Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendmend?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by jt512

No. Not according to the law professors who wrote the article. Under the 14th Amendment, anyone is barred from holding office if they took an oath of office and subsequently engaged in an insurrection. There is nothing in the Amendment requiring a criminal conviction.

That's just stupid. If we don't require a conviction or at least an indictment of committed insurrection, then literally anyone who has ever engaged in any protest or civil disobedience can be barred from public office.

[Paul2]

My understanding is that it's the secretaries of state in the 50 states that determine whose names are on the ballot for a state-wide or national election. States run the elections.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by bruto

On the one hand, if one is reasonable, one would, I think, assume that a conviction would be required here.

That's a defensible knee-jerk conclusion. But since the only relevant federal statute I know about flows from the 14th Amendment, it doesn't make sense to think that the amendment was written with the statute in mind. What we mean to say is that it seems reasonable that some due process and trial of fact would be in order. Not necessary a criminal trial, but some test of the facts alleged that would implicate section 3 of the amendment in an individual's case.

Quote:

A reasonable person might consider that even though the amendment has some ambiguities and oddities of expression, owing to its provenance, it means what it ought to mean, but then again we have a Supreme Court that makes no such allowance, at least where its own agendas are concerned.

I can complain endlessly about the bias of the U.S. Supreme Court, but on this point I think they have correctly clarified the matter. Moore v. Harper is the infamous "independent state legislature" case. Because the Constitution gives power to the state legislatures to set the circumstances of elections, some argue that only the legislature has this power and that its exercise of that power cannot be checked by the state executive or judiciary. The Court found that the architecture of separated-powers government holds, even if it is not expressly called out in each case. Exceptions must be elaborated, not inferred.

Quote:

Many disqualifications exist for various offices, which are not inherently punitive, and may not require the due process that is linked to punishment.

Agreed; a finding of fact in a case of eligibility to office need not be characterized as punitive. Courts sit on matters of equity too.

Quote:

I would indeed assume that one has the right to contest allegations of ineligibility, but if the issue is not a criminal one, does the "innocent until proven guilty" principle still hold?

Administrative findings are generally reviewable. If the finding is that Tom is eligible for President, that may be contested. If the finding is that Dick is not, that finding may also be contested.

This is why I have such a hard time with the conclusions drawn by these professors. There are no implicit grants of power under the Constitution. It is an enumerated-powers document. Thus for them to say that any officer of government is empowered to enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment is misleading. It's not outright false, because all officers of government must perform their duties within the confines of the Constitution. It expressly forbids certain acts from all government actors.

A county clerk, for example, may not refuse to grant a demonstration permit because she disagrees with the subject of the protest. Because of the First Amendment, the government may not discriminate in its adoption or administration of laws on the basis of the content of speech. Although the clerk is not empowered to enforce the First Amendment, she is forbidden from violating it.

However, whether or not she errs in denying a permit in any given case is still a reviewable decision in administrative court, and henceforth elsewhere in the judiciary. Hence my second peeve with the authors' conclusions: the notion that a decision on the part of an election officer to deny candidacy to someone on 14th Amendment grounds would be non-reviewable is unsupported. It's an otherwise inexplicable exception to the rule that executive findings are subject to judicial review.

Quote:

If someone says you can't be president because you're 16 years old, a trial is not needed.

More specifically, if the Kansas secretary of state declines to list you on the ballot for President because you aren't yet old enough, that's tough to contest. Why? Because a determination of one's biological age via appropriate documentation is relatively straightforward today. In fact, one must generally provide suitable documentary proof of one's age and citizenship as part of the application process, and the courts have no problem with that as a statutory requirement. When you fill out the form, you can either supply legally cognizable proof of eligibility by those criteria or you cannot. If you cannot, the administrator of elections in that state is typically authorized by statute to deny your application.

Keep in mind that being (a) a natural-born citizen of the United States and (b) at least 35 years of age constitute things you are. Avoiding a tarring from the 14th Amendment, sec. 3, constitutes something you aren't—i.e., an insurrectionist. It's reasonable to require proof for the affirmatives. You affirm you are a proper citizen, and you have the burden to prove you are. You affirm you are of age, and you have that burden. But an affirmation that you're ineligible because you engaged in insurrection would seem to incur a burden to prove that. It's unreasonable to require proof of a negative. And this differs markedly from the straightforward matters of age and citizenship because it's unlikely to be straightforwardly clear whether a person's actions constitute insurrection. On such matters, it's often unlikely to be straightforwardly clear what a person's actions even were.

