Is Donald Trump disqualified? Only Congress can decide!

[Care4all]

I'm not going to get into a legal argument with someone who is obviously not competent to understand. Suffice it to say, that the 14th amendment is grasping to begin with and I am not going to lend credence to this nonsense.

Then don't.... you believe what you believe....I have no problem with that.... it is your perogative!

I simply do not have to AGREE with you...and that's my perogative.

See how easy it can be?

 

[Concerned American]

Then don't.... you believe what you believe....I have no problem with that.... it is your perogative!

I simply do not have to AGREE with you...and that's my perogative.

See how easy it can be?

I think I articulated that a few posts back. Thanks in advance for abiding by the upcoming SCOTUS decision.

 

[Care4all]

No. The ONLY qualification criteria that exist are the ones that are in the US constitution. Like I said, there's no need for any state to hold an election in the first place.

But one thing has occurred to me. This isn't even the general election, this about a Primary. Primaries are strictly actions by political parties. So really, it's all the more reason for the courts not to be involved.

According to both Colorado and Maine State Laws, citizens can challenge a candidate's eligibility as a civil action and is brought to each state's civil court, where due process is given to the candidate... (though not as diligent as it would be in a criminal court, where prison could be the penalty).

Maybe the U.S. SUPREME court will step in to State control of their own election process and rule against their state laws, maybe they will try to avoid that and find another way to make these processes more uniformed, I simply do not know how the supreme court will approach it....and I look forward to seeing what they do and how they do it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

According to both Colorado and Maine State Laws, citizens can challenge a candidate's eligibility as a civil action and is brought to each state's civil court, where due process is given to the candidate... (though not as diligent as it would be in a criminal court, where prison could be the penalty).

Yes, but ALL of these points you keep making only apply inasmuch as the question is about ballot access. To be clear, I am not in any way disputing that states have authority to regulate the elections they hold, to include rules for ballot access. My point is that ballot access does not create qualification criteria to serve for a federal office.

While ballot access, or the lack thereof, may create a functional obstacle for someone seeking to be elected, it does not preclude someone being elected President.

 

[BackAgain]

Tell your ignorant friend the 14th Amendment is not predicated on the basis of due process.

Which is moot in this case because due process was afforded Trump at trial in Colorado.

He got no trial in Colorado, you dimwit.

 

[Lakhota]

Just being an INSANE BULLEY should be enough to disqualify him!

 

[Dagosa]

Nice, but Trump is not an insurrectionist.

Sure, like Trump isn’t a fat ass. Say it three times while clicking your heals together.

 

[Lastamender]

Sure, like Trump isn’t a fat ass. Say it three times while clicking your heals together.

Got any magic that will make you relevant?

 

[Dagosa]

Got any magic that will make you relevant?

Claiming Trump isn’t an insurrectionist is just like claiming he doesn’t have a fat ass and you’re sane.

 

[Rigby5]

According to both Colorado and Maine State Laws, citizens can challenge a candidate's eligibility as a civil action and is brought to each state's civil court, where due process is given to the candidate... (though not as diligent as it would be in a criminal court, where prison could be the penalty).

Maybe the U.S. SUPREME court will step in to State control of their own election process and rule against their state laws, maybe they will try to avoid that and find another way to make these processes more uniformed, I simply do not know how the supreme court will approach it....and I look forward to seeing what they do and how they do it.

Wrong.
No state can claim Trump was guilty of insurrection without a trial.
Even if Trump intended the protest to trespass, that is NOT proof of insurrection without the full Rule of Law that allow defense, mitigation, etc.
In fact, it seems to me to be deliberate insurrection to attempt to block an election process over a totally unverified claim of insurrection over a protected political protest.

 

[Rigby5]

Just being an INSANE BULLEY should be enough to disqualify him!

Not without the full due process of a court of law.

 

[Rigby5]

Sure, like Trump isn’t a fat ass. Say it three times while clicking your heals together.

Anyone can say anything, but to any act to restrict rights requires a full court of law.

 

[Rigby5]

Just being an INSANE BULLEY should be enough to disqualify him!

In my opinion, almost every president has been an insane bully.
It is almost par for the course since who else would be arrogant enough to want to be president?

 

[BackAgain]

Just being an INSANE BULLEY should be enough to disqualify him!

Chief Shitting Bull makes empty and stupid claims. And he does so illiterately.

 

[Dagosa]

Anyone can say anything, but to any act to restrict rights requires a full court of law.

All your so called rights are not absolute and subject to criminal or civil review. Most of all Trumps. I want my representatives holding him accountable for fking up my life. It no different than going to war and getting drafted, he’s a formed president who was a traitor while in office.

