At Least Some Americans Have Common-Sense

[DTCwordfan]

Yet to be proven in the courts but some hope that it comes off - I count a total of 15 states involved in some degree. If the judgement is made about the 14th Amendment, will the others follow? No doubt, we'll see the AB Trumpists out here trumpeting about how unfair and undemocratic this legal action is but the man is solely responsible for the legal pickles he is in.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/top-election-officials-from-these-6-states-are-considering-keeping-trump-off-the-ballot-report/ar-AA1gzq4p?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=dd0902ff19a1486c99bf4b6191b754cd&ei=40

[naomi24]

Until he's convicted of committing a crime I can't see how he can be deemed ineligible.

[DTCwordfan]

Good point - it could be a point of principle though that's being clarified ahead of any guilty verdict - 'Commit the crime and these are the consequences...'

[naomi24]

Mr Trump isn't flavour of the month in many areas so I tend to think that's not all it is, but you could be right. However, if he's deemed ineligible without valid reason, that's a very slippery slope indeed. The American people should watch this very carefully.

[ichkeria]

Alaska!

Not known for being particularly left wing ...

I wondered what mighrt happen if an unofficial Republican was to run against Trump.
Tho the danger is that instead of splitting the Republican vote it might split the anti-Trump vote.

[Stableford]

No surprise there- Democrats are running scared, and this only adds fuel to the Trump campaign- bring it on!

[ichkeria]

If he’s not on the ballot papers in some states it won’t help him much lol

[naomi24]

Ich, But if there's no valid reason to exclude a candidate from the ballot papers, that shouldn't be a laughing matter ... should it?

[ClareTG0ld]

// Until he's convicted of committing a crime I can't see how he can be deemed ineligible. //

This seems to be an ongoing legal argument, see eg https://archive.ph/20230820122539/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/ and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 . I have no comment on the correctness of the arguments, but I've quoted a couple of key passages below.

Firstly, the relevant Constitutional Amendment (14.3), lightly edited to remove irrelevant alternative cases:

// No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same... //

Secondly, some quotes from the AtlanticToday article:

// Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings ... [and] was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup. //

// The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential ... place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. //

It goes on, but the only other point I want to make now is that the scholarly article above is written by "two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America", which if true would at least somewhat shield them from accusations of political bias.

It's all a mess. For my part, I have to say that even if the argument were academically correct, it might be politically extremely difficult to defend, especially without a criminal conviction. On the other hand, the wheels of justice are moving very slowly indeed, and it's extremely unlikely that the various relevant trials will be resolved prior to the election.

[naomi24]

// written by "two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America//

And anonymous with it. How convenient. Clearly fans though. ;o)

[THECORBYLOON]

"And anonymous with it. How convenient"

Who's anonymous?

[naomi24]

Are the authors not anonymous. Corby? If I missed their names, my apologies.

[ichkeria]

“if there's no valid reason to exclude a candidate from the ballot papers“

Valid is a matter of opinion of course.
Trump is a big divider of opinion

[ichkeria]

Presumably they can’t be anonymous or no one would know they were “two of the most prominent …”

[naomi24]

Ich, //Valid is a matter of opinion of course. //

No, it isn't. Rules apply - and of they're not applied properly, which seems likely here, then the American electorate should question it - and in no uncertain terms.

[andy-hughes]

By flirting with the electoral process in their increasingly fervent desire to dispossess President Trump from possible re-election, the Democrats are in serious danger of chasing their quarry over a cliff.

However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process.

That will simply make the Democrats as foolish as he is, for allowing to correctly claim, this time, that the election was rigged.

[THECORBYLOON]

The legal opinion is written by William Baude, University of Chicago - Law School and Michael Stokes Paulsen, University of St. Thomas School of Law.

[naomi24]

Thanks Corby - although I'm not sure it can be called a 'legal' opinion. If that were so, Trump would be trounced and there would be no argument.

[ClareTG0ld]

// By flirting with the electoral process in their increasingly fervent desire to dispossess President Trump from possible re-election, the Democrats are in serious danger of chasing their quarry over a cliff.

However odious the former President may be, he cannot be prevented from running for election by manipulation of the electoral process... //

That would indeed be troubling, if that's what's happening. But I think it's a misrepresentation for two reasons:

1. Firstly, the reason this is even coming up is because there is a Constitutional argument to be made that Trump is excluded; see my post earlier, and the links within it. By virtue of how the US is organised, if there is a clear Constitutional barrier in the way of Trump, or anybody else, then enforcing that barrier is *not* political. (See later for more).

2. I am not sure that it's even true that the relevant officials are considering the arguments above in a serious sense. The link here ( https://themessenger.com/politics/at-least-6-states-elections-officials-may-consider-their-power-disqualify-trump-2024 ) catalogues all responses to the question, and most amount to dismissive platitudes: "we are aware of the conversation", etc etc. Even the "six states" seems a stretch. For example, the report cites Alaska as a state that is considering the legal argument, but the direct quote is merely that the relevant officials will consider it "if necessary", which adds nothing. Others seem to imply that they will wait for the legal arguments to be tested in court.

At the moment, this is an academic question, nothing more. If people were to advance it in practice, then in one sense or another it would have to be tested in Court, indeed in the Supreme Court. There's no reason to take it seriously, or to give any weight to Trump's repeated claims that the elections are rigged against him specifically, which he has made, and will continue to make, irrespective of the facts and evidence against that.

[Old_Geezer]

If the Americans want Trump, then let him lead them. It's not as if they have many rich privileged folk wanting to run to choose from. Probably none that are worth encouraging. (A bit like here.)

[THECORBYLOON]

There are often differing legal opinions on such cases.

Both sides could be using exactly the same piece of legislation to support their arguments but their interpretation of what is meant (or intended to mean) is the point at issue and it is for the court to determine which one is applicable.