Initially, evidence of the claim may be presented to the administrating official, and that official may do such due-processy things as holding hearings or collecting additional evidence, and then issue a finding. But the idea that such a finding cannot be reviewed seems at odds with the norm in administrative law. Courts can't generally dispute the criteria themselves, unless they're add-ons like loyalty tests or administrative fees. But courts can test the means by which an executive determines eligibility. Did the official use reasonable, lawful means to establish or challenge your age, citizenship, residency, or degree of insurrectivity?

Quote:

It's important to remember here that people like Jay Utah are not running the government.

I aspire to understand the law, not to practice it. Ditto government; I have no urge to govern.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Paul2

My understanding is that it's the secretaries of state in the 50 states that determine whose names are on the ballot for a state-wide or national election. States run the elections.

Indeed, but it's up to each state to decide how their elections are run. Each state has its own requirements and officers. In my state, Utah, the lieutenant governor administers elections, determines eligibility, and formulates the ballots. There is, however, a body of federal law that sets general standards for elections to national office. The U.S. Dept. of Justice has authority to enforce those in each state.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

That's just stupid. If we don't require a conviction or at least an indictment of committed insurrection, then literally anyone who has ever engaged in any protest or civil disobedience can be barred from public office.

The original intent was to prevent Confederates from running for office, I'm not sure if that means solders who fought for the Confederacy, those who were part of the Confederate government itself or both. Either way though I think it would have needed to apply to a lot of people where were never actual charged or convicted of anything.

That isn't to say simply accusing someone would be sufficient to keep them off the ballot, there would still need to be some sort of processor and\or investigation.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The original intent was to prevent Confederates from running for office, I'm not sure if that means solders who fought for the Confederacy, those who were part of the Confederate government itself or both. Either way though I think it would have needed to apply to a lot of people where were never actual charged or convicted of anything.

That isn't to say simply accusing someone would be sufficient to keep them off the ballot, there would still need to be some sort of processor and\or investigation.

There were, I think, provisions for exception. And let's not forget that within the decade there was an amnesty that nullified the whole thing anyway. I suspect that one purpose was to prevent the worst Confederate leaders from seamlessly drifting back into the discourse as if nothing had happened. At least it took a little while longer for them to slither back and start trying to **** up the country again.

I get that there ought to be some due process, and likely would be, but what I wonder still is whether the burden of proof is shifted, and if not why not, as it certainly was, at least unofficially, by the Republican "proofers" with regard to Obama, a group in which Trump was obnoxiously prominent. Nobody among them felt the need to prove his foreign birth, only to allege it. It was up to him to produce, not just a lack of proof, but obvious evidence and testimony, and not just that but a birth certificate, and not just any birth certificate but a "long form" one, and even many of those not desperate to sink Obama thought it a fault of his that he did not play their game their way. In a more reasonable world, he should have been able just to say "**** you" out loud and be done with it.

Now the shoe is kind of on the other foot, and while I am inclined to agree that the 14th Amendment should not be tossed around wildly, I think maybe the conservatives have little to complain about if Trump's opponents use their tactics and declare that in this case the lack of proof or the presence of uncertainty goes against him, not for him.

My real hope is that the issue need not be raised, because Trump will be convicted of actual crime and sentenced, and enough people in positions of influence will stop being utter idiots and moon-licking cult robots and realize that a criminal convicted of attempting to overthrow democratic government is an inappropriate candidate for the presidency even if you do like the flavor of his Kool-Aid, and nominate someone who is merely dreadful.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Originally Posted by Paul2

My understanding is that it's the secretaries of state in the 50 states that determine whose names are on the ballot for a state-wide or national election. States run the elections.

Indeed, but it's up to each state to decide how their elections are run. Each state has its own requirements and officers. In my state, Utah, the lieutenant governor administers elections, determines eligibility, and formulates the ballots. There is, however, a body of federal law that sets general standards for elections to national office. The U.S. Dept. of Justice has authority to enforce those in each state.

