Maine Bars Trump. What Do You Think?

[Atheist]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-elections-official-disqualifies-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-2023-12-28/

[ClareTG0ld]

In terms of economy, if Trump won he would look to sign a trade deal with the UK much sooner than Biden might, which is presumably jourdain's point - but such a deal would only be signed if it benefitted the US in the way Trump wants, and would not therefore be in our favour.

As for whether the "US Constitution [i]s so undemocratic" -- well, I would have a lot of sympathy with that, though perhaps for differrent reasons! I don't think that any of the points I have identifed above are signs that it is, though. The UK also has laws barring certain people from standing for Parliament, be they serving Civil Servants or Policemen, or current prisoners, or underage etc -- in that sense, the UK goes further than the US on many such points.

I've already typed waaaay too much in this thread, though, so I'd be interested to see what jourdain had in mind behind that statement :)

[Atheist]

Thanks to Clare and jourdain for their input.

 

[Ellipsis]

Thank you, Clare, for all your input, which has been genuinely educational. It hasn't changed my mind, because I was on the right side already 😁 - but I hope it has helped others ...

[JDavis]

Hardly a slippery slope. Has any other defeated candidate behaved like Trump? 

[ClareTG0ld]

Haha, thanks ellipsis!

One correction I feel I should make: when I said that: 

// 3. Trump is one such person [to have engaged in insurrection], as all courts have found. //

Emphasis added, as this part needs clarification. What I should have said was "... as all authorities that have ruled on the question of fact [as to whether Trump engaged in insurrection, etc etc] have found." Other Courts in the US have been called upon to rule on this, but so far only Colorado's Courts have decided the factual question. The Maine case is a non-justicial authority, being the Secretary of State (loosely, in this context, the head of the Electoral Commission), and Trump will appeal this to the Courts there. When the question has come up in other Courts, so far, they have ruled that the Court has no authority to decide the question in the first place -- and, so, have not spent time on making findings of fact.

If you want to keep score, then, Trump is "winning" this argument something like 2-1, with Courts in Michigan and Minnesota ruling that they cannot decide the question as it is a political question, ie nonjusticiable (Michigan), or that there is no law stopping a political party from nominating an ineligible candidate (Minnesota).

This is an ongoing battle, anyway, in multiple courts and states. We will see if any other Courts go so far as to rule on the matters of fact. For now, I hope the correction above helps to clarify things.

[tomus42]

At some point the supreme court will be forced to make a judgement on all this. Anything individual states decide will likely be overruled.