counts. Hopefully other states will follow. I don’t know how this process works but I’m hoping he’s spread thin enough while fighting them all at once. Maybe that’ll do something to his pockets and stress him tf out, idk,

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No impact because the Supreme Court is going to overturn their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Maine’s top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.

    Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Mr Trump was not eligible because of his actions leading up to the US Capitol riot in 2021.

    Maine now joins Colorado as the two states to ban Mr Trump from the ballot.

    The 34-page ruling says that Mr Trump must be removed from the ballot because he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.

    In her order, Mrs Bellows says that Mr Trump “over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol”.

    She added that his “occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions”.


    The original article contains 148 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 6%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wake me up when a state that matters (as in, a state that will have an impact on the likelihood of Trump getting to and winning the general election) does it.

    I’m not convinced a red state would dare put their metaphorical balls on the chopping block like that.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    makes no difference

    it is a state by state at this point in time like the cannabis issue and other laws have gone even Biden has gone for this

    either are born in a state with favorable laws or not and some are not allowed to vote and some candidates are barred already from participating and nobody fussed about that why is this any different

    Obama and Biden chained a candidate to chair for wanting to debate with Republicans and Democrats and they won that election and we voted Biden in

    why should anything block someone being eligible for president now nobody cares unless that person is Trump or someone wanting different options other than not Trump

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      You realize it’s literally in the constitution that anyone taking part in an insurrection is barred from elected office (among other things) without 2/3rds approval from the house and senate?

      You want to know why “no one cared until Trump”? Because it literally hadn’t happened in our lifetimes. It’s really hard to hold people accountable for things that aren’t happening.