With regard to ballot access, that varies a great deal by state. In 2020, two states (Vermont and Colorado) had ballots that listed 21 candidates for president. Twelve states listed only three.

It is usually (but not always) the Secretary of State who is responsible for deciding which candidates appear on the ballot, but those decisions are subject to the laws of the particular state. I have spent a few minutes trying to locate the relevant laws of a few states, and have concluded that this task is well beyond my ability.

In most states, however, it appears the nominees of major parties get presumptive access to the ballot. That does not necessarily mean their ballot access is unconditional, because some states impose procedural requirements that apply even to the nominees of major parties.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Denying someone the right to campaign for high public office is probably one of those things, though. So is denying someone the right to assume the high public office to which they've been elected.

I doubt it, but regardless it is part of the Constitution.

Quote:

Remember, this isn't just about the candidate's rights. It's also about the rights of every citizen, to have the candidate they elected represent them.

It (the amendment) is actually about preventing an insurrectionist from holding power. It is intended to protect the country from potential leaders who would work to destroy it.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Trump has not been convicted of sedition, let alone charged with sedition. So no he is not ineligible to run for president.

You might try reading the intervening posts before posting yourself.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Thermal

As I'm reading the logic here, the provision was to keep Confederates from taking office. The claim.of "participating in an insurrection" would have already been legally established at the time, as the succession was already legally declared an insurrection, yes? So it wouldn't apply to Trump here and now.

Explained in the linked articles.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

But how do we decide whether someone actually "engaged in an insurrection?" Who makes that decision and enforces it, and by what authority?

Explained in the linked articles.

Quote:

But you can guarantee that a prospective candidate barred from seeking office by some official with the authority to do that will seek redress in the judiciary...

As the linked articles explain, that is exactly what will occur (by design), and the Supreme Court will make the determination as to whether Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by jt512

Explained in the linked articles.





As the linked articles explain, that is exactly what will occur (by design), and the Supreme Court will make the determination as to whether Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

I did find this in the second linked article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...al-presidency/

"Lawsuits on behalf of voters are already being planned, but for technical reasons concerning the jurisdictions of courts, it would be preferable if a state election official, such as a secretary of state, made a preliminary administrative ruling of Trump’s constitutional ineligibility and then sought judicial confirmation of this determination in state court. Consistent with due process, Trump — and voters who want him on the ballot — would be entitled to challenge this administrative decision in court. Whichever way the state court ruled could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, whose decision would be binding on all the states."

So the thing still needs to go to court/courts.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jt512

Explained in the linked articles.

So you keep saying. But the actual articles only say (with the caveat that the first is paywalled) that a couple dudes have declared J6 an insurrection and that they're totes sure Trump was obviously a participant, so the rest procedurally follows (paraphrased). That's not really a robust legal argument, when the whole issue is exactly what determines an insurrection and its participants. There is a whole counter argument to it being an insurrection just based on that they claimed to support the Constitution, which would preclude it from being an insurrection.

Eta: their speculation as to how it all would roll out may be entirely wrong, BTW. Being a scholar does not make your predictions in uncharted territory automatically accurate, just better informed.

[Orphia Nay]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ots-january-6/

April 18 2023

"Two nonprofit groups who do not disclose all their donors, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech for People, have prepared multipronged legal strategies to challenge Trump across the country under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They have written letters to state election officials calling on them to block Trump from the ballot, while separately preparing voter lawsuits and state election board complaints."

Trump/Republicans have been calling this 'election interference'.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I did find this in the second linked article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...al-presidency/

"Lawsuits on behalf of voters are already being planned, but for technical reasons concerning the jurisdictions of courts, it would be preferable if a state election official, such as a secretary of state, made a preliminary administrative ruling of Trump’s constitutional ineligibility and then sought judicial confirmation of this determination in state court. Consistent with due process, Trump — and voters who want him on the ballot — would be entitled to challenge this administrative decision in court. Whichever way the state court ruled could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, whose decision would be binding on all the states."

So the thing still needs to go to court/courts.

Not so much that it needs to go to court, but rather that it inevitably will. A state Secretary of State has the power (the duty, according to these legal scholars) to exclude Trump from the ballot. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court, and whatever determination is made there would then likely be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by jt512

Not so much that it needs to go to court, but rather that it inevitably will. A state Secretary of State has the power (the duty, according to these legal scholars) to exclude Trump from the ballot. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court, and whatever determination is made there would then likely be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

It needs to go to court for an official determination to be made saying Trump was involved in an insurrection.

Or, where else would the determination be made?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

It needs to go to court for an official determination to be made saying Trump was involved in an insurrection.

Or, where else would the determination be made?

As I understand it, any state Secretary of State can make his or her own (official) determination that Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, and exclude Trump from the ballot in that state. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by jt512

As I understand it, any state Secretary of State can make his or her own (official) determination that Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, and exclude Trump from the ballot in that state. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court.

Interesting!

[Thermal]

States can play this game already.

"Constitutionally ineligible. Applicant under 35 years of age."
Trump: "What??"
"Didn't bring our long form birth certificate to prove age, I see."
Trump: "I'm old as dirt. I'll probably keel over before lunch."
"Also, you are non native. Unless you brought your tribal affiliation paperwork?"
Trump: What??"
"Seems you have not lived in the United States for 14 years, either. Unless you brought us 15 years of continuous footage to prove it? No splices, now."

[jt512]

Originally Posted by jt512

As I understand it, any state Secretary of State can make his or her own (official) determination that Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, and exclude Trump from the ballot in that state. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Interesting!

It's fascinating. We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office. The applicable legal theory has recently been reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time, and yet somehow hasn't really been noticed by the general public. Moreover, there are multiple plans in the works to challenge Trump's candidacy on these grounds; the Trump campaign has anticipated this and has already formulated a strategy to battle it; and, according to some, this decision will "almost inevitably" reach the Supreme Court. Yet despite the implications for the election and the coverage in the news media, somehow this whole thing has almost completely escaped the attention of the public.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by jt512

It's fascinating. We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office. The applicable legal theory has recently been reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time, and yet somehow hasn't really been noticed by the general public. Moreover, there are multiple plans in the works to challenge Trump's candidacy on these grounds; the Trump campaign has anticipated this and has already formulated a strategy to battle it; and, according to some, this decision will "almost inevitably" reach the Supreme Court. Yet despite the implications for the election and the coverage in the news media, somehow this whole thing has almost completely escaped the attention of the public.

It's probably too legalistic for most people. The Federalist Society document certainly is.

[Puppycow]

Tangentially interesting is the age requirement. Obviously, you don't need a court proceeding, usually to determine a person's age. Sometimes in the past people too young to serve as president or vice president have, nevertheless, attempted to run for the office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy

Quote:

In 1934, Rush Holt of West Virginia was elected to the Senate of the United States at the age of 29. Since the U.S. Constitution requires senators to be at least 30, Holt was forced to wait until his 30th birthday, six months after the start of the session, before being sworn in.[3]

In 1954, Richard Fulton won election to the Tennessee Senate. Shortly after being sworn in, Fulton was ousted from office because he was 27 years old at the time. The Tennessee State Constitution required that senators be at least 30.[4] Rather than hold a new election, the previous incumbent, Clifford Allen, was allowed to resume his office for another term. Fulton went on to win the next State Senate election in 1956 and was later elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he served for 10 years.

Quote:

On several occasions, the Socialist Workers Party (USA) has nominated candidates too young to qualify for the offices they were running for. In 1972, Linda Jenness ran as the SWP presidential candidate, although she was 31 at the time. Since the U.S. Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be at least 35 years old, Jenness was not able to receive ballot access in several states in which she otherwise qualified.[7] Despite this handicap, Jenness still received 83,380 votes.[8] In 2004, the SWP nominated Arrin Hawkins as the party's vice-presidential candidate, although she was 28 at the time. Hawkins was also unable to receive ballot access in several states due to her age.[9]

So if you are too young to serve as the president or vice president, a state may "deny ballot access" and I don't know if that was ever challenged in court. Of course, a person's age is a much simpler matter to determine than whether or not they participated in an "insurrection". Unless it was the Civil War, in which case it could have been fairly straightforward. But even the Confederacy had conscription, didn't it? Would a person who served as a conscript also be barred?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by jt512

We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office.

Did you refuse to name the clause so that nobody can argue against you or because the clause doesn't exist?

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Originally Posted by jt512

We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office.

Did you refuse to name the clause so that nobody can argue against you or because the clause doesn't exist?

14th Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jt512

I doubt it, but regardless it is part of the Constitution.

You doubt that campaigning for office is a human right? You doubt that people have the right to see the person the elected assume the office to which they elected him?

Quote:

It (the amendment) is actually about preventing an insurrectionist from holding power. It is intended to protect the country from potential leaders who would work to destroy it.

Yes, and my point is that preventing someone from campaigning for office, or assuming office once elected, should be based on fairly strict scrutiny, not mere accusation or allegation.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jt512

It's fascinating. We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office. The applicable legal theory has recently been reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time, and yet somehow hasn't really been noticed by the general public. Moreover, there are multiple plans in the works to challenge Trump's candidacy on these grounds; the Trump campaign has anticipated this and has already formulated a strategy to battle it; and, according to some, this decision will "almost inevitably" reach the Supreme Court. Yet despite the implications for the election and the coverage in the news media, somehow this whole thing has almost completely escaped the attention of the public.

JayUtah has addressed the weakness of the legal claim at length in this thread - something you have completely ignored in your responses.

I don't think "reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time" is the flex you think it is.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ots-january-6/

April 18 2023

"Two nonprofit groups who do not disclose all their donors, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Free Speech for People, have prepared multipronged legal strategies to challenge Trump across the country under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They have written letters to state election officials calling on them to block Trump from the ballot, while separately preparing voter lawsuits and state election board complaints."

Trump/Republicans have been calling this 'election interference'.

Sadly, I would agree with Trump on this. He is currently eligible to run for President.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jt512

Not so much that it needs to go to court, but rather that it inevitably will. A state Secretary of State has the power (the duty, according to these legal scholars) to exclude Trump from the ballot. Trump would then have the right to challenge that determination in court, and whatever determination is made there would then likely be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

This is just a roundabout way of saying that—as with any other finding made by an officer of the executive—that if Trump is accused of being an insurrectionist, he has access to due process and someone else will decide it. No, he doesn't have to contest it, just as I don't have to contest the denial of a protest permit. But the insinuation that an election official determines "independently" that Trump is an insurrectionist within the meaning of the 14th Amendment is misleading. An election official makes an initial determination, but doesn't have final or overriding authority.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by jt512

It's fascinating. We have a clause in a Constitutional amendment that is hardly known, which would potentially bar Trump from ever again holding high office. The applicable legal theory has recently been reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time, and yet somehow hasn't really been noticed by the general public. Moreover, there are multiple plans in the works to challenge Trump's candidacy on these grounds; the Trump campaign has anticipated this and has already formulated a strategy to battle it; and, according to some, this decision will "almost inevitably" reach the Supreme Court. Yet despite the implications for the election and the coverage in the news media, somehow this whole thing has almost completely escaped the attention of the public.

This seems overwrought. I've seen discussion since shortly after Jan. 6, 2021 over whether the 14th Amendment would bar Trump (and others, e.g., Missouri's Josh Hawley) from holding office. Granted I have an interest in legal matters, but the suggestion that this clause is "hardly known" and that its implications of "completely escaped" public notice doesn't ring true to me. It's been discussed, and Trump's campaign would be remiss not to prepare for it. What seems to make your post especially vital was the insinuation (however incorrect) that the executive has an outsized or dispositive role in determining eligibility. On that I'm happy to concede that this may not have been the authors' assertion and that this notion arose out of others' reading of the authors' claims.

[Thermal]

Another angle: the legal scholars championing this are conservatives. Their intent is to have DJ Trumpet legally declared to have not partaken in an insurrection. How to do so? Cut to post #1, with them knowing damn right well the claim of ineligibility will fail and SCOTUS will have formally declared Trump "not an insurrectionist".