 

[Dagosa]

Wrong.
No state can claim Trump was guilty of insurrection without a trial.
Even if Trump intended the protest to trespass, that is NOT proof of insurrection without the full Rule of Law that allow defense, mitigation, etc.
In fact, it seems to me to be deliberate insurrection to attempt to block an election process over a totally unverified claim of insurrection over a protected political protest.

We had a trial. The courts looked at the evidence and said, “ fat ass Trump is a fking traitor”. They used the word insurrection. Even the state courts that kept him on the ballot, found him engaged in insurrection. How many Fking trials do you need. Trumps lawyer argued in court and failed in Colorado.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment (section 3) states that anyone who previously took an oath to support the constitution of the United States and then committed insurrection "against the same" is barred from serving in pretty much any kind of high office in either the federal or state governments. Section 5 further states that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

And indeed Congress has utilized that power with multiple laws. The Enforcement Act of 1870 was passed under the section 5 power of the 14th amendment, and though it's since been amended, this part is still in force today:



All things considered, this is a rather weak means of enforcement, as it merely restates the constitution. Congress could, for example, legislate that no person who has committed insurrection or rebellion may appear on any ballot for office, and that no vote for such person shall be counted, to include the votes of electors for President and Vice President, so on and so force. But they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse.

This, therefore, leaves very little available to be done at the federal level during the preparations for an election. At the state level some may be tempted to believe that much more can be done. But this is, at best, a foolish endeavor into partisanship. It would amount to proverbial ballot gerrymandering.

States are not the proper venue to fight federal battles. The constitution does not generally permit or tolerate states attempting to wield matters of federal power. We see that in the recent dust up over Texas attempting to set its own immigration policies. Going back a few decades the Supreme Court made it clear in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states have no power to legislate term limits for their own members of Congress, or otherwise enact qualifications more restrictive than what the US Constitution sets.

The Court's reasoning is fairly simple: The federal government did not exist prior to the ratification of the constitution, any power the states might possess in regards to its own members of Congress stems from the constitution itself, but the constitution does not grant states the power to enact term limits for Congressional office, therefore the states cannot possibly have reserved a previously nonexistent power through the 10th amendment and since the constitution did not grant them the new power to enact term limits for service in Congress no such power exists.

Also of note is that the constitution explicitly states that each house of Congress will be the judge of its own members' qualifications. Clearly, the constitution envisions only the federal government can rightly determine any question over a person's constitutional qualifications to hold a federal office. This fact is further reflected in the constitution mechanics for the Electoral College, and its contingencies for vacancies.

The constitution grants the power to choose electors to the states, by any means they wish, except that anyone holding a public federal office is excluded (once again notice the way the constitution draws lines between federal officials and state officials co-mingling their respective duties). While the states certainly can create their own legislation that might deprive people from appearing on the ballot for allegedly committing whatever that state thinks constitutes insurrection against the US for purposes of the 14th amendment. But the state's action would have absolutely no real bearing on the person's eligibility under the constitution because states have no power to set or test qualifications for federal offices.

Instead, the constitution positively anticipates the possibility that a person could win a Presidential election even though they might not be constitutionally qualified. The 20th amendment demonstrates this, as it prescribed contingencies for that very possibility.



Furthermore, while state laws may try to force electors to be faithful, that is an entirely state matter. The constitution has no conception of this within its own understanding of how the mechanisms of the federal government are designed. Instead, the constitution only knows that, as described in the 12th amendment, each elector casts separate ballots for President and Vice President. A key detail that is demanded by the constitution is the prohibition on electors against voting for two people from their own state. The constitution includes an explicit prohibition on who electors can vote for. This is important because we cannot infer additional prohibitions that aren't also explicitly stated. While the constitution states that no person not a natural born citizen, or under the age of 35, can serve as President, the constitution does not anywhere state that electors are prohibited from voting a person unless they have first verified the person is constitutionally qualified.

In conclusion, Congress has the power under the 14th amendment to enact robust measures that would affirmatively prevent and bar insurrectionists like Donald Trump from even being a candidate for public office. However, they have chosen not to do so, for better or worse. As a result, the only mechanisms available are the largely toothless Section 2383 statute, and the mechanisms under the constitution. The constitution clearly envisions the possibility for a person to become President elect even though they do not meet the constitutional qualifications. And those mechanisms are what will have to be followed.

/——/

 

[Dagosa]

/——/

View attachment 896103

/——/

View attachment 896103

So, you’re now stooping to quoting Stormy Daniels in political matters ? How much did you have to pay for that ?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

IF the Supreme Court touches the ballot cases, I would bet that they will narrowly rule on the procedural grounds that the states don't have authority to scrutinize a person's constitutional qualifications for President. I think it's more likely that they will simply decline to be involved, treating it as a strictly state issue.

Told you, bitches. Unanimous ruling, no less.

Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off ballot

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Court agrees unanimously with me.

It will agree that Trump has no immunity as well.