Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendmend? - Page 26

Hercules56 · 1st December 2023, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

When before election day? One day? A month? Before election day means nothing in this context. You can argue he's already out money NOW. Terrible argument.

I think if he is going to be banned, it needs to happen soon after he wins the primary so Republicans can come up with another candidate.

Stripping him of his win, if he does win, could lead to civil war.

JayUtah · 1st December 2023, 10:54 AM

How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war?

Hercules56 · 1st December 2023, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war?

Im just saying that's stripping him of the win, after it appears he has won the general election, would seem terribly unfair to the American people and the voters. It would appear that democracy has died.

Regnad Kcin · 1st December 2023, 10:55 AM

Folks, if Trump has spent any of his own money it’s been Trump Bucks or foil-embossed Trump commemorative coins (Made in China).

JayUtah · 1st December 2023, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Im just saying that's stripping him of the win, after it appears he has won the general election, would seem terribly unfair to the American people and the voters. It would appear that democracy has died.

To some it might seem that democracy has died. To others it would seem that it works.

You seem to be making a roundabout set of points. Assuming for the sake of argument that the people you'd think would be starting a civil war (or, so it's not too silly, engaging in violence) are people who want Trump to be President, then what's to stop them from being violent if he is "merely" disqualified before the election? Either way, their preferred candidate would be prevented from ascending to the office by a means other than losing a vote. So if you're saying we should decide on his eligibility sooner rather than later, then I'm not seeing your point.

On the other hand you now seem to be falling back to your prior argument of, "Screw the eligibility rules, let the people decide." That's a non-starter. We disposed of that early in the thread.

Hercules56 · 1st December 2023, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

To some it might seem that democracy has died. To others it would seem that it works.

You seem to be making a roundabout set of points. Assuming for the sake of argument that the people you'd think would be starting a civil war (or, so it's not too silly, engaging in violence) are people who want Trump to be President, then what's to stop them from being violent if he is "merely" disqualified before the election? Either way, their preferred candidate would be prevented from ascending to the office by a means other than losing a vote. So if you're saying we should decide on his eligibility sooner rather than later, then I'm not seeing your point.

On the other hand you now seem to be falling back to your prior argument of, "Screw the eligibility rules, let the people decide." That's a non-starter. We disposed of that early in the thread.

No, i simply think stripping the winner of his win, after he won, will not look good.

Better to prevent him from competing in the first place.

dirtywick · 1st December 2023, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Honestly I wasn't sure what to say about that. I hope you're wrong. We're treading into a perverse manifestation of Hecker's Veto territory now. How many times in history has one man been able to influence an army of foot soldiers to commit violence on his behalf if he doesn't get his way, while he avoids responsibility?

If we accept the possibility that disqualifying Trump according to the 14th Amendment will lead to violence, then when it happens may not be that important. I think I know what you're saying: if we wait until he is duly elected and then disqualify him, that may incite more violence than if it were done early. You may be right about that. But prematurely taking extraordinary action—disqualifying him before he can even run—may not be any safer. I really can't predict what would happen.

This is probably the best time to stress that this probably isn't the best way to keep Trump out of the White House. It's an interesting legal question, but I'm not convinced it's the practical solution.

jay brother, i appreciate you and your posts in this thread and bearing with me and everyone else who don't know a whole lot about it but like to talk. but i do feel that, and maybe i'm wrong again of course, getting together and saying "this is how the law works and how it would apply in this situation" seems like a pretty standard practice and, in matters of extreme importance like this, should be pretty clear before it needs to be applied. particularly, as it seems to me, most of the discussion at this point is whether or not there's a zany loophole a panel of friendly judges may not want to close for political reasons is the basis of whether or not it would be successful.

personally i think he simply loses the election. but, you know, it would be nice if the constitution actually mattered as well.

JayUtah · 1st December 2023, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

No, i simply think stripping the winner of his win, after he won, will not look good.

I can't really disagree with that. As I said, invoking the 14th Amendment would be an extraordinary way of preventing someone from taking office, but that's what it's there for. It comes down to a curious case of ripeness for adjudication. I hope my imagination of the worst case isn't the only option available.

Quote:

Better to prevent him from competing in the first place.