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Another angle: the legal scholars championing this are conservatives. Their intent is to have DJ Trumpet legally declared to have not partaken in an insurrection. How to do so? Cut to post #1, with them knowing damn right well the claim of ineligibility will fail and SCOTUS will have formally declared Trump "not an insurrectionist".

If that's the case, then they would want the criminal liability standard of proof to apply. That would be harder to meet, and it's more likely that Trump would not qualify as an insurrectionist under that standard. As it stands, a finding under administrative law requires only preponderance of evidence. He's more likely under that standard to be found ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by theprestige

JayUtah has addressed the weakness of the legal claim at length in this thread - something you have completely ignored in your responses.

To be fair, I didn't read the actual article the professors wrote. I based my opinion on my reading of their conclusion that was summarized in this thread. I do merit some criticism for probably getting parts of their argument wrong.

Quote:

I don't think "reported in the NYT, the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek, and Time" is the flex you think it is.

I wager the reason their argument has been so widely reported is that it has been so widely discussed. Despite claims to the contrary, there has been much speculation whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from running again, and much of it wrongly claimed that the Constitution somehow automatically disqualifies him.

There is no automatic determination of insurrection, although during the post Civil War era such a determination might have been trivial in the case of prominent former Confederacy officials. No law applies "automatically" to a set of facts without the prospect that the facts or the legal theory may challenged and adjudicated.

Nor is there an independent executive determination of ineligibility. The executive may raise a question of eligibility and may issue a finding to some effect, but it does not have final authority. It depends upon the judiciary—as in all other such cases—to render an authoritative decision if asked.

No, they aren't always asked. Here in my state, the eligibility of the proposed GOP candidate for the upcoming U.S. House election was challenged on residency grounds. Our lieutenant governor (our designated election administrator) issued a statement rendering an "opinion" that the candidate did indeed meet the eligibility requirements at the Constitutional and state level. This is not a final finding, since the statement assumes as true the allegations of fact offered by the candidate and is thus justiciable. She does not have the final say, however it is very likely that her opinion will be respected by all parties and not challenged. This does not mean she has independent authority to rule on eligibility for office.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You doubt that campaigning for office is a human right? You doubt that people have the right to see the person the elected assume the office to which they elected him?


Yes, and my point is that preventing someone from campaigning for office, or assuming office once elected, should be based on fairly strict scrutiny, not mere accusation or allegation.

I think that while the two things are related they are not the same.

I agree that fairly strict scrutiny and appeal are vital.

But campaigning, seriously or spuriously, is a free speech right, and voting for whoever you want a right as well, whereas there are things we may speak of which we may not do, and while you may write your dog into the ballot, the dog does not have the right to hold office no matter how many votes he gets.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Another angle: the legal scholars championing this are conservatives. Their intent is to have DJ Trumpet legally declared to have not partaken in an insurrection. How to do so? Cut to post #1, with them knowing damn right well the claim of ineligibility will fail and SCOTUS will have formally declared Trump "not an insurrectionist".

I don't know about the other author, but Paulsen is a never-Trumper:

Quote:

This is a story about selling one’s soul.

Specifically, it is a story about those who would trade away their political, moral, and ethical souls and support Donald Trump—against their own better judgment—for the believed benefit of halting the abortion holocaust. Or, at least, who feel they should back Trump out of the perceived need to remain loyal to the pro-life cause. I write to urge you to reconsider.

Because I strongly believe that committed pro-lifers can and should vote against Donald Trump’s reelection.

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I don't know about the other author, but Paulsen is a never-Trumper:

A never never Trumper or a newly never Trumper?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Mike!

A never never Trumper or a newly never Trumper?

The article I linked is from October 2020.

[William Parcher]

Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/polit...ment-2024-race

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would be interesting if enough blue (and purple if needed) states banned Trump from running that he could not reach a majority of EC delegates.

[theprestige]

"We had to destroy the democracy to save the democracy," said Lieutenant Calley in hell.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It would be interesting if enough blue (and purple if needed) states banned Trump from running that he could not reach a majority of EC delegates.

Republicans in Congress could vote to disregard any slate of electors from states that did not allow Trump to run. Thereby reducing the number of electoral votes required to win the election. You only need 270 to win if all 50 states have electors that are counted.