After the recent ruling in Colorado, other states are weighing in on Trump’s eligibility to appear on election ballots.
He shouldn’t be on any ballot at all. He needs to be in prison, along with some politicans and rich people who helped fund and support his insurrection.
One can be a convicted felon in prison and still qualify for the office of President.
what he should be convicted of that sends him there would also disqualify him.
It’s almost like you’re living in some crazy fantasy world where justice actually matters and the supreme court isn’t a bunch of entitled right wing baboons. All I can say to that is – I want to live on that world also!!
The state supreme court of Maine has also just decided to disqualify trump from the ballot. It shows that there are some states in this country where common sense and American democracy still matter. Former trump did cause insurrection against the country of America, and therefore isn’t qualified to even be elected to dogcatcher in our country - no matter what. It’s time for this to happen.
Maine has also joined in disqualification on 14th amendment grounds. If you insurrect, we won’t elect!!
Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling. These stunts are actively destroying trust in the political system. The whole system is fundamentally a social contract that requires majority of the population to believe that elections are fair in order to accept the results. Once you get to the point where people no longer believe that elections are fair then there’s no reason to accept the party you don’t support holding power. Both republicans and democrats are actively helping create the conditions that will ultimately result in the unravelling of the entire political system. Both democrats and republicans are becoming increasingly convinced that the other party is illegitimate, and whoever wins the election will not be accepted by the other side.
Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling.
Citation needed. Maine’s Secretary of State fully addressed this exact topic. There is no language in the constitution or the amendment that says they must have been charged or convicted of insurrection and the SoS makes a pretty solid argument that she’s bound by her duties to make a call on the matter. She used the official Jan 6th hearings as an evidence-based proceeding while acknowledging that it was curated with intent and needs to be put in that context. She did stay her decision until higher courts ruled on the matter.
If you don’t see the problem with this line of argument, then really don’t know what else to tell you.
My gut instinct was the same as yours actually. But it’s not about my instinct, it’s about the interpretation of the law as written and the record of events of J6 when applied in that specific context.
Making an honest judgment call referencing the case law, constitution, state law, and precedent and then staying the decision to not go into effect until higher courts can rule on it is, despite my gut instinct, exactly the right call.
We all know this will end up at the Supreme Court, including the people who did their due diligence to write their best legal opinions.
This interpretation of the law is completely is completely absurd, and it will obviously be overturned once it gets to the supreme court. You can read the 14th amendment clause yourself and see in black and white what cases it applies to. It’s worded in a very specific way:
Only thing that’s been accomplished here is to bolster Trump’s claims that there’s a political witch hunt against him and to galvanize his supporters.
Just trying to be clear before I respond, are you saying it doesn’t apply to the office of the president as the court initially ruled before it going to the Colorado Supreme Court? The Maine Secretary of State addressed that argument as if it were kind of nonsense and hinged on an interpretation of the word office inconsistent with the aim of the amendment in its context, missing the forest for the trees in terms of intent.
This argument takes wild and unprecedented liberties with the interpretation of the law. It’s basically ignoring what the law actually says, and claims that it was written wrong. That’s an absurd claim to make. And coupled with the fact that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of anything, this amounts to a complete farce. There’s very clearly no sound legal basis for any of this, and it’s obvious to anybody who’s able to look at this objectively.
Since this is isn’t the general just they primary, couldn’t the RNC just choose to not have or ignore the primary like the DNC is doing?
I do believe the RNC tried that argument. It’s going to look different from state to state because the power to run their own elections is vested in the states. The Maine SoS cited some procedural arguments that are specific to Maine in her decision to keep Trump off the ballot.
