• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

theprestige said:
I, too, think due process and rule of law are a waste of time, and that vigilantism and lynch mobs are the best source of justice in a civil society.
/s
Click to expand...

see, it's that kind of imagination that's required. vigilante lynch mobs armed with 14th amendments.
 
dirtywick said:
see, it's that kind of imagination that's required. vigilante lynch mobs armed with 14th amendments.
Click to expand...


Well Trump did ask about 2nd amendment folks back in the 2016 election. So why not 14th amendmenters for 2024?
 
Again this has been the bit for a while.

"I don't have standards while you have to live up to yours 100% or be a hypocrite."
 
JoeMorgue said:
And that's the Elephant in the Room.

I said this before but maybe not Trump, maybe not on the Presidential Level but on some level, some version of some kind of "Person A is technically not qualified to hold the office but he got elected anyway" is going to happen and we need to figure out now how we as a democracy are going to deal with that.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court declares that nobody with a type AB+ Bloodtype can be elected Dog Catcher in a city over 10,000 people and on Thursday someone with a AB+ Bloodtype gets the most votes for Dog Catcher in Pittsburg. What happens then? This is not an idle question.

In a Democracy how, both functionally and... philosophically I guess (not exactly what I'm trying to say but close) do you tell the populace "You made the wrong decision / you aren't allowed to make that decision?"

The requirements for most offices aren't really deeply and directly challenged that often. The "has to be 35 years old" thing doesn't cause a paradox because no under 35 person ever really got a close enough to be a viable candidate.
Click to expand...

The way we figure that out is to require that any challenge to someone being eligible to hold office must be brought forth before the ballots are made up. I presume that this already happens for all the other requirements (for president, have to be 35 or older, etc.). After that, everyone on the ballot has already been considered to be eligible.

We do (or should do) a similar thing for bringing challenges to election results, which would/should have to happen at some point *before* the results are certified at the state level.
 
Paul2 said:
The way we figure that out is to require that any challenge to someone being eligible to hold office must be brought forth before the ballots are made up. I presume that this already happens for all the other requirements (for president, have to be 35 or older, etc.). After that, everyone on the ballot has already been considered to be eligible.
Click to expand...

And point is what happens when we do all of that and that person still gets the most votes? You can write in a candidate.

Again probably not on a Presidential Level since the Presidential Election is less an election then it is 50 mini-elections in a Trench Coat, but some version of this is going to happen sooner or later to an election that actually matters.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And point is what happens when we do all of that and that person still gets the most votes? You can write in a candidate.

Again probably not on a Presidential Level since the Presidential Election is less an election then it is 50 mini-elections in a Trench Coat, but some version of this is going to happen sooner or later to an election that actually matters.
Click to expand...

I would say, if they are legally bared from being on the ballot, even writing it in would not count as a vote for them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And point is what happens when we do all of that and that person still gets the most votes? You can write in a candidate.

Again probably not on a Presidential Level since the Presidential Election is less an election then it is 50 mini-elections in a Trench Coat, but some version of this is going to happen sooner or later to an election that actually matters.
Click to expand...
Write-in candidates would be tricky, but I see Mike holds that, if they're ineligible, they're ineligible, so buyer/write-inner beware.

Fortunately, write-ins winning is pretty rare.
 
Mike! said:
I would say, if they are legally bared from being on the ballot, even writing it in would not count as a vote for them.
Click to expand...

Okay. How do you tell the 51% of people there votes don't count?

What happens when they say "I disagree?"

What happens when they say "I disagree" with force behind it?

Again these are not idle or unreasonable questions given the last few years.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. How do you tell the 51% of people there votes don't count?

What happens when they say "I disagree?"

What happens when they say "I disagree" with force behind it?

Again these are not idle or unreasonable questions given the last few years.
Click to expand...

Tell them to go inject some bleach and get back to us. Or tell them they may as well have voted for Bugs Bunny, the end result would be the same.
 
Not that the beliefs of MAGA are intelligent or rational, but this whole exercise validates their belief that "the Democrats know they can't beat Trump in a free and fair election, so they are trying to kick Trump off the ballot".

If we can't beat Trump fair and square, then he deserves to be President and we should get better candidates that appeal to the masses.

LOTS of people absolutely loved Obama, Clinton, JFK. LOTS of people love Trump.

Nobody actually loves Biden.
 
Let's be honest: if Trump was trailing DeSantis in the GOP primary polls, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Hercules56 said:
Not that the beliefs of MAGA are intelligent or rational, but this whole exercise validates their belief that "the Democrats know they can't beat Trump in a free and fair election, so they are trying to kick Trump off the ballot".

If we can't beat Trump fair and square, then he deserves to be President and we should get better candidates that appeal to the masses.

LOTS of people absolutely loved Obama, Clinton, JFK. LOTS of people love Trump.

Nobody actually loves Biden.
Click to expand...

Everyone is absolutely sure Trump would lose a "free and fair" election. But the US election system isn't anywhere near "free and fair". Take away gerrymandering and the screwed up electoral college, and Trump would never have stood a chance.
 
Cat Not Included said:
Everyone is absolutely sure Trump would lose a "free and fair" election. But the US election system isn't anywhere near "free and fair". Take away gerrymandering and the screwed up electoral college, and Trump would never have stood a chance.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering has zero influence on Presidential elections. ZERO. If we had no Electoral College the USA would not have existed.
 
