14th Amendment, Why Isn't Trump Disqualified from Running Already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

States can’t let the people vote without being in charge of who gets to be on the ballots people use to vote. If Trump wins in 2024 and then runs in the Republican primary and wins in 2028, should the states just let people vote for him even though he’s constitutionally ineligible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

I'm skeptical of the 14th amendment attack, but with regard to what you said, but elections are run by states and they all have their own ballot access laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

States can’t let the people vote without being in charge of who gets to be on the ballots people use to vote. If Trump wins in 2024 and then runs in the Republican primary and wins in 2028, should the states just let people vote for him even though he’s constitutionally ineligible?

Of course not, but a question with no definitive precedent that is open to interpretation is not for a random state election official to decide. If SCOTUS rules that Trump is not eligible then that is the end of it. No one else is a definitive authority to make that call. I’m a democrat first and a Democrat second. I’m not interested in administratively rigging ballots or elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

I'm skeptical of the 14th amendment attack, but with regard to what you said, but elections are run by states and they all have their own ballot access laws.

None of which gives the Secretary of State authority to test an innovative interpretation of the Constitution. Getting on the ballot in each state requires paying a filing fee, turning in petitions signed by some threshold of registered voters in the state, and/or some other procedural requirements. In most states the party approves its primary ballot and must have a legitimate reason under state law to exclude a candidate who met the procedural requirements. The state would need a valid state law reason to exclude a candidate approved by the party. The point is there has to be a valid state law reason to exclude a candidate from the ballot. I was a Democratic state party officer and we had no choice but to put Lyndon Larouche on the 1988 primary ballot because there was no state law precedent to exclude him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

I'm skeptical of the 14th amendment attack, but with regard to what you said, but elections are run by states and they all have their own ballot access laws.

None of which gives the Secretary of State authority to test an innovative interpretation of the Constitution. Getting on the ballot in each state requires paying a filing fee, turning in petitions signed by some threshold of registered voters in the state, and/or some other procedural requirements. In most states the party approves its primary ballot and must have a legitimate reason under state law to exclude a candidate who met the procedural requirements. The state would need a valid state law reason to exclude a candidate approved by the party. The point is there has to be a valid state law reason to exclude a candidate from the ballot. I was a Democratic state party officer and we had no choice but to put Lyndon Larouche on the 1988 primary ballot because there was no state law precedent to exclude him.

Other people disagree with you. Look the DOJ is prosecutor Hunter Biden with no evidence or proof he took drugs. Basically DOJ is saying Biden lied on a form because he wrote a book saying he was on drugs. There is no evidence with lab results just the word of a Biden who the prosecutors say is a liar.

So yep Trump will not be allowed on the ballot of some states. SCOTUS will have no say because it is a state thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

States can’t let the people vote without being in charge of who gets to be on the ballots people use to vote. If Trump wins in 2024 and then runs in the Republican primary and wins in 2028, should the states just let people vote for him even though he’s constitutionally ineligible?

Of course not, but a question with no definitive precedent that is open to interpretation is not for a random state election official to decide. If SCOTUS rules that Trump is not eligible then that is the end of it. No one else is a definitive authority to make that call. I’m a democrat first and a Democrat second. I’m not interested in administratively rigging ballots or elections.

No court can rule without a decision by a Secretary of State to put him on the ballot which is challenged by a campaign or by voters who don’t think he should be, or a decision by a Secretary of State to NOT put him on the ballot which is challenged by a campaign or by voters who think he should be. I am little d and big D as well, but this is how the process works. You can’t just call the Supreme Court and ask them to make sure.

[Anonymous]

I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t enforceable without a criminal conviction and should not be. We don’t need state Secretaries of State and election commissioners advancing new interpretations of the Constitution. That is not their job.

It’s the job of the courts, not your comments, to determine wither it’s enforceable without a criminal conviction. But hardly anyone who fought for the confederacy had criminal convictions and that’s clearly what the intent was.

And hundreds of ex-Confederates were elected and served in Congress and other offices. Very few were excluded. I agree that the federal courts ultimately must rule on the issue, but state election officials need to stay in their lane and just run elections.

You’re both right and wrong. Determining who is eligible to be on the ballot is part of running elections and squarely in the job description of secretaries of state. We don’t have one federal election, we have 50 state elections plus DC. Some secretaries of state may determine that he’s not eligible and will not put him on the ballot. Others may put him on the ballot and then be sued by voters who don’t think he should be there because he’s not eligible. The courts will ultimately determine, and I think this is mostly an intellectual exercise because there’s no question how this SCOTUS will ultimately rule, but state election officials are firmly in their respective lanes on this.

