Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendmend? - Page 8

JayUtah · 30th August 2023, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

That's harder to argue.

Especially since I just found the passage in the Florida constitution that bars convicted felons from holding office. (Fl. Const. Art. VII Sec. 4.) It's not just an administrative decision. It's a provision in the state constitution.

Quote:

Every State is Different:

Let's just make that the banner headline for everything in this subforum.

Quote:

In Connecticut, for example,...

That's a good example of state variance. Candidates for the public offices named in the state constitution must be "electors" (registered voters) in the state. The constitution adds other qualifications for individual offices: the normal stuff like age and residency. But another passage in the Constitution endows the state legislature with the authority to set qualifications for who may be an elector. That effectively establishes that eligibility for elected office in Connecticut is determined party by statute.

jt512 · 30th August 2023, 06:26 PM

David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/

Orphia Nay · 30th August 2023, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by jt512

David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/

Care to summarise?

It won't load for me.

gabeygoat · 30th August 2023, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

No, I know of no other lawsuits or attempts by anyone in state govt. to have Trump banned from running. But lots of folks have written about it.

ok, so you're panicking about something that isn't happening

jt512 · 31st August 2023, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Care to summarise?

Honestly, no. I could not do the article justice, and it’s not a long article. I recommend reading the original.

Quote:

It won't load for me.

It loads very slowly, and you may have to scroll down past a black section to see the text. I tried it in two different browsers. It eventually loaded in both.

psionl0 · 31st August 2023, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Trump has never won a popular vote for President.

That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump.

Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election.

Hercules56 · 31st August 2023, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump.

Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election.

Wrong. Biden won 51% of all votes in 2020.

In 2016 55% of voters voted for someone other than Trump.

Hercules56 · 31st August 2023, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

ok, so you're panicking about something that isn't happening

Panicking??

LOL!!!...No ma'am.

Parsman · 31st August 2023, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump.

Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election.

If Trump got less than 50% of votes cast in the USA the majority of those who voted did not vote for him. So he won neither a plurality or a majority of the votes cast in the elections of 2016 and 2020 which were both as fair as elections can be under the American system.

psionl0 · 31st August 2023, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Parsman

If Trump got less than 50% of votes cast in the USA the majority of those who voted did not vote for him. So he won neither a plurality or a majority of the votes cast in the elections of 2016 and 2020 which were both as fair as elections can be under the American system.

As far as 2016 is concerned, the same argument also applies to Hillary Clinton.

Hercules56 · 31st August 2023, 10:12 AM

It appears the attorney general and the Secretary of State of New Hampshire are officially looking into this. Michigan as well.

Paul2 · 31st August 2023, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by jt512

David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/

Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules *for* Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed"). The ease of making such a prediction (since it's unfalsifiable for as long as anyone will remember that article) is the converse of the probable lack of calls to engage in rage and chaos if SCOTUS ruled for Trump from the side that bases their positions in terms of respect for the rule of law and seeks to provide evidence for same. See the 2000 election for precedent.

bruto · 31st August 2023, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

As far as 2016 is concerned, the same argument also applies to Hillary Clinton.

...whose subsequent campaign to subvert the election was therefore.....oh wait a second....

jt512 · 31st August 2023, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules *for* Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed").

I think you have a good point. A ruling that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump would basically be upholding the status quo, and it is hard to see how much sustenance an objection to merely upholding the status quo would have.

Hercules56 · 31st August 2023, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules *for* Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed"). The ease of making such a prediction (since it's unfalsifiable for as long as anyone will remember that article) is the converse of the probable lack of calls to engage in rage and chaos if SCOTUS ruled for Trump from the side that bases their positions in terms of respect for the rule of law and seeks to provide evidence for same. See the 2000 election for precedent.

Frum is a smart guy:

"Stopping Trump by electoral means will be a tough and arduous fight. The fancied alternatives are dreams and delusions. Legal process can prosecute and punish crimes. It cannot save a nation from itself. That duty falls instead on each of us.

This summer’s wish for a constitutional anti-Trump magic wand is an unfeasible, unhelpful fantasy. Let it go."

slyjoe · 31st August 2023, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Frum is a smart guy:

"Stopping Trump by electoral means will be a tough and arduous fight. The fancied alternatives are dreams and delusions. Legal process can prosecute and punish crimes. It cannot save a nation from itself. That duty falls instead on each of us.

This summer’s wish for a constitutional anti-Trump magic wand is an unfeasible, unhelpful fantasy. Let it go."

I would ask Frum why he thinks the 14th amendment exists.

jt512 · 31st August 2023, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I would ask Frum why he thinks the 14th amendment exists.

You don’t have to ask him. You just have to read his article.

slyjoe · 31st August 2023, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by jt512

You don’t have to ask him. You just have to read his article.

I did read the article. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing about chaos mixed in with some good points; i.e., Republicans could do the same thing.

jt512 · 31st August 2023, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I did read the article. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing about chaos mixed in with some good points; i.e., Republicans could do the same thing.

Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion.

JayUtah · 31st August 2023, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by jt512

Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion.

But he ignores when it was invoked in the 20th century. If you cherry-pick your evidence, the conclusion can look quite persuasive.

The fact that Congress granted an amnesty in the 1870s to all former Confederate soldiers and officials could lead one to suspect the attempts by former Confederacy officials to take power was the original motivation for the amendment. But it does not then follow that the amendment is thereafter just a lame duck. The amnesty was narrowly focused.

Orphia Nay · 31st August 2023, 10:22 PM

"On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot."

https://apnews.com/article/9c5f79203...35a48e708ad725

The Don · 1st September 2023, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Wrong. Biden won 51% of all votes in 2020.

In 2016 55% of voters voted for someone other than Trump.

55% of those who voted voted for someone other than Trump.

32% of people didn't, or couldn't vote.

"Only" around 37% of eligible voters voted against Trump.

Unless mandatory voting is introduced then it's unlikely that any candidate would have the majority of eligible voters voting against, or for, them.

psionl0 · 1st September 2023, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

...whose subsequent campaign to subvert the election was therefore.....oh wait a second....

Did you not read the post from Parsman that I quoted?

Paul2 · 2nd September 2023, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by jt512

Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion.

If anyone wants me to, I’ll track down the link I posted on another forum (not Isf) from the congressional record at the time the 14th amendment was being debated that has Senator Henderson of Missouri making the comment that the 14th Amendment would apply to future rebellions, for the constitutional originalists out there.

Paul2 · 2nd September 2023, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

"On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot."

https://apnews.com/article/9c5f79203...35a48e708ad725

Presumably he has standing.

slyjoe · 2nd September 2023, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by jt512

Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion.

So the the government put in an amendment to the constitution EXCLUSIVELY to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding office? I think Frum is wrong about that. Any amendment, including the 14th, has to be considered as applying in the FUTURE as well.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

But he ignores when it was invoked in the 20th century. If you cherry-pick your evidence, the conclusion can look quite persuasive.

The fact that Congress granted an amnesty in the 1870s to all former Confederate soldiers and officials could lead one to suspect the attempts by former Confederacy officials to take power was the original motivation for the amendment. But it does not then follow that the amendment is thereafter just a lame duck. The amnesty was narrowly focused.

Exactly. I can see the amnesty being narrowly focused, but an Amendment? I don't think so.

JayUtah · 2nd September 2023, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Presumably he has standing.

You presume accurately, in that Castro advances a legally colorable claim for standing as a competing candidate for the primary election. Here's the complaint:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...cuit-court.pdf

It's much better pled than Caplan's, both in form and substance. This one will have to be taken seriously.

William Parcher · 3rd September 2023, 05:57 PM

Sen. Tim Kaine says ‘powerful argument’ 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/03/polit...14th-amendment

Craig4 · 4th September 2023, 04:47 AM

We need to enjoy Trump's disqualification as a nice surprise and kick the **** out of him while he's down. The 527s need to be hammering him and the next three leaders in the Republican polls with charges of stupidity and treason. Flood the zone with Trump telling us to ingest bleach, the DeSantis boy getting his ass kicked by Disney and Ramaswamy just talking (with an edit of Christie saying he sounds like Chat GPT). Democrats are too damn nice. Go ugly, go negative early. Just assume one of those three ***** will get the nomination and hammer them. Trump's disqualification, while deserved isn't a plan of action.

Armitage72 · 4th September 2023, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

Flood the zone with Trump telling us to ingest bleach,

People keep repeating that claim, and it just isn't true.
He suggested injecting bleach.

Darat · 4th September 2023, 06:48 AM

It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban?

Craig4 · 4th September 2023, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban?

Two secretaries of state/commonwealth would be enough if the were the right ones. If Trump isn't on the ballot in Pennsylvania and Michigan there's no point in him running. There are other combinations but if he is disqualified on the ballot in both of those states, it might be mathematically possible for him to win but it would not be politically possible.

That said, disqualification is a nice to have but no one should plan on it.

JayUtah · 4th September 2023, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban?

Where membership in Congress is concerned, Congress has the only and final say. And they've used the 14th Amendment before. The decision is unreviewable in court because the Constitution doesn't empower the judiciary with any authority over who sits in Congress. Congress is self-regulating.

We're focusing on the secretaries of state (or whoever the election official is in each state) because they control the ballot. Specifically they control the popular election by which most states choose their electors. The defendant in Castro's case in New Hampshire is the election commission for that state, which seems plausible. All those actions would be reviewable in courts with a line of jurisdiction that would end at the Supreme Court.

But what if Trump were on the ballot? What if individual electors declined to vote for him? What if the governor of the state refused to certify the vote? All these could leverage 14th Amendment ineligibility. Yes, all these actions too are reviewable along the same path. But wouldn't it be fun to watch?

Andy_Ross · 5th September 2023, 02:49 AM

"Legal Scholars” being Miller, Dershowitz, Fitton, Gaetz, a QAnon bloke and that man that paints him orange.

Quote:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election. Like Election Interference, it is just another "trick" being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Norman Alexander · 5th September 2023, 05:43 AM

Marxists AND Fascists, oh my!

Hercules56 · 5th September 2023, 07:39 AM

If the 14th amendment was clear enough, and nobody felt conviction of the crime of sedition or aiding seditionists was required, why did Congress go ahead and codify the crime of sedition and specifically reference the 14th amendment?

Seems to me that decades after the 14th amendment was ratified, people felt that simply accusing people of sedition was not enough and it was better that we require a conviction to then ban people from public office.

Honestly I would love it if we could ban Trump from running for office with simply an accusation of sedition. However all of the due process entailed with a jury and a trial and a conviction gives the better sense of justice and not simply vindictiveness.

Paul2 · 5th September 2023, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If the 14th amendment was clear enough, and nobody felt conviction of the crime of sedition or aiding seditionists was required, why did Congress go ahead and codify the crime of sedition and specifically reference the 14th amendment? . . . .

Because (1) the 14th amendment only covers those people who have previously taken an oath for a government office, and (2) the 14th amendment doesn't have any criminal penalties, like jail time.

JoeMorgue · 5th September 2023, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban?

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.

dirtywick · 5th September 2023, 08:04 AM

there's something off that when the only way things can be fair requires us to pretend to be stupid. we all know what happened

theprestige · 5th September 2023, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

there's something off that when the only way things can be fair requires us to pretend to be stupid. we all know what happened

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.

30th August 2023, 06:26 PM	#282
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump. https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	Last edited by jt512; 30th August 2023 at 06:36 PM.

30th August 2023, 10:17 PM	#284
gabeygoat Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hard Corvallis Oregon Posts: 1,746	Originally Posted by Hercules56 No, I know of no other lawsuits or attempts by anyone in state govt. to have Trump banned from running. But lots of folks have written about it. ok, so you're panicking about something that isn't happening
	__________________ "May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq

31st August 2023, 12:51 AM	#285
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Care to summarise? Honestly, no. I could not do the article justice, and it’s not a long article. I recommend reading the original. Quote: It won't load for me. It loads very slowly, and you may have to scroll down past a black section to see the text. I tried it in two different browsers. It eventually loaded in both.
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468

31st August 2023, 01:32 AM	#286
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,730	Originally Posted by JayUtah Trump has never won a popular vote for President. That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump. Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

31st August 2023, 07:01 AM	#287
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	Originally Posted by psionl0 That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump. Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election. Wrong. Biden won 51% of all votes in 2020. In 2016 55% of voters voted for someone other than Trump.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms." Last edited by Hercules56; 31st August 2023 at 07:02 AM.

30th August 2023, 06:10 PM	#281
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,962	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger That's harder to argue. Especially since I just found the passage in the Florida constitution that bars convicted felons from holding office. (Fl. Const. Art. VII Sec. 4.) It's not just an administrative decision. It's a provision in the state constitution. Quote: Every State is Different: Let's just make that the banner headline for everything in this subforum. Quote: In Connecticut, for example,... That's a good example of state variance. Candidates for the public offices named in the state constitution must be "electors" (registered voters) in the state. The constitution adds other qualifications for individual offices: the normal stuff like age and residency. But another passage in the Constitution endows the state legislature with the authority to set qualifications for who may be an elector. That effectively establishes that eligibility for elected office in Connecticut is determined party by statute.

30th August 2023, 09:56 PM	#283
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 44,215	Originally Posted by jt512 David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump. https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/ Care to summarise? It won't load for me.

31st August 2023, 07:02 AM	#288
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	Originally Posted by gabeygoat ok, so you're panicking about something that isn't happening Panicking?? LOL!!!...No ma'am.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms."

31st August 2023, 07:17 AM	#289
Parsman Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bonnie Scotland Posts: 984	Originally Posted by psionl0 That is not accurate. Trump has never won a "plurality" of the votes. However, by the same token, a majority of the voters never voted against Trump. Since there is no such thing as a "runoff" election in the US, we will never know if Trump could have won a fair election. If Trump got less than 50% of votes cast in the USA the majority of those who voted did not vote for him. So he won neither a plurality or a majority of the votes cast in the elections of 2016 and 2020 which were both as fair as elections can be under the American system.
	__________________ I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.

31st August 2023, 07:56 AM	#290
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,730	Originally Posted by Parsman If Trump got less than 50% of votes cast in the USA the majority of those who voted did not vote for him. So he won neither a plurality or a majority of the votes cast in the elections of 2016 and 2020 which were both as fair as elections can be under the American system. As far as 2016 is concerned, the same argument also applies to Hillary Clinton.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

31st August 2023, 10:12 AM	#291
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	It appears the attorney general and the Secretary of State of New Hampshire are officially looking into this. Michigan as well.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms."

31st August 2023, 11:23 AM	#292
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	Originally Posted by jt512 David Frum has published a cogent argument that the 14h Amendment does not apply (or should not be applied to) Trump. https://web.archive.org/web/20230829...ndment/675163/ Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules for Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed"). The ease of making such a prediction (since it's unfalsifiable for as long as anyone will remember that article) is the converse of the probable lack of calls to engage in rage and chaos if SCOTUS ruled for Trump from the side that bases their positions in terms of respect for the rule of law and seeks to provide evidence for same. See the 2000 election for precedent.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

31st August 2023, 11:34 AM	#293
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 35,505	Originally Posted by psionl0 As far as 2016 is concerned, the same argument also applies to Hillary Clinton. ...whose subsequent campaign to subvert the election was therefore.....oh wait a second....
	__________________ Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)

31st August 2023, 04:32 PM	#294
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	Originally Posted by Paul2 Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules for Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed"). I think you have a good point. A ruling that the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump would basically be upholding the status quo, and it is hard to see how much sustenance an objection to merely upholding the status quo would have.
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468

31st August 2023, 04:55 PM	#295
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	Originally Posted by Paul2 Frum has said some excellent things in the past, but I see a lack of cogency in his fear about the reaction if SCOTUS rules for Trump being on the ballot ("the rage and chaos would be reversed"). The ease of making such a prediction (since it's unfalsifiable for as long as anyone will remember that article) is the converse of the probable lack of calls to engage in rage and chaos if SCOTUS ruled for Trump from the side that bases their positions in terms of respect for the rule of law and seeks to provide evidence for same. See the 2000 election for precedent. Frum is a smart guy: "Stopping Trump by electoral means will be a tough and arduous fight. The fancied alternatives are dreams and delusions. Legal process can prosecute and punish crimes. It cannot save a nation from itself. That duty falls instead on each of us. This summer’s wish for a constitutional anti-Trump magic wand is an unfeasible, unhelpful fantasy. Let it go."
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,504	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms."

31st August 2023, 05:13 PM	#296
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,633	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Frum is a smart guy: "Stopping Trump by electoral means will be a tough and arduous fight. The fancied alternatives are dreams and delusions. Legal process can prosecute and punish crimes. It cannot save a nation from itself. That duty falls instead on each of us. This summer’s wish for a constitutional anti-Trump magic wand is an unfeasible, unhelpful fantasy. Let it go." I would ask Frum why he thinks the 14th amendment exists.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

31st August 2023, 05:28 PM	#297
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	Originally Posted by slyjoe I would ask Frum why he thinks the 14th amendment exists. You don’t have to ask him. You just have to read his article.
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468

31st August 2023, 05:43 PM	#298
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,633	Originally Posted by jt512 You don’t have to ask him. You just have to read his article. I did read the article. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing about chaos mixed in with some good points; i.e., Republicans could do the same thing.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

31st August 2023, 05:49 PM	#299
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468	Originally Posted by slyjoe I did read the article. Seems like a lot of hand-wringing about chaos mixed in with some good points; i.e., Republicans could do the same thing. Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion.
jt512 Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,468

31st August 2023, 06:07 PM	#300
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,962	Originally Posted by jt512 Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion. But he ignores when it was invoked in the 20th century. If you cherry-pick your evidence, the conclusion can look quite persuasive. The fact that Congress granted an amnesty in the 1870s to all former Confederate soldiers and officials could lead one to suspect the attempts by former Confederacy officials to take power was the original motivation for the amendment. But it does not then follow that the amendment is thereafter just a lame duck. The amnesty was narrowly focused.

31st August 2023, 10:22 PM	#301
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 44,215	"On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot." https://apnews.com/article/9c5f79203...35a48e708ad725

1st September 2023, 12:43 AM	#302
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 37,266	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Wrong. Biden won 51% of all votes in 2020. In 2016 55% of voters voted for someone other than Trump. 55% of those who voted voted for someone other than Trump. 32% of people didn't, or couldn't vote. "Only" around 37% of eligible voters voted against Trump. Unless mandatory voting is introduced then it's unlikely that any candidate would have the majority of eligible voters voting against, or for, them.

1st September 2023, 05:33 PM	#303
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,730	Originally Posted by bruto ...whose subsequent campaign to subvert the election was therefore.....oh wait a second.... Did you not read the post from Parsman that I quoted?
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

2nd September 2023, 07:02 AM	#304
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	Originally Posted by jt512 Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion. If anyone wants me to, I’ll track down the link I posted on another forum (not Isf) from the congressional record at the time the 14th amendment was being debated that has Senator Henderson of Missouri making the comment that the 14th Amendment would apply to future rebellions, for the constitutional originalists out there.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

2nd September 2023, 07:03 AM	#305
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay "On Wednesday, a long-shot Republican presidential candidate, John Anthony Castro, of Texas, filed a complaint in a New Hampshire court contending the 14th Amendment barred Trump from that state’s ballot." https://apnews.com/article/9c5f79203...35a48e708ad725 Presumably he has standing.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 8,015	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

2nd September 2023, 09:03 AM	#306
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,633	Originally Posted by jt512 Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. You ask why Frum thinks the amendment exists. He clearly states that he thinks that the amendment was written specifically and exclusively to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding public office, and he clearly explains his rationale for that opinion. So the the government put in an amendment to the constitution EXCLUSIVELY to bar supporters of the Confederacy from holding office? I think Frum is wrong about that. Any amendment, including the 14th, has to be considered as applying in the FUTURE as well. Originally Posted by JayUtah But he ignores when it was invoked in the 20th century. If you cherry-pick your evidence, the conclusion can look quite persuasive. The fact that Congress granted an amnesty in the 1870s to all former Confederate soldiers and officials could lead one to suspect the attempts by former Confederacy officials to take power was the original motivation for the amendment. But it does not then follow that the amendment is thereafter just a lame duck. The amnesty was narrowly focused. Exactly. I can see the amnesty being narrowly focused, but an Amendment? I don't think so.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade Last edited by slyjoe; 2nd September 2023 at 09:05 AM.

2nd September 2023, 09:04 AM	#307
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,962	Originally Posted by Paul2 Presumably he has standing. You presume accurately, in that Castro advances a legally colorable claim for standing as a competing candidate for the primary election. Here's the complaint: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...cuit-court.pdf It's much better pled than Caplan's, both in form and substance. This one will have to be taken seriously.

3rd September 2023, 05:57 PM	#308
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,432	Sen. Tim Kaine says ‘powerful argument’ 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/03/polit...14th-amendment
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

4th September 2023, 04:47 AM	#309
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: I live in a swamp Posts: 27,565	We need to enjoy Trump's disqualification as a nice surprise and kick the ** out of him while he's down. The 527s need to be hammering him and the next three leaders in the Republican polls with charges of stupidity and treason. Flood the zone with Trump telling us to ingest bleach, the DeSantis boy getting his ass kicked by Disney and Ramaswamy just talking (with an edit of Christie saying he sounds like Chat GPT). Democrats are too damn nice. Go ugly, go negative early. Just assume one of those three *** will get the nomination and hammer them. Trump's disqualification, while deserved isn't a plan of action.
	__________________ Fight like a Ukrainian.

4th September 2023, 05:03 AM	#310
Armitage72 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 8,070	Originally Posted by Craig4 Flood the zone with Trump telling us to ingest bleach, People keep repeating that claim, and it just isn't true. He suggested injecting bleach.

4th September 2023, 06:48 AM	#311
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 112,544	It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

4th September 2023, 07:27 AM	#312
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: I live in a swamp Posts: 27,565	Originally Posted by Darat It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban? Two secretaries of state/commonwealth would be enough if the were the right ones. If Trump isn't on the ballot in Pennsylvania and Michigan there's no point in him running. There are other combinations but if he is disqualified on the ballot in both of those states, it might be mathematically possible for him to win but it would not be politically possible. That said, disqualification is a nice to have but no one should plan on it.
	__________________ Fight like a Ukrainian. Last edited by Craig4; 4th September 2023 at 07:28 AM.

4th September 2023, 06:23 PM	#313
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,962	Originally Posted by Darat It's all about how and who would enforce such a ban? Where membership in Congress is concerned, Congress has the only and final say. And they've used the 14th Amendment before. The decision is unreviewable in court because the Constitution doesn't empower the judiciary with any authority over who sits in Congress. Congress is self-regulating. We're focusing on the secretaries of state (or whoever the election official is in each state) because they control the ballot. Specifically they control the popular election by which most states choose their electors. The defendant in Castro's case in New Hampshire is the election commission for that state, which seems plausible. All those actions would be reviewable in courts with a line of jurisdiction that would end at the Supreme Court. But what if Trump were on the ballot? What if individual electors declined to vote for him? What if the governor of the state refused to certify the vote? All these could leverage 14th Amendment ineligibility. Yes, all these actions too are reviewable along the same path. But wouldn't it be fun to watch?

5th September 2023, 02:49 AM	#314
Andy_Ross Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 46,371	"Legal Scholars” being Miller, Dershowitz, Fitton, Gaetz, a QAnon bloke and that man that paints him orange. Quote: Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election. Like Election Interference, it is just another "trick" being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
	__________________ Formerly known as Captain Swoop

5th September 2023, 05:43 AM	#315
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 16,150	Marxists AND Fascists, oh my!
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}