Cat Not Included said:
Everyone is absolutely sure Trump would lose a "free and fair" election. But the US election system isn't anywhere near "free and fair". Take away gerrymandering and the screwed up electoral college, and Trump would never have stood a chance.
Click to expand...

If we had "free and fair" elections, the political establishment would have organized and perpetuated itself accordingly, and there's no telling whether Trump would win one, or even if Trump would emerge in the first place. You can't assert that a complex contrafactual works in your favor in a vacuum.

Well, you can, but you'll look like a fool if you do.

ETA: Maybe next time include a cat?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Gerrymandering has zero influence on Presidential elections. ZERO. If we had no Electoral College the USA would not have existed.
Click to expand...

Doh. OK, that's a dumb one on my part. Gerrymandering is a really bad thing, but in this case that's totally the wrong thing. I was thinking of the...eesh, what's it called? "State counts all its votes for whoever got the most, no matter the margin". Is that past-the-post? I can't begin to think of what its called. Aside from discounting lots of votes, it makes it very hard to defeat a 2 party system.

And "the USA would not have existed" is kinda besides the point. Its still has no part in a "fair" election system.

The 14th amendment clearly should disqualify Trump. Its obviously not actually going to, but somehow suggesting we follow that particular rule from the constitution is unfair?
 
Cat Not Included said:
Doh. OK, that's a dumb one on my part. Gerrymandering is a really bad thing, but in this case that's totally the wrong thing. I was thinking of the...eesh, what's it called? "State counts all its votes for whoever got the most, no matter the margin". Is that past-the-post? I can't begin to think of what its called. Aside from discounting lots of votes, it makes it very hard to defeat a 2 party system.

And "the USA would not have existed" is kinda besides the point. Its still has no part in a "fair" election system.

The 14th amendment clearly should disqualify Trump. Its obviously not actually going to, but somehow suggesting we follow that particular rule from the constitution is unfair?
Click to expand...

First-past-the-post: Gives the person with the most votes the win, even if it's only a plurality instead of a majority. No runoff.

I think you mean "winner-take-all" which awards the state's entire set of electoral votes to the winner, regardless of proportion.

In other words, the dumbest and most annoying way to count results among typical methods.
 
Cat Not Included said:
Doh. OK, that's a dumb one on my part. Gerrymandering is a really bad thing, but in this case that's totally the wrong thing. I was thinking of the...eesh, what's it called? "State counts all its votes for whoever got the most, no matter the margin". Is that past-the-post?
Click to expand...

Winner take all.

I can't begin to think of what its called. Aside from discounting lots of votes, it makes it very hard to defeat a 2 party system.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "defeat a 2 party system." Do you mean that it's hard to win as a third-party candidate? I would certainly agree there.

And "the USA would not have existed" is kinda besides the point. Its still has no part in a "fair" election system.
Click to expand...

The point is that the electoral college gave the smaller states some reassurance that the federal government would not be dominated by the larger states. I don't see anything "fair" about changing the rules in the middle of the game, unless you follow the rule about changing the rules.

The 14th amendment clearly should disqualify Trump. Its obviously not actually going to, but somehow suggesting we follow that particular rule from the constitution is unfair?
Click to expand...

I suspect the original intent wing of the Supreme Court will not agree.
 
This issue will obviously be settled by the supreme Court. Will be a very interesting debate.

What qualifies as an "insurrection"?

What sort of participation or aid to insurrectionists qualifies for the 14th amendment restrictions?

Is indictment and conviction required?

Fun times.
 
theprestige said:
I keep saying both sides of the political spectrum are scumbags, and both sides keep proving me right.

Stop appealing to Trump every time you get asked to justify your position.
Click to expand...


When the thread's title mentions Trump explicitly, it would be scummy to pretend Trump is not relevant to the discussion.
 
Hercules56 said:
This issue will obviously be settled by the supreme Court. Will be a very interesting debate.

What qualifies as an "insurrection"?

What sort of participation or aid to insurrectionists qualifies for the 14th amendment restrictions?

Is indictment and conviction required?

Fun times.
Click to expand...

How?
 
theprestige said:
I keep saying both sides of the political spectrum are scumbags, and both sides keep proving me right.

Stop appealing to Trump every time you get asked to justify your position.
Click to expand...

When did your contrarian act get THIS shallow and see through? It's like watching someone lip sync their one hit at this point.
 
JoeMorgue said:
4 installed "Yes Men" to protect the President WHILE implementing religious fascism by reading the Constitution to suit themselves?
Click to expand...

These "Yes Men" have made several decisions that were very much "anti-Trump".

One particular decision that could have tossed out the 2020 election.
 
Hercules56 said:
These "Yes Men" have made several decisions that were very much "anti-Trump".

One particular decision that could have tossed out the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

....
..
.

I don't ******* care.

I'm so sick "Well they aren't toady yes men who protect him with provably bad takes about the Constitution all of the time!" being a defense.
 
Hercules56 said:
And what else?
Click to expand...

That's it. Have a read of its website.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. ​
 
Darat said:
That's it. Have a read of its website.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. ​
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. US Supreme Court is also the highest appellate court in the land. Which is why this issue will ultimately be settled by the US Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom