Side tangent but it’s actually kind of an issue picking who is allowed to remove major party candidates from ballots.
538 mentioned some state where the parties pick a candidate and whatever they say goes, so it’s difficult to sue Trump off the ballot…but legitimately, what happens if a party nominates a 23 year old who is not constitutionally eligible to be president? What if the 23 year old wins?
So it makes sense to have since administrative structure where applications are received and evaluated, but shouldn’t those administrators be under the purview of an elected official? And won’t that elected official be biased for their own party? Is relying on next-election consequences the only way to reign in those elected officials?
What if Trump wins and run for a third term? If the constitution isn’t enforced anyway, why would the 2 term limit matter?
That is the same as my 23 year old example. I think the conservative retort would be that they can all he enforced but you/we are misinterpreting the insurrection one and it is a restriction but it does not restrict Trump for one reason or another, either it requires a separate conviction or it doesn’t apply to presidential races or it WOULD apply but Jan 6th does not in fact count as an insurrection (contradicting the lower court’s findings).
oh my god, shut the fuck up, he engaged in supporting an insurrection, and an existing law bars those that support insurrection from acting as an officer of government.
Full fucking stop. It’s not like the people randomly decided these things, we have had multiple public hearings that confirmed Donald Trump fomented the insurrection. We have judges that have decided that he most certainly did support an insurrection.
What more do you want? Do you want a signed fucking confession before we can literally uphold existing law that has already been used to safeguard the government from those that tried to overthrow it?
Jesus fucking Christ, the way you’re talking about it you’d think this is some new bullshit law slipped in to help stop Trump when that’s not the case at all. Innocent until proven guilty and he has been proven to have supported said insurrection by a judge in a court of law.
“The court’s decision affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection based on his role in January 6th,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder.
…
picking who is allowed to remove major party candidates
The goddamn constitution gets to pick and it decided on that responsibility in 18 goddamn 66.
https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States,” including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
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.
It’s in the goddamn constitution and the decision was made by the highest state courts, the lawsuit was brought by republicans.
The Colorado court concluded that the U.S. Constitution bars Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024, from appearing on the ballot because of his role instigating violence at the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify the results of the 2020 election. The court’s majority acknowledged the decision was “uncharted territory.”
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority justices wrote. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.
We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
First of all, what a harsh reading of a neutral comment in a thread about a Texas politician pulling Biden off the ballot. Not Trump apologetics at all, I’m pointing out the complexities you are handwaving away. Yes there’s a law, the entire point is who enforces it. If a court does it, someone with standing needs to sue and potentially unelected (depending on the state) judges make the decision. That is one option.
If you like the court option, you have to accept that it’s pretty likely the Supreme Court overrules the Trump decision by declaring you need a separate insurrection conviction, or the clause doesn’t apply to presidents, or something like that. If that happens, did you like the system or the result the system got?