State officials run elections according to state laws which I am fairly certain do not tell them to make their own interpretations of the Constitution. Candidates on the ballot for a Presidential primary or caucus are determined by a combination of both state law and political party rules and procedures. I don’t see how a Secretary of State could prohibit a state Republican Party from approving Trump to be on their primary or caucus ballot, and if one did, there would be an organized effort to vote for uncommitted delegates who promised to vote for Trump. Similarly, if Trump wins the nomination and some state says he can’t be on that state’s ballot, there would be an unpledged slate of electors who would promise to vote for Trump. States need to just let people vote and determine the will of the people.

States can’t let the people vote without being in charge of who gets to be on the ballots people use to vote. If Trump wins in 2024 and then runs in the Republican primary and wins in 2028, should the states just let people vote for him even though he’s constitutionally ineligible?

Of course not, but a question with no definitive precedent that is open to interpretation is not for a random state election official to decide. If SCOTUS rules that Trump is not eligible then that is the end of it. No one else is a definitive authority to make that call. I’m a democrat first and a Democrat second. I’m not interested in administratively rigging ballots or elections.

No court can rule without a decision by a Secretary of State to put him on the ballot which is challenged by a campaign or by voters who don’t think he should be, or a decision by a Secretary of State to NOT put him on the ballot which is challenged by a campaign or by voters who think he should be. I am little d and big D as well, but this is how the process works. You can’t just call the Supreme Court and ask them to make sure.

If he hasn’t been convicted, it’s a terrible idea. The case would be a slam dunk in Trump’s favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

I think there has be either a criminal conviction or a definitive finding of fact following a credible investigation with due process rights afforded to Trump. It can’t be a Secretary of State’s opinion based on social media consensus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

It says “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States” which would include the President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

He told the Proud Boys to stand down and stand by.
Then he tweeted out for people to come to DC on 1/6 - wild times.
Then he told people at the Ellipse to go to the Capitol and "air their grivences" even though the Capitol was closed.

He participated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

He told the Proud Boys to stand down and stand by.
Then he tweeted out for people to come to DC on 1/6 - wild times.
Then he told people at the Ellipse to go to the Capitol and "air their grivences" even though the Capitol was closed.

He participated.

That’s evidence for random people to form an opinion of his guilt. It is not sufficient evidence for a formal procedure to determine that he is not eligible for office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that you do not need to be convicted. But you have to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I think the Jan 6 people could be covered. But using the actual words it is hard to see how Trump engaged in rebellion. He did not take up arms. He said some stuff but that is not enough to say he was in rebellion.

But that is not the biggest problem with this. There is real doubt that this covers a candidate for president. president is not listed in the list of offices. And although it says any office of the US or some such it is doubtful that this catchall will work.

There may be good reason it did not say president -- because it covered the electors. But that I think is the biggest challenge.

He told the Proud Boys to stand down and stand by.
Then he tweeted out for people to come to DC on 1/6 - wild times.
Then he told people at the Ellipse to go to the Capitol and "air their grivences" even though the Capitol was closed.

He participated.

That’s evidence for random people to form an opinion of his guilt. It is not sufficient evidence for a formal procedure to determine that he is not eligible for office.

Might want to read the 14th again. There is nothing about conviction. This was done to stop confederates from holding office after the civil war. There is a lot of testimony by people under oath saying Trump was an insurrectionist. That all you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's been indicted by the state of Georgia. Not by the federal government, with federal standards for what constitutes an insurrection. And, he hasn't been convicted. If we go off of accusations, we could just accuse all candidates of plotting to overthrow the government and invoke the 14th amendment as a political tactic.

There is a difference between an allegation of plotting and, you know, actually affecting and overseeing one.

Just because he was bad at "insurrecting", just like he's bad at everything else, doesn't mean he didn't engage in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's been indicted by the state of Georgia. Not by the federal government, with federal standards for what constitutes an insurrection. And, he hasn't been convicted. If we go off of accusations, we could just accuse all candidates of plotting to overthrow the government and invoke the 14th amendment as a political tactic.

There is a difference between an allegation of plotting and, you know, actually affecting and overseeing one.

Right now, it's an allegation.