I don't think that would improve the climate for hatred and violence, but I'm not a prophet.

One strategy might be to let Trump run in case he wins the electoral vote. If he's disqualified later (violence aside), then his running mate will assume the President-elect rol. The GOP would still occupy the White House. If someone else besides Trump runs, the GOP could lose the electoral vote.

theprestige · 1st December 2023, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war?

I think the risk probably goes up quite a bit, if the election is nullified. In fact, now that I think about it, I think that probably all questions of eligibility for office - age, citizenship, etc. - should be resolved before the candidate appears on a general election ballot.

Hercules56 · 1st December 2023, 01:03 PM

Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him.

JayUtah · 1st December 2023, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

In fact, now that I think about it, I think that probably all questions of eligibility for office - age, citizenship, etc. - should be resolved before the candidate appears on a general election ballot.

That's what happened in our state election to replace Rep. Chris Stewart. A question arose about the residency requirement for the GOP candidate. Our state Attorney General wrote a position memo before the election, and that was the end of it. It wasn't a ruling or any sort of enforceable decision. But it was enough to let the election proceed.

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him.

Which is why it's good that the challenges are appearing so soon. They may be unripe now, but they'll keep going until they find the earliest ripe opportunity for challenge. Bush v. Gore taught us that nothing is outside the realm of consideration.

Tommok · 2nd December 2023, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him.

Yeas, just as funny as Bush v Gore turned out to be.

But there would probably be a "lex Trump", which states that whether or not he wins, disqualifying him would harm the reputation of the future-to-be-president, but no, this ruling could not be applied to any other people or other situations, which is why a 14th amendment effort against Biden for wearing a blue suit made in China would be allowed to move forward.

1st December 2023, 10:51 AM	#1001
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	Originally Posted by slyjoe When before election day? One day? A month? Before election day means nothing in this context. You can argue he's already out money NOW. Terrible argument. I think if he is going to be banned, it needs to happen soon after he wins the primary so Republicans can come up with another candidate. Stripping him of his win, if he does win, could lead to civil war.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	__________________ 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."

1st December 2023, 10:55 AM	#1003
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	Originally Posted by JayUtah How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war? Im just saying that's stripping him of the win, after it appears he has won the general election, would seem terribly unfair to the American people and the voters. It would appear that democracy has died.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	__________________ 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."

1st December 2023, 10:55 AM	#1004
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The old Same place Posts: 11,005	Folks, if Trump has spent any of his own money it’s been Trump Bucks or foil-embossed Trump commemorative coins (Made in China).
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 1st December 2023 at 10:57 AM.

1st December 2023, 12:26 PM	#1006
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	Originally Posted by JayUtah To some it might seem that democracy has died. To others it would seem that it works. You seem to be making a roundabout set of points. Assuming for the sake of argument that the people you'd think would be starting a civil war (or, so it's not too silly, engaging in violence) are people who want Trump to be President, then what's to stop them from being violent if he is "merely" disqualified before the election? Either way, their preferred candidate would be prevented from ascending to the office by a means other than losing a vote. So if you're saying we should decide on his eligibility sooner rather than later, then I'm not seeing your point. On the other hand you now seem to be falling back to your prior argument of, "Screw the eligibility rules, let the people decide." That's a non-starter. We disposed of that early in the thread. No, i simply think stripping the winner of his win, after he won, will not look good. Better to prevent him from competing in the first place.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	__________________ 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."

1st December 2023, 12:34 PM	#1007
dirtywick Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 5,122	Originally Posted by JayUtah Honestly I wasn't sure what to say about that. I hope you're wrong. We're treading into a perverse manifestation of Hecker's Veto territory now. How many times in history has one man been able to influence an army of foot soldiers to commit violence on his behalf if he doesn't get his way, while he avoids responsibility? If we accept the possibility that disqualifying Trump according to the 14th Amendment will lead to violence, then when it happens may not be that important. I think I know what you're saying: if we wait until he is duly elected and then disqualify him, that may incite more violence than if it were done early. You may be right about that. But prematurely taking extraordinary action—disqualifying him before he can even run—may not be any safer. I really can't predict what would happen. This is probably the best time to stress that this probably isn't the best way to keep Trump out of the White House. It's an interesting legal question, but I'm not convinced it's the practical solution. jay brother, i appreciate you and your posts in this thread and bearing with me and everyone else who don't know a whole lot about it but like to talk. but i do feel that, and maybe i'm wrong again of course, getting together and saying "this is how the law works and how it would apply in this situation" seems like a pretty standard practice and, in matters of extreme importance like this, should be pretty clear before it needs to be applied. particularly, as it seems to me, most of the discussion at this point is whether or not there's a zany loophole a panel of friendly judges may not want to close for political reasons is the basis of whether or not it would be successful. personally i think he simply loses the election. but, you know, it would be nice if the constitution actually mattered as well.
dirtywick Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 5,122

1st December 2023, 10:54 AM	#1002
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,982	How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war?

1st December 2023, 12:25 PM	#1005
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,982	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Im just saying that's stripping him of the win, after it appears he has won the general election, would seem terribly unfair to the American people and the voters. It would appear that democracy has died. To some it might seem that democracy has died. To others it would seem that it works. You seem to be making a roundabout set of points. Assuming for the sake of argument that the people you'd think would be starting a civil war (or, so it's not too silly, engaging in violence) are people who want Trump to be President, then what's to stop them from being violent if he is "merely" disqualified before the election? Either way, their preferred candidate would be prevented from ascending to the office by a means other than losing a vote. So if you're saying we should decide on his eligibility sooner rather than later, then I'm not seeing your point. On the other hand you now seem to be falling back to your prior argument of, "Screw the eligibility rules, let the people decide." That's a non-starter. We disposed of that early in the thread.

1st December 2023, 12:34 PM	#1008
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,982	Originally Posted by Hercules56 No, i simply think stripping the winner of his win, after he won, will not look good. I can't really disagree with that. As I said, invoking the 14th Amendment would be an extraordinary way of preventing someone from taking office, but that's what it's there for. It comes down to a curious case of ripeness for adjudication. I hope my imagination of the worst case isn't the only option available. Quote: Better to prevent him from competing in the first place. I don't think that would improve the climate for hatred and violence, but I'm not a prophet. One strategy might be to let Trump run in case he wins the electoral vote. If he's disqualified later (violence aside), then his running mate will assume the President-elect rol. The GOP would still occupy the White House. If someone else besides Trump runs, the GOP could lose the electoral vote.

1st December 2023, 01:02 PM	#1009
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,171	Originally Posted by JayUtah How would not letting him run at all also not lead to civil war? I think the risk probably goes up quite a bit, if the election is nullified. In fact, now that I think about it, I think that probably all questions of eligibility for office - age, citizenship, etc. - should be resolved before the candidate appears on a general election ballot.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

1st December 2023, 01:03 PM	#1010
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him.
Hercules56 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 7,535	__________________ 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."

1st December 2023, 01:29 PM	#1011
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,982	Originally Posted by theprestige In fact, now that I think about it, I think that probably all questions of eligibility for office - age, citizenship, etc. - should be resolved before the candidate appears on a general election ballot. That's what happened in our state election to replace Rep. Chris Stewart. A question arose about the residency requirement for the GOP candidate. Our state Attorney General wrote a position memo before the election, and that was the end of it. It wasn't a ruling or any sort of enforceable decision. But it was enough to let the election proceed. Originally Posted by Hercules56 Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him. Which is why it's good that the challenges are appearing so soon. They may be unripe now, but they'll keep going until they find the earliest ripe opportunity for challenge. Bush v. Gore taught us that nothing is outside the realm of consideration.

2nd December 2023, 06:14 AM	#1012
Tommok Scholar Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 77	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Be funny if this case reaches the supreme Court after a trump wins, and they ruled it Trump is not qualified but this should have been settled before he ran so they will not take the election away from him. Yeas, just as funny as Bush v Gore turned out to be. But there would probably be a "lex Trump", which states that whether or not he wins, disqualifying him would harm the reputation of the future-to-be-president, but no, this ruling could not be applied to any other people or other situations, which is why a 14th amendment effort against Biden for wearing a blue suit made in China would be allowed to move forward.
Tommok Scholar Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 77