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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics