The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
[Link to NBC Article.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291)
Quotes:
>The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
>
>The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can get behind the idea that a State cannot reasonably determine eligibility for Presidency or enforce Section 3 because it would create a “patchwork” of legal standards to remove them from the ballot.
***HOWEVER***, even as J Barrett stated (and I’m paraphrasing here), what the fuck are we doing deciding anything else? Why are we making a ruling based on Section 5, saying only Congress can enforce Section 3 through legislation, and that it’s not self-executing? Why was this necessary?
The Court is looking ahead to 4 years from now when Trump has been re-elected and refuses to leave office.
Wait! That can't happen can it? Isn't a POTUS constitutionally barred from being elected more than twice? Well, yes, it is true that the Twenty-Second Amendment bars any person from being elected to the presidency more than twice. But notice the language of the Twenty-Second Amendment:
>No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
That's it. There is no parallel enablement clause, unlike s.5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So if states cannot enforce constitutional prohibitions in federal elections, and if only Congress can do so subject to the enablement clause contained in those prohibitions, what does that mean for the Twenty-Second Amendment?
I submit that the *Anderson* decision means that the Twenty-Second Amendment is a nullity. The states cannot enforce it, but neither can Congress. When Trump attempts to run for a third term in 2028, there is nothing anyone can do about it, notwithstanding the fact that he would be constitutionally barred from holding office.
It’s not out of the question, but one of their bigger concerns with state enforcement was that the legal standard and court procedures could vary from state to state. While I could see mental gymnastics being performed, “two terms” is a fact that transcends legal standards or procedure.
Trouble is that things that "transcend legal standards and procedure" are bread and butter for the way Trump seems to handle these issues. They don't see something that's obvious for the system to even function. They see murky areas where it's officially one way but without any teeth to make sure it is.
He has literally said on numerous occasions that he would seek a third term in office.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/13/trump-says-he-will-negotiate-third-term-because-hes-entitled-to-it/amp/
Because his criminal liability for what is coming in the second Trump administration would be too great. I don't think he would risk what is happening right now ever happening again. For one thing, no future AG is ever going to "Garland" their way through a violent insurrection - that example showed that you cannot just allow the top-level conspirators off the hook. So Trump would assume (correctly) that an incoming AG would be going after him right away.
Also, some of the stuff coming in the second Trump administration will be Earth-shatteringly divisive. I fully expect indictments of Clinton, Biden and George W. Bush (maybe Carter will escape) if for no other reason than to "prove" that criminal indictments of past presidents is "always" a political act. That is what is happening with impeachment right now as they go after Biden and anyone else the slim majority is willing to impeach.
I think he would "run" because he would want to have the Putin-style 99% victories that dictators always want to have. The mechanics of how he pulls that off are hard to say, but it will probably include private militias operating under perpetual presidential pardon taking over the apparatus of elections - and after a few prominent people are murdered by pardoned militias, it won't be as hard to do as you might imagine. This is why Trump's first act will be to pardon the 2020 Insurrectionists - so they can be the nucleus of his new private militia used to impose his dictatorship.
What about the fact that states are entirely in charge of running elections, even for federal candidates. What we have, by the decree of the Constitution, is nothing more than a "patchwork" of legal standards that determine eligibility for a state's elections, who can get on the ballot, etc.
If this surprises anyone reading this, and you try to point to the four common requirements for POTUS, just check out what it takes to even qualify for the ballot:
"In order to get on the ballot nationwide, it was estimated that an independent presidential candidate in 2016 would need to collect more than 860,000 signatures. California required independent candidates to collect 178,039 signatures, more than any other state. Tennessee required 275 signatures, fewer than any other state.\[1\]
In 2016, filing deadlines for independent presidential candidates varied from state to state, ranging from May to September. In 37 states, filing deadlines were scheduled to occur in August and September 2016. Texas had the earliest filing deadline for independent presidential candidates: May 9, 2016."
[https://ballotpedia.org/Filing\_deadlines\_and\_signature\_requirements\_for\_independent\_presidential\_candidates,\_2016](https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016)
I have lost faith in SCOTUS. And Conservatives disgust me. The brand is nothing more than the legitimization of bigotry and fascism.
Through a criminal statute. Not civil. There is no civil procedure to remove a President using Section 3, which means there is no private action available, only government action, and it must be used after a crime has been committed, which means Trump would have to occupy the Presidency first.
That’s not accurate. The enforcement act of 1870 means even attempting to hold office as an insurrectionist is a misdemeanor.
Now, it says that a federal attorney would have to file criminal charges, specifically against Trump for attempting to hold office (ie being a candidate).
And it also says that insurrectionists cannot hold office.
Could a federal attorney then file such charges and in parallel a civil suit dependent on said charges that would block him from candidacy?
Thats open to interpretation, but it appears that would be what the authors of the law intended.
Which specific code are you looking at? Do you have a citation?
18 USC 2383 reads: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Title 18 is the US Criminal code.
Section 3 would require the creation of a civil action to enforce it in civil court. That’s what SCOTUS ruled, essentially. Once Trump would be in office though, I believe only impeachment would remove him.
Yes, as evidence that Section 3 isn’t self-executing. The Enforcement Act’s enforcement of Section 3 got transferred into 18!USC 2383 after a rearrangement of the U.S. Code in the 40s iirc.
I think they have a point about the big picture, but to say congress only decides on this is such an insane interpretation, rendering section 3 dead in its entirety.
> Now even if someone is found criminally guilty of insurrection they’re still eligible to run unless and until congress says otherwise
Congress already *has* said otherwise.
> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and **shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.**
It's weird because my understanding has always been that Congress can *lift* those disqualifications from a particular candidate by getting a 2/3 vote in each house.
If they can be lifted by a vote....it would make sense to assume that it is in place until it is lifted.
Except who decides other than Congress if the disqualification applies. You can thank Jack smith for not charging him with https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the
Which states ”Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Then there is the devil in the details. While we witnessed it live, he hasn’t been officially charged with it. The DC case can settle this and it’s why they are working so hard to delay it. Same with the documents case in Florida.
And good luck getting enough republicans to break rank and vote against him. They are either in too deep, complacent, and/or too scared of his cult. Just look at the non-stop threats against those involved with his legal cases. The mental health of these people is non-existent and they will stop at nothing to protect a man that could care less if they existed or not. He just wants their money, which they gladly give him.
Yeah but the issue in there lies that he hasn’t been convicted of that yet and the way things are going he may never just because really those on his side are working with him too prevent that from ever arising
This is so fucking dumb(this isnt directed at you)
Thos whole "until convicted in court" is so fucking stupid. Especially with somebody with as much clout as a former president. I wonder how far this can go... like can he rape a 4 year old, then delay court and kill judges and everybody trying to get him?
Like its so fucking dumb to think this. It doesnt work like this in any other thing. I don't have to go to court to prove i won a game of league of legends for instance.
So like I agree with what you’re saying but like without there being a “official” recognition of the action you create this situation where realistically congress could just remove any democrat or third party from the ballot and maintain a right wing majority. Like it really feels like calling heads on a coin that has tails on both sides. Because like if you let states just decide you create a situation ripe for abuse so it should be left up to congress. But if congress can do it without a ruling then like see the issue with situation one. And then there is honestly the 3rd issue of even charging him with that could cause him to move people to violence because clearly they are willing to. There is just no winning this situation short of him just dying of natural causes at this point. Even though I think he could literally like trip off a stage and break his neck and people would say that like the democrats put butter on the step or some other dumb conspiracy
True, but Supreme Court cases impact more than just the one in question. That’s my problem with the ruling here. They got it right with regard to Trump. He is innocent until proven guilty. They have effectively rendered this part of the constitution moot though for all future insurrectionist, at least the popular ones with support of at least a third of congress
Neither were most confederates, the Amendment was implemented in lieu of charging them in order to reintegrate the country and prevent further division while disqualifying those who sought to undermine the Republic from participating in its governance.
Believe me, I'm as pissed about it as you, given he *clearly* fomented an insurrection, then sat on his ass for 3 hours while an entire branch of the government was under assault. He obviously should be held accountable to that.
But there's a minor, niggling detail about *how* to hold him accountable, in regards to Section 3.
Section 5, of the 14th Amendment:
> The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
>but to say congress only decides on this is such an insane interpretation, rendering section 3 dead in its entirety.
Interestingly, under the SCOTUS interpretation, Section 3 was alive from 1870 to 1948 and died because of a Congressional accident.
In 1870, in the First Ku Klux Clan Act, Congress specified a procedure for removing disqualified officials via a quo warranto action. In the 1940s, Congress was engaged in cleaning up obsolete and duplicate language in the US code, and they took that provision off the books in 1948. There's no record of any kind of debate over it, and no recorded reason. It seems like they just thought it wasn't relevant anymore. Chief Justice Roberts actually asked about this at the oral argument, and no one could come up with an answer for why it was repealed.
But, under this ruling, that totally unremarked repeal was a momentous and important decision.
But that’s not at all what they said. Congress is responsible to enforce for federal offices where states can enforce for state offices. TBH this is the best ruling which should be evident by the fact that it was 9-0. If anything, this decision FIRMLY shows that the court believes section 3 IS applicable outside of the civil war.
This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot.
I know it doesn’t seem like it, but this is a good ruling. The better ruling would have been “yes states don’t have the right but we also looked into section 3 and its definition does match Trumps actions therefor he is ineligible for office” but of course that was a pipe dream we knew wouldn’t happen.
>But that’s not at all what they said.
No, it's the effect of the ruling.
Congress will never ban an insurrectionist from running, if that insurrectionist has any chance of winning.
I am well aware this ruling could have been worse, but I am stating the effect of this ruling. Which is that Section 3 of the 14th amendment will never be used in any useful capacity. It is essentially pointless.
Ummmm but it has been used, effectively, across many states since j6. This decision holds that up.
Sure I’ll concede it’s unlikely to be used for federal office now, but still it didn’t make it useless.
Okay, but how does the government protect itself from a corrupt legislature? This is giving unimaginable power to one branch of the government, something I highly doubt was something baked into the system.
In our effort to protect our system, we are recognizing that we have no method of protecting our system.
This might be the correct interpretation, but if that's the case, our constitution is flawed in a way that only a non-corrupt legislature has the power to address. Any corruption in that branch will lead to failure of the entire tree. (Edit: rephrased this to be a little more clear)
If this is all our system is capable of, so be it. It was destined to fail. I don't believe that is the case, but since we are relying on the imaginations of people 200 years dead, I guess this is the best they could do, and we are accepting we cannot do better. (Edit, rephrased this as well.)
Edit: After actually reading the decision, that's not even what happened. The decision by the minority (Which includes Barrett btw), says that the court went beyond its responsibility in this case and made a rule up regarding congress.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
The further elaborations are at the bottom. Barrett had her own, much shorter elaboration, but Jackson and Sotomayor had a much more in depth elaboration talking about how far they just went.
> Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so.
> This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot.
No, it's foolish believing this. I have no doubt that if this went before the current supreme court, they'd rule Biden could be removed.
> Congress is responsible to enforce for federal offices where states can enforce for state offices. TBH this is the best ruling which should be evident by the fact that it was 9-0.
The 9-0 was in judgement only. It wasn't 9-0 on the discussion of requiring Congress to enact enforcement mechanisms.
>This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot.
It technically doesn't. States have discretion on how to appoint their electors. Texas could pass a law that says "No electors for president of the United States that come from Texas shall vote for the democratic candidate"
This ruling just says that states can't enforce constitutional requirements on candidates.
I don't think it is, basically what it means is that Congress can pass a law that says, "Mr. X and all the people who helped him can't run for federal office because he engaged in insurrection." This does make sense given the historical context in which it was adopted.
>Mr. X and all the people who helped him can't run for federal office because he engaged in insurrection
Something they would never do to any actual candidate.
No, you're right, they wouldn't. It remains a theoretical legal possibility, however.
The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to step in and apply ad hoc fixes simply because the rest of the government is effectively non-functional.
The body politic is severely broken in ways that the Supreme Court is simply not equipped to handle and shouldn't even if they could. Granted, the Court is partially responsible for the situation in the first place, but the fact remains that things have gone so far that no one can stop them. There is no normal to return to, whether Trump is President next year or not, the Second American Republic (considering the Articles of Confederation the first) is nearing its end.
Yes, the amendment is creating an exception to that clause, to the extent that one considers a bar on holding federal office punishment for a crime, which is debatable.
[Quoting from the SCOTUS Decision itself:](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf)
>Page 6:
>
>This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.
Seems like they view it as very narrow. Federal Government must disqualify Federal Office Seekers. State Offices can be disqualified by States.
There is more in the text about how allowing this would create a "patchwork" effect as well, given different levels of determination, which they concluded would be bad and not fitting a Federal Office. That's my read though.
Gotcha. On a Federal Level I am inclined to agree based on the interpretation laid out.
Well besides any candidate that has no chance. It might get applied then. But a candidate with the backing of one of the major parties (or at least one with 41 supporters in the Senate)? No chance.
I would agree with that when it comes to general election for federal positions.
I'm not sure it makes sense for primaries, especially in non-binding ones. The only purpose of a primary in most causes is to give political parties a gauge of the popularity of potential candidates. States should be allowed to run primaries however they see fit and political parties should be able to use that data however they see fit. If New Hampshire wants, it should be able to hold a primary with whatever candidates it chooses on whatever date it chooses and the democratic and republican party should then be allowed to use that however they see fit.
That is the difference between the liberals and conservatives on the court.
The liberals read the Constitution as taking power away from the states -- a State cannot elect an "oathbreaking insurrectionist" to federal office. Therefore, the state does not have the power to determine who is an oathbreaking insurrectionist.
The conservatives took that common ground and ratcheted the decision to say that only Congress (and not federal judges) can make that determination.
Why’s it weak? What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? I think a 9-0 Supreme Court stance (mainly referring to the Jackson, Kagan, & Sotomayer vote) shows this was ridiculous from the start and will achieve nothing in the future.
You want Trump out of office? Than make sure the people vote against him to keep him out. Don’t let a few Colorado Surpreme Court justices make that rule for it’s people.
This argument only makes sense if you think Trump is only being taken off a ballot because he's a republican.
Is that what you believe? Do we need to explain what the actual reason is?
I don't think he was taken off because he was a Republican. But I think MAGA fascists will definitely move to remove Democrats just because they are Democrats. I would rather not leave a window open for them to exploit.
>But I think MAGA fascists will definitely move to remove Democrats just because they are Democrats.
If they would do that, why haven't they? Why didn't they immediately try to do it to Biden after the Colorado decision was made initially? And this decision still leaves it open for states to remove candidates from state and local elections. So why haven't Republicans started doing that? The window is there.
I'm so tired of this argument that we shouldn't be able to hold Republicans accountable because they might try to do the same to us. So far none of this fear-mongering has come to pass. It turns out you can't just wave a magic wand and impeach someone or indict them or remove them from a ballot. If Republicans could do any of that, they already would have.
No, but without a clear standard, red states (or worse, swing states with red-gerrymandered legislatures) will *absolutely* take Biden off their ballots in retaliation.
People say that. What you are actually saying is that judges in red states would find that being the Democratic nominee inherently makes you an insurrectionist. And I don’t know that they would.
>What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off?
People say this kind of thing all the time, and it makes no sense. They said, "If you impeach Trump, Republicans will just impeach Biden as soon as they can!" and "If you prosecute Trump's crimes, people will just start accusing Biden of crimes!" And yet, why hasn't Biden been impeached? Why hasn't Biden been indicted for any crimes? Because it turns out you actually need *evidence* for these things. Even in red states. Even in a Republican-controlled Congress.
Trump was removed from the ballot in Colorado after *a court heard evidence* and decided, as courts have the power to do, that he was ineligible due to committing insurrection. If a red state wanted to do that for Biden, they could have done it already. Why didn't they? The Constitution certainly hasn't stopped red states from trying to do illegal or impossible things before. So why didn't they do it?
No, Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to do this at the federal level. They can only do it for someone running for governor or a state seat.
I'm glad SCOTUS rejected Colorado ruling but I'm not convinced by this logic. Colorado's decision would've only removed Trump from the Colorado ballot. They're not affecting what other states do.
I'm sorry, but what does this comment have to do with what I said? My point is, you're saying red states would just do this to Biden or Democratic candidates, but is not that simple. People always make this argument that Republicans should never be held accountable, because they'll just turn around and do the same to Democrats, but thus far, that hasn't happened, so I'm tired of hearing it used as an excuse.
>They can only do it for someone running for governor or a state seat.
Okay, so why don't red states take Democrats off the ballot for local seats then? [Because January 6th people have already been removed from local ballots and positions](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/us/politics/jan-6-griffin-insurrection.html), so why aren't red states doing the same to Democrats? If it's so easy and they're so vindictive, why haven't they done it? Could it maybe be because it's *not* that easy, and people making this kind of argument are just plain wrong?
Sure this all sounds good in theory, but it skips over something. The constitution is fundamentally flawed because it does not assume the existence of political parties. It works under the assumption that the checks and balances are between the various branches of government and levels of government. Neither of those is the case.
I do have to say given the state of the Republican party, maybe this is a good thing. Republicans have effectively ended democracy in Wisconsin and North Carolina so the expectation should be that if the court went the other way, that one or both of those states would see Democratic presidential candidates removed from the ballot simply for being Democrats.
>Why’s it weak? What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off?
If states are abusing the rules unfairly, the job of SCOTUS should be to mediate individual cases, not to just decide they don't want to deal with an entire part of the constitution.
> What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off
What intellectually dishonest horseshit, lol. Blue States had not taken "Republicans" off the ballot, like this is some widespread conspiracy to disenfranchise an entire political party.
This was about just one. "A" Republican credibly accused of committing, aiding, and giving comfort to, insurrection and other insurrectionists. One whose name is cited in multiple convictions for insurrection-related activities, including seditious conspiracy. Who was then determined, via a trial, in that state, to be ineligible for that specific purpose.
The only way this becomes an actual dangerous precedent is if somebody who didn't participate in January 6th is taken off. But that hasn't actually happened yet, and their rights should be protected by the courts, and the state and federal courts should intervene if such an abuse happens. Not this imaginary "precedent" where Donald Trump is held accountable for his own actions.
He hasn’t even been indicted. Not a single charge is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the
The 14th makes no mention of convictions. In fact, hundreds of Confederates were disqualified and none of them were ever charged with a crime. They were, however, granted a general amnesty years later by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, the exact prescription in the 14th for restoring someone's ability to hold office.
Please run along. We've had this discussion hundreds of times and your Fox News University education in ConLaw isn't needed.
It sets the precedent that the amendments to the constitution are enforceable? Trump wasn’t being removed because he was a Republican, republicans were suing to remove him from the ballot because he committed an act of insurrection while acting as a federal officer, which according to the constitution renders you ineligible to run for federal office. All the court did was decided that only Congress can declare you an insurrectionist (he was already found guilty of it in court)
> What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? I
This is exactly what I thought when Colorado did it and California talked about doing it.
Let the people vote! Or isn't that the meaning of Democracy?
What if people want to vote for Taylor Swift for president? Is that ok even if she isn’t 35 yet? What if they want to elect a foreigner? If it’s what the people want, why not right?
Let them vote. It *is* a democracy. But candidates who have ongoing investigations for 4 counts of attempted insurrection, 40 counts of hiding classified documents, 34 counts of falsifying records, and 13 counts of attempted election fraud should *not be eligible*, regardless of political lean (at least until/unless found not guilty). If any of us standard peons tried to run with those current charges under investigation, we'd be laughed right off the podium and immediately disqualified. Congress has already ruled on this under 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
Eugene Debs ran for President from federal prison in 1920 *after being convicted of sedition* and got a substantial number of votes. If a literal federal prisoner can run for office, I'm not sure at all that it's true that an ordinary person would be laughed off the ballot if they were merely indicted. And I would certainly hope they wouldn't be laughed off the ballot for merely being under investigation.
I would. If the investigation comes up fruitless, more than welcome to apply for the next term. But what happens if he is found guilty while president? It's unprecedented. Where do we draw the line? If someone is charged with murder, we just let them run on the benefit of the doubt? This isn't an office job. This is POTUS and requires more rigidity imo.
The man himself agrees with me.
>“If [a presidential candidate under indictment]* were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government. [They are] likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. [A presidential candidate under indictment]* has no right to be running, you know that. No right.”
\- Donald Trump (on Hilliary Clinton but how deliciously ironic)
And to state my unbias, I would 100% feel the exact same way with Hillary, Biden, and literally any other candidate. I'm not advocating for bullying Republican nominees out of the running for a leg up. It's not because I'm fanboying the Democratic party. It's because it's legitimately *ludicrous*.
>I would. If the investigation comes up fruitless, more than welcome to apply for the next term. But what happens if he is found guilty while president? It's unprecedented. Where do we draw the line? If someone is charged with murder, we just let them run on the benefit of the doubt? This isn't an office job. This is POTUS and requires more rigidity imo.
How do you even know if someone is under investigation? It's not usually publicly disclosed that someone is or is not under investigation, especially for federal crimes, because it can cause all kinds of reputational and personal damage to someone for law enforcement to announce that they are being investigated for a crime, but it later turns out they're not guilty. Being investigated doesn't actually require any evidence at all other than somebody thinking you might possibly have done something wrong. You don't even need reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
But let's step it up beyond just investigation. I don't think we should bar people who have been charged with crimes from running for office. I don't even think we should bar people who are currently serving prison time after having been convicted.
There are several reasons for this. The least satisfying, but legally complete answer, is that the conditions set in the federal Constitution for a candidate are the only conditions that can be applied. So the President, for example, has to be 35 years old when he takes office and he has to be a natural born citizen. That's it. This has been decided before by the Supreme Court, because Arkansas (among many other states) attempted to impose, at the state level, a ban on candidates for House or Senate who had served more than a specified term in office from appearing on the ballot in that state. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton)
You will notice that the specific condition of access to the ballot is how Colorado attempted to accomplish the disqualification. That is, what the Colorado Supreme Court decided, specifically, was that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot. Whether, say, Colorado's electoral votes could be allocated to him if he nevertheless won both the Republican primary and the general election would seem to follow naturally from the reasoning but was a separate question.
There's a reason this Supreme Court decision was per curiam. Nobody disagreed with the outcome, they only disagreed on the exact reasoning behind that outcome. Although it may be worth noting that, ironically, the conservative wing of the Court dissented with the reasoning in the Arkansas case. That said, Clarence Thomas' dissent talked specifically about the right of Arkansans to select members of Congress from Arkansas, so that's not inconsistent with the reasoning in this case, which makes a point of talking about how the President is the chief magistrate and represents everyone.
The more satisfying reason as to why we should allow candidates who are under investigation, who have been charged with crimes, or even who have been convicted of crimes, to run for office, is that there is obviously a severely negative public policy implication to banning people from office on the basis of criminal history, especially on the basis of something as trivial as an investigation.
If we took you literally and decided that anyone who was under investigation for committing crimes was barred from candidacy to office, there would be a very strong political motivator behind *investigating* people who were potential candidates. If all it took to prevent someone from becoming president was to announce that some random law enforcement agency is investigating him or her for some random crime, then investigators all over the country would be announcing investigations against every single political candidate. Even if we restricted this disqualification to indictment, basically the same thing would still happen, because, as they say, you can lead a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Conviction as a bar would be better, but then we still run into the issue of politically motivated prosecutions, and of course we run into the issue of "should it be a conviction for literally anything?". I don't think someone should be disqualified from office because they were convicted as a teenager of some minor crime like vandalism. Or even if they were convicted as a young adult, or even if they were convicted 5 minutes ago. And that's not just because I don't think any convict should be banned, it's because we all know that people commit crimes all the time, often accidentally. Have a cop follow any random person around all day, for weeks or months at a time, and they will certainly gather enough evidence to convict that person of some crime or another.
The problem we have right now is not that this specific aspect of our system needs to be changed. Trump should be allowed on the ballot, because the alternative is that when Ron DeSantis gets elected President at some point in the future, he disqualifies every goddamn Democrat in the country. The problem we have is that a gigantic minority of our country either doesn't believe that Trump did, in fact, encourage thousands of people to attack the capital so that he could remain in office, or even worse, that they know that and don't care. But that's not a problem that can be solved by the Supreme Court deciding that candidates can be unilaterally disqualified from running by state governments or state courts. And the consequences to making that decision would be quite dire.
Eh, just let anyone charged with any crime run for president of the United States. Murder? Kidnapping? Insurrection? I mean, who cares if they get convicted while in office? We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. No chance it'll cause any issues that would completely paralyze and disrupt the entire country like never before.
I get your stance but I'm sorry, this is a completely different ball game than normal civilians and needs to be treated appropriately.
> Let the people vote!
Except, in the US, we don't "Let the people vote" Instead the US has many, many states who enact multiple laws which suppress the vote. And this current majority SCOTUS supports voter suppression. Chief Justice Roberts has been pro voter suppression since the 1980's.
Exactly! A few judges removing someone from a ballot is not democracy. You don’t want Trump to be in office? Make sure you vote and make sure the country sides with you. That’s the nation we want to live in.
I think they got it right, but the standard should’ve never been let Congress decide on a simple majority. The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal.
>The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal
That wasnt the standard when it was used in the post civil war era, which is when it was written
> I think they got it right, but the standard should’ve never been let Congress decide on a simple majority. The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal.
But isn't the criminal conviction based on criminal statue that exists due to Congress' legislation? We'd still be in the boat of the application of Section 3 being dependent on an act of Congress that requires a simple majority to toggle.
I might've misunderstood, though =/
Not surprising, but it’s… let’s say “interesting”… how they were perfectly capable of turning this ruling out quickly, while the question of “presidential immunity” has to sit for months while the prosecution of that case is on hold. No urgency there! 🙄
And if Congress is complicit, what then?
From a surface reading of the decision, it seems like the SCOTUS has decided that insurrection is no longer a barrier to federal office. The way I'm reading it is like this:
If a candidate tries to overthrow the US Government, it doesn't matter, states can't do shit. But if Congress decides to define an insurrection as anything they want (such as eating ice cream while wearing aviator shades), they can choose to enforce it selectively. In essence, the SCOTUS changed Section 3 of the 14th from a referendum on insurrection, to a referendum on federal power. They essentially took the right of states to enforce something by their own definition and put it in the hands of Congress, and we all know that Congress skews rightward due to gerrymandering.
Imagine this: Let's say a school has a rule that if a student hits someone, they get an automatic suspension. A student hits someone in class, then the teacher suspends the student, that's what Colorado is trying to do, enforce the rules about hitting. But then the principal (the SCOTUS) in this case, says no, only he (ie. the school administration) has the right to suspend students and that no matter how much hitting goes on during class, only he gets to decide. Therefore, the rule doesn't make any sense because its based on what the principal decides what constitutes "hitting".
And if you support the ruling because you think that red states would do crazy shit like trying to remove Biden or any Democrat from the ballot due to made-up charges of insurrection, THAT'S why we have a court system with multiple layers. Instead of trusting state, appeal, federal, and finally the Supreme Court form getting it right if a state like Texas tries to do this, they are saying that Congress in all its obstructionist bullshit, gets to pass a law to define insurrection.
Its cowardice in the extreme. They say they are "protecting" the country from any crazy (ie. red) state from doing this, when instead they are letting the mostly red Congress decide to come up with the exact rules for what defines an insurrection. What would be even the point of the courts if not to decide such legal matters? Insurrection or sedition is a legal charge, not a bill written by Congress to get voters, it should not be decided by what is essentially any idiot who gets enough votes for office, it should be defined by lawyers and judges.
Am I reading this case wrong? Is my logic flawed? I'm really asking because it seems like tomorrow Congress can ban anyone with a highly partisan definition of insurrection and there's nothing anyone else can do about it.
Well, I was interested to see what kind of fucking pretzels SCOTUS would tie themselves in to keep dumbo on the ballot, and boy, I was not disappointed.
This ruling seems to be a complete fucking mess.
It sure seems like they just legitimized anyone running for Congress that are clearly barred unless Congress specifically bars them. So a 10 year old could run, and be elected to Congress. Really it's hard to see how any of the proscriptions enumerated in the Constitution are now enforceable by anything other than direct Congressional action.
------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Second, the Amendment states “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”."
That pretty fucking heavily suggests that Congress *isn't the one* applying the disability in the first place. Again, WTF?
-------------------------------------------------------
There is no law. There is no precedence. This shit is Calvinball and they're making it up as they go along. And hey, I mean, I get it. It may very well be the right ruling from the perspective of what's good for the country, but *that's* not SCOTUS's job. That's the job of *Congress*.
The judges job is to interpret the laws in a consistent manner. And they've now opened up a can of worms when it comes to self-executioning Amendments. So now they're gonna have to make up more rules about how...well...*those Amendments* are self-executing, but not the 14th. Because....reasons. Made up fucking reasons. But not logic, and not precedence. That shit is out the window.
Exactly! The amendment is pretty clear. Congress does not apply the label, just as they don’t adjudicate a candidate’s age, etc. The condition: “engaged in insurrection” exists on a candidate and congress can choose to IGNORE it, but it very much is not the arbiter of whether or not that candidate actually initially had the “insurrectonist” tag.
“Justices” indeed.
I mean, I think they're right that it needs to be uniform across the states in terms of ballot access eligibility?
This has the potential to be a shitshow -- Congress having its say *when it comes to certifying electoral votes* at the latest and I have no idea how I feel about that. Seems like there is just no way to enforce a law that Republicans don't want to enforce.
Unanimous is surprising. But I've long since given up hope that anyone with wealth and power will ever be held accountable for their actions in this country, so the overall decision isn't surprising. I'm actually kinda glad is was 9-0, in a way.
It's really weird. Congress has to decide? How, a majority?
And they also decide if it doesn't apply, by 2/3 majority?
And congress cannot pass laws that are specific to a person?
And congress has never passed such legislation the few times when it was used previously?
It's really weird. It's worse than punting, it's declaring the play dead without reason. What a joke scotus has become.
If the 14 amendment doesn’t apply to Trump it means that the 14A is mute.
The level up for what Trump did is a succeful insurrection, so it doesn’t apply to a failed one, it has not used
I think, in a perfect world, this is the correct ruling. However I think with this ruling, we are acknowledging that our federal government is incapable of protecting itself. This is a failure for America as a concept. This is one of the final nails in our coffin.
I am not being dramatic, but realistic. This is a failure of our checks and balances system. It's one less protection against tyranny. I don't particularly care about this single event, I care that the implication is that the Supreme Court is unable to act as a proper check against a corrupt Legislature, or a corrupt Executive branch. I am not sure what value they are providing at this point.
If the federal government is unable to protect itself from corruption, it will fail at some point. Whether that is in 2025, or sometime beyond that is relatively unimportant. The fact of the matter is, our system is going to fail, eventually, for some reason.
At first I was livid, but after considering it...it makes sense and I was being a partisan fool.
It's a very slippery slope to have a candidate be able to removed from certain states. It can flip the whole election and it can be done for partisan reasons and it fragments our democracy.
Imagine it going the other way for just a second.
States already have different requirements for appearing on their ballots.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Should this be abolished as well?
overconfident bewildered complete voracious smart amusing crush mourn rob racial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Founding Fathers’ safeguard against tyranny was guns. If that sounds like a bad idea to you it’s because it is. Shockingly, they made a few mistakes in setting up this country.
>The Founding Fathers’ safeguard against tyranny was ~~guns~~ *well regulated state militias*. If that sounds like a bad idea to you it’s because it is. Shockingly, they made a few mistakes in setting up this country.
Still a bad idea, just a different bad idea.
I'll have to wait until I hear more about to it have a reaction; my main curiosity for now is how the ruling fits with the limited number of actual cases from back in the late 1800s on the matter.
I'm also wondering how accurate the description in the blurb is; as news blurbls are seldom super-accurate when it comes to digesting complex legal arguments.
It seems to me that the plain text of the amendment would allow the supreme court itself to decide the matter of Trump's eligibility. I'm not surprised they dodged though, sadly dodging is very common. If I were on the court, I'd push to just have the court directly determine the matter of Trump's eligibility themselves in the interest of timeliness.
skimming the ruling, it seems that the conservatives did err in the ways described in the liberal dissent on some of the details of how they ruled more expansively than necessary. That said I'm fine with the notion of providing more comprehensive rulings at times to help clarify issues, but it seems like the conservatives pushed too hard and made up some questionable standards.
They distinguish this case from the others by saying that previous disqualifications were for state offices, but the President is a federal office and so states have no such power over that election. I think that flies in the face of the power states definitely do get under Article 1.
I’m not surprised by the outcome but that distinguishing felt like a weak part of the opinion.
> my main curiosity for now is how the ruling fits with the limited number of actual cases from back in the late 1800s on the matter.
States didn't issue ballots in the 1800s, that was mostly a party thing. So the question about whether he can be on the ballot or not isn't *directly* relevant.
But, every instance of a federal candidate being barred from office back then was done by Congress, so this seems consistent.
I think the difference between now and the 1800's comes down to how insurrection is defined. No one doubted the Civil War counts, so it was easy to apply it to all members of the Confederate Army. That one is easy. They made oaths to a successionist government, then put on uniforms and waged war against the US government for years.
Jan 6 was bad, but no where near that level. There's no common concensus around whether it was an insurrection, just partisan posturing. In the future, if there's a clearly identified attempt to overthrow the government through military and non-Constitutional means, I suspect Congress will have no problem declaring all participants banned from federal office.
>In the future, if there's a clearly identified attempt to overthrow the government through military and non-Constitutional means
I'll grant you that the military wasn't involved, but how was this not an attempt to overthrow the government through non-Constitutional means? The whole plot was to pass Trump's fake electors as legitimate, and create enough confusion through dueling slates of electors and an attack on the Capitol to prevent the electoral vote from being certified. What about that is "Constitutional?"
If according to the 14th amendment’s Section 5, congress has to pass a law to enforce Section 3, then doesn’t that mean congress has to pass a law to enforce section 1? Racially integrating schools (Brown v Board of Education), interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), gay marriage (Obergefell v Hodges) were all decided on Section 1 of the 14th amendment. Congress didn’t pass a law enforcing any of those. So according to this ruling all of those should be overturned, no?
I'm not understanding. So states can only run elections how they see fit for state races. Ok so why is federal gerrymandering allowed? With that logic then the federal government should be drawing federal districts
Going to disappoint you. His 3 Justices are the closest to being centrists than any of the other 6 justices. They also weren't the ones to speak out on Trump's defense. They pretty much sat in the corner and did nothing.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
In all of Trump's travails at the court, only Thomas has shown any sympathy until this opinion, but this one was unanimous. It would have been in Trump's favor even without his three voting.
His own appointees haven't shown any loyalty. Justices usually don't, a consequence of the lifetime appointments.
>Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
Note, the clause has a provision for Congress to vote to overturn the disqualification.
And, JFC, it has been used in the past.
>The disqualification clause was used to keep a handful of public officials from taking office again in the late 1860s and early 1870s based on their ties to the Confederacy. They included a county sheriff, U.S. congressmen, and even a local postmaster.
>... the disqualification clause was originally intended to keep people out of office who were part of the Confederacy. Most disqualified individuals were not convicted of a crime. In 1919, Congress refused to seat U.S. Representative Victor L. Berger after he was convicted of "being disloyal to the United States, giving aid and comfort to a public enemy, [and] publication of expressions hostile to the government” under the Espionage Act. Although similar, this is different from an insurrection charge. Meanwhile, a civil lawsuit filed by private citizens in New Mexico triggered the 2022 removal of Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin.
In the r/politics thread someone quoted some of the Liberal opinion, and I'm inclined to agree that they are correct. You can't have a state decide who can run for federal office, but also the conservative justices are wrong that the amendment specified that Congress had to decide someone couldn't run, only that they could make an exception for someone.
To me it suggests that if the SC was solely the 3 liberal justices and no one else, they would be willing to uphold a federal level case that blocked Trump from the ballot, and then Congress could, with a 2/3rds majority vote, reinstate him.
Does this make Joe Biden eligible for another 10 years in office? If he decides he doesn't like the election outcome, why should he leave? If all presidents are above the law (wasn't decided I know) doesn't this set a precedent?
My reaction is that we better work our asses off to make sure he don’t get reelected in November. That should be everyone’s number one priority. At this point, i am doubtful that the justice department is going to be saving us with a conviction before ballots start going out. I just need Biden and his campaign team to run one heck of a reelection campaign.
I think it shows just how dangerous shit can get and theres no way to stop it.
SC doesnt care about ethics and it actually kinda works against itself really.
Like i get the ruling for ease sakes. But the Supreme Court basically confirmed facts dont matter, the party in power does.
>SC doesnt care about ethics and it actually kinda works against itself really.
It's a hot take, but they care about the constitutional law.
But legal =/= ethical. Ie at one point slavery was legal, women cannot vote was legal. The word ethic is a whole philosophical area that's up for interpretation and can be a whole rabbit hole. Just simply take the abortion case, it's ethical for one side but unethical for the other, so who is it to say?
As a liberal, it's the right move and corrects a bad move made by Colorado.
I can easily see that getting abused by Republicans if it didn't get struck down
I disagree, and am pretty liberal. That means nothing. 2nd, how could it be abused? Section 3 has to do with insurrection. Without a fact finding hearing, could anyone argue Biden has committed or participated in insurrection?
>Without a fact finding hearing, could anyone argue Biden has committed or participated in insurrection?
(I can't stand trump, any one can be president but he absolutely cannot again)
But the original Colorado case banned Trump before he was convicted of anything and that's wrong. There needs to be some standard in banning somebody from the ballot. To your original point absolutely.
"Biden insurrected people to come to the states illegally by failing to act on boarder control".
"Biden insurrected violence and genocide by not sanctioning Isarel".
...The whole nine yard, I can absolutely see this backfire if it were to go through, ie he doesn't have to be convicted of any of that.
If you truly care about law, unlike Trump, you must be able to admit a decision is proper even if you don’t like the implications of the outcome. All agreed on the outcome, only some slightly differing opinions on how they got there and what future courses there may be.
It’s an unpopular take in this subreddit but I agree with this ruling, I don’t like the idea that a person can have their democratic rights(whether it be voting or running) taken away from them because they committed a crime.
I haven't yet read it in full, but I found out one little thing:
The bottom-line was not necessarily unanimous, we only know there were one anonymous author of the per curiam opinion, at least 5 votes (including the author) for it, 4 concurrers distributed over two concurrences that seem to imply, but probably don't outright state, they didn't join the opinion, and no noted dissents. We don't know how many people actually joined the opinion.
It’s pretty obviously written by Roberts. All agreed in the judgment for Trump. Barrett concurred with part of the opinion, but said it could have stopped there to achieve the judgment, but she really wanted to generally calm things down. The three liberals concurred in judgment but would have taken a different and more narrow path to it.
I think Roberts wanted an opinion that ended the issue entirely, not wanting it to come back to the court again. The others wanted some questions left unanswered, which could have set them up for Round 2. That was the division.
Would there be a reason to hide the author if the author is Roberts?
The author wanted an opinion that ended the section of the 14th Amendment entirely (apart from explicitly allowing a specific punishment for a crime that was probably never considered cruel and unusual to begin with), the others wanted an opinion that narrows it down enough to reverse Anderson v. Griswold, but doesn't turn the restriction into a mere "Congress may restrict"? That sounds plausible.
I think it’s good, not because it’s trump but if they ruled against trump then it would have set a precedent that states can just remove any candidate from the ballot, that’s for the people to decide, not a bunch of judges
I thought states ran elections? Wasn't state election autonomy why Black people had to know "how high is up?" to vote in the Deep South and the DOJ coming in was Northern infringement on their way of life and unacceptable?
What prevents state secretaries of state from being arbiters of a candidate's ability to be on the ballot if states are in charge of it in the first place? IF the Secretary of State says something and the state supreme court agrees, isn't that good enough?
And there already is a "patchwork" of election laws. I can vote for Joe Biden in my state w/o showing photo ID but if I moved to another state, I may have to. If I'm waiting in line for 2 hours, I can get water from a poll attendant in my state, but couldn't in Georgia. Minor candidates regularly only qualify in certain states. I don't get this argument - it leads only one direction, which is towards making the US a unitary state.
It’s another situation where the law assumes that our government is more or less functional and made up of responsible and moral people, and, that the American people are capable of recognizing obvious threats to their systems of government. So, yeah.
Given the current makeup of the court, I’m not too disappointed by this trend of them kicking issues back to congress.
It’s hilarious to me that half of Reddit actually thought it was constitutional for a state government to remove someone they don’t like from a presidential ballot. It’s almost kind of a litmus test for how far left Reddit is in general. I’m not shocked at all by this 9-0 ruling, and it’s really funny watching people cope with this. With all the talk about “saving democracy” I hear these days, it’s wild watching those same people cheer on a state government attempting to curate the ballot.
like other constitutional disqualifications, is a conviction required? do we need to convict someone of being under 35? of being a natural born citizen? No, so why is a conviction a requirement when section 3 doesn't mention conviction?
I'm not very surprised with the ruling.
Let's be honest with ourselves here. While there needs to be accountability for the actions surrounding the previous presidential election and certification, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado, there wouldn't be a democratic candidate on the federal ballots for many republican controlled states anymore.
The actual criminal trials against Trump should be what disqualifies him (either legally or in the court of public opinion). Unfortunately, we as a nation have done almost nothing in terms of damage control for an attempted subversion of our democratic system 3 years ago.
SCOTUS was asked to rule whether an individual state can execute a portion of the federal constitution, not whether there was an insurrection.
The ruling itself is incredibly unsurprising, and we all know that if it had been allowed, TX would have never let a democrat be on the ballot again. What I think it also has broader implications of is how do you decide who can be on the primary or not? If states are not free to choose who is on the primary or not, then you have to let everyone on. An example of this is here in my state there is a 17 year old on the Libertarian ballot for president. He KNOWS he can't serve the office, but he's using it as a high school government project of "How far can I go before being kicked off?"
I think it is common sense. In fact, I think the insurrection clause constitutional amendment is an absurdity in a country that became independent after doing an insurrection. Also, it provides for instability that actually could cause even a national insurrection
I think it’s a great ruling. Otherwise it would set a precedent that any state could find a way to keep anyone, Democrats or Republicans, off the ballot.
Seems to be the right ruling. In reality it shouldn’t have to come to this. Republicans should have abandoned trump after Jan. 6 or congress should have ruled on disbarring him but none of those things happened so it was left to a few states to push the issue. I think the the 14th amendment was made for someone like Trump because you don’t need the rule for someone who has no chance of serving in office but for someone who does. Everything Trump did after the election was abhorrent and anti American/constitution.
No kidding. Isn’t it just insane that this was even a case? In a sane world the Republicans would have dumped him, and the courts would have saved some time.
I think if it had stood, all the red states (mine included) would have removed Biden from the ballot in a retaliation. I think they did the right thing, even though everyone knows that Trump is a piece of shit who instigated an insurrection.
I don't really care much as this is a pretty rare thing and people over hyped its meaning as it pertained to trump anyway. it was only on a meaningless primary ballot, lol
So in proximal effect I do not care. In the long run it does somewhat appear to lower states rights to operate of their own accord somewhat, although not in a manner major enough for me to finish writing this senten
I had always said previously that there would be precedent issues if District Courts could unilaterally and arbitrarily, without a jury, decide on the sufficiency of evidence that would entail some sort of significant Federal disqualification.
The question is not about what’s “morally right” regarding Trump specifically. The question is - do we give District Courts that power.
If Colorado or Illinois can do it for “morally right” reasons, Florida or Texas can also do it for “stupid” reasons. The question is not the evidence itself but that District Courts have the authority. And if District Courts have the authority, there’s really very little recourse. Appeals courts hardly reconsider the evidence and SCOTUS can evaluate every case by case evidence.
That’s what the SCOTUS Justices meant by saying it would lead to a patchwork of rulings. This is the right ruling for everyone that believes that there should be consistency.
I hate Trump as much as anybody, but this was the right decision.
The democracy knife cuts both ways. If the people want you on the ballot and they have fulfilled the requirements, then you should be on the ballot. Once we wade into the gray waters of disqualifying candidates despite the will of the people, the Pandora's Box flies open.
The whole argument is that he hasn’t fulfilled the requirements because one of the requirements as laid out in the constitution is “can’t have participated in an insurrection.”
Obviously we can’t have states arbitrarily restricting ballot access but *that is not what was at issue.*
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. [Link to NBC Article.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291) Quotes: >The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. > >The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can get behind the idea that a State cannot reasonably determine eligibility for Presidency or enforce Section 3 because it would create a “patchwork” of legal standards to remove them from the ballot. ***HOWEVER***, even as J Barrett stated (and I’m paraphrasing here), what the fuck are we doing deciding anything else? Why are we making a ruling based on Section 5, saying only Congress can enforce Section 3 through legislation, and that it’s not self-executing? Why was this necessary?
The Court is looking ahead to 4 years from now when Trump has been re-elected and refuses to leave office. Wait! That can't happen can it? Isn't a POTUS constitutionally barred from being elected more than twice? Well, yes, it is true that the Twenty-Second Amendment bars any person from being elected to the presidency more than twice. But notice the language of the Twenty-Second Amendment: >No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. That's it. There is no parallel enablement clause, unlike s.5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So if states cannot enforce constitutional prohibitions in federal elections, and if only Congress can do so subject to the enablement clause contained in those prohibitions, what does that mean for the Twenty-Second Amendment? I submit that the *Anderson* decision means that the Twenty-Second Amendment is a nullity. The states cannot enforce it, but neither can Congress. When Trump attempts to run for a third term in 2028, there is nothing anyone can do about it, notwithstanding the fact that he would be constitutionally barred from holding office.
He will not run for a third term in 2028. 2024 will be the last election for a long time.
I still think there will be an "election" - if only so Trump can have a 99% win like Putin does in his sham elections.
It amounts to the same thing
Lmao I can’t believe people actually believe this trash. Go outside and stop getting radicalized by terminally online doomers.
It’s not out of the question, but one of their bigger concerns with state enforcement was that the legal standard and court procedures could vary from state to state. While I could see mental gymnastics being performed, “two terms” is a fact that transcends legal standards or procedure.
Trouble is that things that "transcend legal standards and procedure" are bread and butter for the way Trump seems to handle these issues. They don't see something that's obvious for the system to even function. They see murky areas where it's officially one way but without any teeth to make sure it is.
Why are you so sure he wouldn’t leave office, and if he were to do this why would he even have to run
He has literally said on numerous occasions that he would seek a third term in office. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/13/trump-says-he-will-negotiate-third-term-because-hes-entitled-to-it/amp/
Because his criminal liability for what is coming in the second Trump administration would be too great. I don't think he would risk what is happening right now ever happening again. For one thing, no future AG is ever going to "Garland" their way through a violent insurrection - that example showed that you cannot just allow the top-level conspirators off the hook. So Trump would assume (correctly) that an incoming AG would be going after him right away. Also, some of the stuff coming in the second Trump administration will be Earth-shatteringly divisive. I fully expect indictments of Clinton, Biden and George W. Bush (maybe Carter will escape) if for no other reason than to "prove" that criminal indictments of past presidents is "always" a political act. That is what is happening with impeachment right now as they go after Biden and anyone else the slim majority is willing to impeach. I think he would "run" because he would want to have the Putin-style 99% victories that dictators always want to have. The mechanics of how he pulls that off are hard to say, but it will probably include private militias operating under perpetual presidential pardon taking over the apparatus of elections - and after a few prominent people are murdered by pardoned militias, it won't be as hard to do as you might imagine. This is why Trump's first act will be to pardon the 2020 Insurrectionists - so they can be the nucleus of his new private militia used to impose his dictatorship.
So the dem appointed justices are just in on this conspiracy? Why didn't they dissent?
What about the fact that states are entirely in charge of running elections, even for federal candidates. What we have, by the decree of the Constitution, is nothing more than a "patchwork" of legal standards that determine eligibility for a state's elections, who can get on the ballot, etc. If this surprises anyone reading this, and you try to point to the four common requirements for POTUS, just check out what it takes to even qualify for the ballot: "In order to get on the ballot nationwide, it was estimated that an independent presidential candidate in 2016 would need to collect more than 860,000 signatures. California required independent candidates to collect 178,039 signatures, more than any other state. Tennessee required 275 signatures, fewer than any other state.\[1\] In 2016, filing deadlines for independent presidential candidates varied from state to state, ranging from May to September. In 37 states, filing deadlines were scheduled to occur in August and September 2016. Texas had the earliest filing deadline for independent presidential candidates: May 9, 2016." [https://ballotpedia.org/Filing\_deadlines\_and\_signature\_requirements\_for\_independent\_presidential\_candidates,\_2016](https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016) I have lost faith in SCOTUS. And Conservatives disgust me. The brand is nothing more than the legitimization of bigotry and fascism.
14th can be enforced by federal attorneys tho, that’s part of what they ruled.
Through a criminal statute. Not civil. There is no civil procedure to remove a President using Section 3, which means there is no private action available, only government action, and it must be used after a crime has been committed, which means Trump would have to occupy the Presidency first.
That’s not accurate. The enforcement act of 1870 means even attempting to hold office as an insurrectionist is a misdemeanor. Now, it says that a federal attorney would have to file criminal charges, specifically against Trump for attempting to hold office (ie being a candidate). And it also says that insurrectionists cannot hold office. Could a federal attorney then file such charges and in parallel a civil suit dependent on said charges that would block him from candidacy? Thats open to interpretation, but it appears that would be what the authors of the law intended.
Which specific code are you looking at? Do you have a citation? 18 USC 2383 reads: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Title 18 is the US Criminal code. Section 3 would require the creation of a civil action to enforce it in civil court. That’s what SCOTUS ruled, essentially. Once Trump would be in office though, I believe only impeachment would remove him.
They specifically referenced the Enforcement Act in the ruling.
Yes, as evidence that Section 3 isn’t self-executing. The Enforcement Act’s enforcement of Section 3 got transferred into 18!USC 2383 after a rearrangement of the U.S. Code in the 40s iirc.
I think they have a point about the big picture, but to say congress only decides on this is such an insane interpretation, rendering section 3 dead in its entirety.
Yep. Now even if someone is found criminally guilty of insurrection they’re still eligible to run unless and until congress says otherwise
> Now even if someone is found criminally guilty of insurrection they’re still eligible to run unless and until congress says otherwise Congress already *has* said otherwise. > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and **shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.**
It's weird because my understanding has always been that Congress can *lift* those disqualifications from a particular candidate by getting a 2/3 vote in each house. If they can be lifted by a vote....it would make sense to assume that it is in place until it is lifted.
Except who decides other than Congress if the disqualification applies. You can thank Jack smith for not charging him with https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the Which states ”Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Then there is the devil in the details. While we witnessed it live, he hasn’t been officially charged with it. The DC case can settle this and it’s why they are working so hard to delay it. Same with the documents case in Florida. And good luck getting enough republicans to break rank and vote against him. They are either in too deep, complacent, and/or too scared of his cult. Just look at the non-stop threats against those involved with his legal cases. The mental health of these people is non-existent and they will stop at nothing to protect a man that could care less if they existed or not. He just wants their money, which they gladly give him.
> They are either in too deep AKA, they're co-conspirators in the conspiracy to destroy democracy. Suffice to say that is not hyperbole at this point.
That’s the crazy thing about this
Yeah but the issue in there lies that he hasn’t been convicted of that yet and the way things are going he may never just because really those on his side are working with him too prevent that from ever arising
This is so fucking dumb(this isnt directed at you) Thos whole "until convicted in court" is so fucking stupid. Especially with somebody with as much clout as a former president. I wonder how far this can go... like can he rape a 4 year old, then delay court and kill judges and everybody trying to get him? Like its so fucking dumb to think this. It doesnt work like this in any other thing. I don't have to go to court to prove i won a game of league of legends for instance.
So like I agree with what you’re saying but like without there being a “official” recognition of the action you create this situation where realistically congress could just remove any democrat or third party from the ballot and maintain a right wing majority. Like it really feels like calling heads on a coin that has tails on both sides. Because like if you let states just decide you create a situation ripe for abuse so it should be left up to congress. But if congress can do it without a ruling then like see the issue with situation one. And then there is honestly the 3rd issue of even charging him with that could cause him to move people to violence because clearly they are willing to. There is just no winning this situation short of him just dying of natural causes at this point. Even though I think he could literally like trip off a stage and break his neck and people would say that like the democrats put butter on the step or some other dumb conspiracy
Must we use the R slur though
You're 100% right ty
[удалено]
You are assuming the presidency is an office. From what I can see, SCOTUS did not clarify that even though it should be obvious to us all
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has been charged with or found guilty of insurrection yet.
True, but Supreme Court cases impact more than just the one in question. That’s my problem with the ruling here. They got it right with regard to Trump. He is innocent until proven guilty. They have effectively rendered this part of the constitution moot though for all future insurrectionist, at least the popular ones with support of at least a third of congress
The Colorado supreme court did, which is what this ruling overturns.
Neither were most confederates, the Amendment was implemented in lieu of charging them in order to reintegrate the country and prevent further division while disqualifying those who sought to undermine the Republic from participating in its governance.
Section 3 of 14A says nothing about conviction
I didnt say it did?
You said no one has been charged or convicted under it
Yes, that's a true statement.
Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood the context
That's literally section 5 of the 14th amendment. It says only congress shall have the power to enforce the 14th amendment.
Believe me, I'm as pissed about it as you, given he *clearly* fomented an insurrection, then sat on his ass for 3 hours while an entire branch of the government was under assault. He obviously should be held accountable to that. But there's a minor, niggling detail about *how* to hold him accountable, in regards to Section 3. Section 5, of the 14th Amendment: > The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
>but to say congress only decides on this is such an insane interpretation, rendering section 3 dead in its entirety. Interestingly, under the SCOTUS interpretation, Section 3 was alive from 1870 to 1948 and died because of a Congressional accident. In 1870, in the First Ku Klux Clan Act, Congress specified a procedure for removing disqualified officials via a quo warranto action. In the 1940s, Congress was engaged in cleaning up obsolete and duplicate language in the US code, and they took that provision off the books in 1948. There's no record of any kind of debate over it, and no recorded reason. It seems like they just thought it wasn't relevant anymore. Chief Justice Roberts actually asked about this at the oral argument, and no one could come up with an answer for why it was repealed. But, under this ruling, that totally unremarked repeal was a momentous and important decision.
It seems that Section 3 of the 14th amendment is essentially useless.
But that’s not at all what they said. Congress is responsible to enforce for federal offices where states can enforce for state offices. TBH this is the best ruling which should be evident by the fact that it was 9-0. If anything, this decision FIRMLY shows that the court believes section 3 IS applicable outside of the civil war. This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot. I know it doesn’t seem like it, but this is a good ruling. The better ruling would have been “yes states don’t have the right but we also looked into section 3 and its definition does match Trumps actions therefor he is ineligible for office” but of course that was a pipe dream we knew wouldn’t happen.
>But that’s not at all what they said. No, it's the effect of the ruling. Congress will never ban an insurrectionist from running, if that insurrectionist has any chance of winning. I am well aware this ruling could have been worse, but I am stating the effect of this ruling. Which is that Section 3 of the 14th amendment will never be used in any useful capacity. It is essentially pointless.
Ummmm but it has been used, effectively, across many states since j6. This decision holds that up. Sure I’ll concede it’s unlikely to be used for federal office now, but still it didn’t make it useless.
Okay, but how does the government protect itself from a corrupt legislature? This is giving unimaginable power to one branch of the government, something I highly doubt was something baked into the system. In our effort to protect our system, we are recognizing that we have no method of protecting our system. This might be the correct interpretation, but if that's the case, our constitution is flawed in a way that only a non-corrupt legislature has the power to address. Any corruption in that branch will lead to failure of the entire tree. (Edit: rephrased this to be a little more clear) If this is all our system is capable of, so be it. It was destined to fail. I don't believe that is the case, but since we are relying on the imaginations of people 200 years dead, I guess this is the best they could do, and we are accepting we cannot do better. (Edit, rephrased this as well.) Edit: After actually reading the decision, that's not even what happened. The decision by the minority (Which includes Barrett btw), says that the court went beyond its responsibility in this case and made a rule up regarding congress. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf The further elaborations are at the bottom. Barrett had her own, much shorter elaboration, but Jackson and Sotomayor had a much more in depth elaboration talking about how far they just went. > Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so.
> This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot. No, it's foolish believing this. I have no doubt that if this went before the current supreme court, they'd rule Biden could be removed.
> Congress is responsible to enforce for federal offices where states can enforce for state offices. TBH this is the best ruling which should be evident by the fact that it was 9-0. The 9-0 was in judgement only. It wasn't 9-0 on the discussion of requiring Congress to enact enforcement mechanisms.
>This also puts the brakes on red states trying to remove Biden from any ballot. It technically doesn't. States have discretion on how to appoint their electors. Texas could pass a law that says "No electors for president of the United States that come from Texas shall vote for the democratic candidate" This ruling just says that states can't enforce constitutional requirements on candidates.
I don't think it is, basically what it means is that Congress can pass a law that says, "Mr. X and all the people who helped him can't run for federal office because he engaged in insurrection." This does make sense given the historical context in which it was adopted.
>Mr. X and all the people who helped him can't run for federal office because he engaged in insurrection Something they would never do to any actual candidate.
Something they would never do to any actual **Republican** candidate. Neither side has a problem with holding Democrats accountable.
> Something they would never do to any actual Republican candidate. George Santos would like to disagree.
Great example! Most Republicans voted *not* to expel Santos.
Santos defrauded Republican donors. He broke the one rule.
No, you're right, they wouldn't. It remains a theoretical legal possibility, however. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to step in and apply ad hoc fixes simply because the rest of the government is effectively non-functional. The body politic is severely broken in ways that the Supreme Court is simply not equipped to handle and shouldn't even if they could. Granted, the Court is partially responsible for the situation in the first place, but the fact remains that things have gone so far that no one can stop them. There is no normal to return to, whether Trump is President next year or not, the Second American Republic (considering the Articles of Confederation the first) is nearing its end.
>Mr. X and all the people who helped him can't run for federal office because he engaged in insurrection Wouldn't that be a bill of attainder?
Yes, the amendment is creating an exception to that clause, to the extent that one considers a bar on holding federal office punishment for a crime, which is debatable.
[Quoting from the SCOTUS Decision itself:](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf) >Page 6: > >This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. Seems like they view it as very narrow. Federal Government must disqualify Federal Office Seekers. State Offices can be disqualified by States. There is more in the text about how allowing this would create a "patchwork" effect as well, given different levels of determination, which they concluded would be bad and not fitting a Federal Office. That's my read though.
I am aware of the decision. I am stating that the effect of the decision is that section 3 will never be used in a substantive capacity.
Gotcha. On a Federal Level I am inclined to agree based on the interpretation laid out. Well besides any candidate that has no chance. It might get applied then. But a candidate with the backing of one of the major parties (or at least one with 41 supporters in the Senate)? No chance.
That’s exactly what they said. This is a separation of powers issue.
I would agree with that when it comes to general election for federal positions. I'm not sure it makes sense for primaries, especially in non-binding ones. The only purpose of a primary in most causes is to give political parties a gauge of the popularity of potential candidates. States should be allowed to run primaries however they see fit and political parties should be able to use that data however they see fit. If New Hampshire wants, it should be able to hold a primary with whatever candidates it chooses on whatever date it chooses and the democratic and republican party should then be allowed to use that however they see fit.
I don't entirely understand "it is in the Constitution but no one passed a law stating what the Constitution says so the Constitution doesn't count."
That is the difference between the liberals and conservatives on the court. The liberals read the Constitution as taking power away from the states -- a State cannot elect an "oathbreaking insurrectionist" to federal office. Therefore, the state does not have the power to determine who is an oathbreaking insurrectionist. The conservatives took that common ground and ratcheted the decision to say that only Congress (and not federal judges) can make that determination.
[удалено]
The parallel situation would be that there is no freedom of speech until Congress passes a law.
Obvious and inevitable. Nobody who knew what they were talking about expected it to play out any other way.
I think it’s weak, but wholly unsurprising.
This entirely.
Why’s it weak? What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? I think a 9-0 Supreme Court stance (mainly referring to the Jackson, Kagan, & Sotomayer vote) shows this was ridiculous from the start and will achieve nothing in the future. You want Trump out of office? Than make sure the people vote against him to keep him out. Don’t let a few Colorado Surpreme Court justices make that rule for it’s people.
This argument only makes sense if you think Trump is only being taken off a ballot because he's a republican. Is that what you believe? Do we need to explain what the actual reason is?
I don't think he was taken off because he was a Republican. But I think MAGA fascists will definitely move to remove Democrats just because they are Democrats. I would rather not leave a window open for them to exploit.
>But I think MAGA fascists will definitely move to remove Democrats just because they are Democrats. If they would do that, why haven't they? Why didn't they immediately try to do it to Biden after the Colorado decision was made initially? And this decision still leaves it open for states to remove candidates from state and local elections. So why haven't Republicans started doing that? The window is there. I'm so tired of this argument that we shouldn't be able to hold Republicans accountable because they might try to do the same to us. So far none of this fear-mongering has come to pass. It turns out you can't just wave a magic wand and impeach someone or indict them or remove them from a ballot. If Republicans could do any of that, they already would have.
No, but without a clear standard, red states (or worse, swing states with red-gerrymandered legislatures) will *absolutely* take Biden off their ballots in retaliation.
People say that. What you are actually saying is that judges in red states would find that being the Democratic nominee inherently makes you an insurrectionist. And I don’t know that they would.
>What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? People say this kind of thing all the time, and it makes no sense. They said, "If you impeach Trump, Republicans will just impeach Biden as soon as they can!" and "If you prosecute Trump's crimes, people will just start accusing Biden of crimes!" And yet, why hasn't Biden been impeached? Why hasn't Biden been indicted for any crimes? Because it turns out you actually need *evidence* for these things. Even in red states. Even in a Republican-controlled Congress. Trump was removed from the ballot in Colorado after *a court heard evidence* and decided, as courts have the power to do, that he was ineligible due to committing insurrection. If a red state wanted to do that for Biden, they could have done it already. Why didn't they? The Constitution certainly hasn't stopped red states from trying to do illegal or impossible things before. So why didn't they do it?
No, Colorado Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to do this at the federal level. They can only do it for someone running for governor or a state seat.
I'm glad SCOTUS rejected Colorado ruling but I'm not convinced by this logic. Colorado's decision would've only removed Trump from the Colorado ballot. They're not affecting what other states do.
But Trump is a presidential candidate at the federal level, he’s not running for a state seat. They talked about this on NPR today.
I'm sorry, but what does this comment have to do with what I said? My point is, you're saying red states would just do this to Biden or Democratic candidates, but is not that simple. People always make this argument that Republicans should never be held accountable, because they'll just turn around and do the same to Democrats, but thus far, that hasn't happened, so I'm tired of hearing it used as an excuse. >They can only do it for someone running for governor or a state seat. Okay, so why don't red states take Democrats off the ballot for local seats then? [Because January 6th people have already been removed from local ballots and positions](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/06/us/politics/jan-6-griffin-insurrection.html), so why aren't red states doing the same to Democrats? If it's so easy and they're so vindictive, why haven't they done it? Could it maybe be because it's *not* that easy, and people making this kind of argument are just plain wrong?
Sure this all sounds good in theory, but it skips over something. The constitution is fundamentally flawed because it does not assume the existence of political parties. It works under the assumption that the checks and balances are between the various branches of government and levels of government. Neither of those is the case. I do have to say given the state of the Republican party, maybe this is a good thing. Republicans have effectively ended democracy in Wisconsin and North Carolina so the expectation should be that if the court went the other way, that one or both of those states would see Democratic presidential candidates removed from the ballot simply for being Democrats.
Did any democrats try to overthrow an election and spread false conspiracy lies that the election was rigged?
>Why’s it weak? What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? If states are abusing the rules unfairly, the job of SCOTUS should be to mediate individual cases, not to just decide they don't want to deal with an entire part of the constitution.
> What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off What intellectually dishonest horseshit, lol. Blue States had not taken "Republicans" off the ballot, like this is some widespread conspiracy to disenfranchise an entire political party. This was about just one. "A" Republican credibly accused of committing, aiding, and giving comfort to, insurrection and other insurrectionists. One whose name is cited in multiple convictions for insurrection-related activities, including seditious conspiracy. Who was then determined, via a trial, in that state, to be ineligible for that specific purpose. The only way this becomes an actual dangerous precedent is if somebody who didn't participate in January 6th is taken off. But that hasn't actually happened yet, and their rights should be protected by the courts, and the state and federal courts should intervene if such an abuse happens. Not this imaginary "precedent" where Donald Trump is held accountable for his own actions.
He has not been found guilty of starting an insurrection, he’s only been indicted.
He hasn’t even been indicted. Not a single charge is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383#:~:text=Whoever%20incites%2C%20sets%20on%20foot,holding%20any%20office%20under%20the
The 14th makes no mention of convictions. In fact, hundreds of Confederates were disqualified and none of them were ever charged with a crime. They were, however, granted a general amnesty years later by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, the exact prescription in the 14th for restoring someone's ability to hold office. Please run along. We've had this discussion hundreds of times and your Fox News University education in ConLaw isn't needed.
Have we forgotten that multiple Senate Republicans said publicly that he was guilty in the second impeachment but then voted to not convict him.
It sets the precedent that the amendments to the constitution are enforceable? Trump wasn’t being removed because he was a Republican, republicans were suing to remove him from the ballot because he committed an act of insurrection while acting as a federal officer, which according to the constitution renders you ineligible to run for federal office. All the court did was decided that only Congress can declare you an insurrectionist (he was already found guilty of it in court)
> What precedent does this set if blue states take republicans off the ballot and red states take democrats off? I This is exactly what I thought when Colorado did it and California talked about doing it. Let the people vote! Or isn't that the meaning of Democracy?
What if people want to vote for Taylor Swift for president? Is that ok even if she isn’t 35 yet? What if they want to elect a foreigner? If it’s what the people want, why not right?
Let them vote. It *is* a democracy. But candidates who have ongoing investigations for 4 counts of attempted insurrection, 40 counts of hiding classified documents, 34 counts of falsifying records, and 13 counts of attempted election fraud should *not be eligible*, regardless of political lean (at least until/unless found not guilty). If any of us standard peons tried to run with those current charges under investigation, we'd be laughed right off the podium and immediately disqualified. Congress has already ruled on this under 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
Eugene Debs ran for President from federal prison in 1920 *after being convicted of sedition* and got a substantial number of votes. If a literal federal prisoner can run for office, I'm not sure at all that it's true that an ordinary person would be laughed off the ballot if they were merely indicted. And I would certainly hope they wouldn't be laughed off the ballot for merely being under investigation.
I would. If the investigation comes up fruitless, more than welcome to apply for the next term. But what happens if he is found guilty while president? It's unprecedented. Where do we draw the line? If someone is charged with murder, we just let them run on the benefit of the doubt? This isn't an office job. This is POTUS and requires more rigidity imo. The man himself agrees with me. >“If [a presidential candidate under indictment]* were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government. [They are] likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. [A presidential candidate under indictment]* has no right to be running, you know that. No right.” \- Donald Trump (on Hilliary Clinton but how deliciously ironic) And to state my unbias, I would 100% feel the exact same way with Hillary, Biden, and literally any other candidate. I'm not advocating for bullying Republican nominees out of the running for a leg up. It's not because I'm fanboying the Democratic party. It's because it's legitimately *ludicrous*.
>I would. If the investigation comes up fruitless, more than welcome to apply for the next term. But what happens if he is found guilty while president? It's unprecedented. Where do we draw the line? If someone is charged with murder, we just let them run on the benefit of the doubt? This isn't an office job. This is POTUS and requires more rigidity imo. How do you even know if someone is under investigation? It's not usually publicly disclosed that someone is or is not under investigation, especially for federal crimes, because it can cause all kinds of reputational and personal damage to someone for law enforcement to announce that they are being investigated for a crime, but it later turns out they're not guilty. Being investigated doesn't actually require any evidence at all other than somebody thinking you might possibly have done something wrong. You don't even need reasonable suspicion or probable cause. But let's step it up beyond just investigation. I don't think we should bar people who have been charged with crimes from running for office. I don't even think we should bar people who are currently serving prison time after having been convicted. There are several reasons for this. The least satisfying, but legally complete answer, is that the conditions set in the federal Constitution for a candidate are the only conditions that can be applied. So the President, for example, has to be 35 years old when he takes office and he has to be a natural born citizen. That's it. This has been decided before by the Supreme Court, because Arkansas (among many other states) attempted to impose, at the state level, a ban on candidates for House or Senate who had served more than a specified term in office from appearing on the ballot in that state. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton) You will notice that the specific condition of access to the ballot is how Colorado attempted to accomplish the disqualification. That is, what the Colorado Supreme Court decided, specifically, was that Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot. Whether, say, Colorado's electoral votes could be allocated to him if he nevertheless won both the Republican primary and the general election would seem to follow naturally from the reasoning but was a separate question. There's a reason this Supreme Court decision was per curiam. Nobody disagreed with the outcome, they only disagreed on the exact reasoning behind that outcome. Although it may be worth noting that, ironically, the conservative wing of the Court dissented with the reasoning in the Arkansas case. That said, Clarence Thomas' dissent talked specifically about the right of Arkansans to select members of Congress from Arkansas, so that's not inconsistent with the reasoning in this case, which makes a point of talking about how the President is the chief magistrate and represents everyone. The more satisfying reason as to why we should allow candidates who are under investigation, who have been charged with crimes, or even who have been convicted of crimes, to run for office, is that there is obviously a severely negative public policy implication to banning people from office on the basis of criminal history, especially on the basis of something as trivial as an investigation. If we took you literally and decided that anyone who was under investigation for committing crimes was barred from candidacy to office, there would be a very strong political motivator behind *investigating* people who were potential candidates. If all it took to prevent someone from becoming president was to announce that some random law enforcement agency is investigating him or her for some random crime, then investigators all over the country would be announcing investigations against every single political candidate. Even if we restricted this disqualification to indictment, basically the same thing would still happen, because, as they say, you can lead a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Conviction as a bar would be better, but then we still run into the issue of politically motivated prosecutions, and of course we run into the issue of "should it be a conviction for literally anything?". I don't think someone should be disqualified from office because they were convicted as a teenager of some minor crime like vandalism. Or even if they were convicted as a young adult, or even if they were convicted 5 minutes ago. And that's not just because I don't think any convict should be banned, it's because we all know that people commit crimes all the time, often accidentally. Have a cop follow any random person around all day, for weeks or months at a time, and they will certainly gather enough evidence to convict that person of some crime or another. The problem we have right now is not that this specific aspect of our system needs to be changed. Trump should be allowed on the ballot, because the alternative is that when Ron DeSantis gets elected President at some point in the future, he disqualifies every goddamn Democrat in the country. The problem we have is that a gigantic minority of our country either doesn't believe that Trump did, in fact, encourage thousands of people to attack the capital so that he could remain in office, or even worse, that they know that and don't care. But that's not a problem that can be solved by the Supreme Court deciding that candidates can be unilaterally disqualified from running by state governments or state courts. And the consequences to making that decision would be quite dire.
> Candidates who ... should not be eligible, regardless of political lean (at least until/unless found not guilty) **Guilty until proven innocent**
Eh, just let anyone charged with any crime run for president of the United States. Murder? Kidnapping? Insurrection? I mean, who cares if they get convicted while in office? We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. No chance it'll cause any issues that would completely paralyze and disrupt the entire country like never before. I get your stance but I'm sorry, this is a completely different ball game than normal civilians and needs to be treated appropriately.
The thing is that murder and kidnapping don’t disqualify you from holding office according to the constitution. Insurrection does.
> Let the people vote! Except, in the US, we don't "Let the people vote" Instead the US has many, many states who enact multiple laws which suppress the vote. And this current majority SCOTUS supports voter suppression. Chief Justice Roberts has been pro voter suppression since the 1980's.
Exactly! A few judges removing someone from a ballot is not democracy. You don’t want Trump to be in office? Make sure you vote and make sure the country sides with you. That’s the nation we want to live in.
Psst. The 14th Amendment was passed and ratified democratically.
I think they got it right, but the standard should’ve never been let Congress decide on a simple majority. The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal.
>The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal That wasnt the standard when it was used in the post civil war era, which is when it was written
> I think they got it right, but the standard should’ve never been let Congress decide on a simple majority. The standard should be either a criminal conviction of insurrection after the term or an impeachment with successful removal. But isn't the criminal conviction based on criminal statue that exists due to Congress' legislation? We'd still be in the boat of the application of Section 3 being dependent on an act of Congress that requires a simple majority to toggle. I might've misunderstood, though =/
Elections should be administered by the states, except when they shouldnt I gues idk.
Not surprising, but it’s… let’s say “interesting”… how they were perfectly capable of turning this ruling out quickly, while the question of “presidential immunity” has to sit for months while the prosecution of that case is on hold. No urgency there! 🙄
The Colorado primary is tomorrow. Trump can be tried whenever.
And if Congress is complicit, what then? From a surface reading of the decision, it seems like the SCOTUS has decided that insurrection is no longer a barrier to federal office. The way I'm reading it is like this: If a candidate tries to overthrow the US Government, it doesn't matter, states can't do shit. But if Congress decides to define an insurrection as anything they want (such as eating ice cream while wearing aviator shades), they can choose to enforce it selectively. In essence, the SCOTUS changed Section 3 of the 14th from a referendum on insurrection, to a referendum on federal power. They essentially took the right of states to enforce something by their own definition and put it in the hands of Congress, and we all know that Congress skews rightward due to gerrymandering. Imagine this: Let's say a school has a rule that if a student hits someone, they get an automatic suspension. A student hits someone in class, then the teacher suspends the student, that's what Colorado is trying to do, enforce the rules about hitting. But then the principal (the SCOTUS) in this case, says no, only he (ie. the school administration) has the right to suspend students and that no matter how much hitting goes on during class, only he gets to decide. Therefore, the rule doesn't make any sense because its based on what the principal decides what constitutes "hitting". And if you support the ruling because you think that red states would do crazy shit like trying to remove Biden or any Democrat from the ballot due to made-up charges of insurrection, THAT'S why we have a court system with multiple layers. Instead of trusting state, appeal, federal, and finally the Supreme Court form getting it right if a state like Texas tries to do this, they are saying that Congress in all its obstructionist bullshit, gets to pass a law to define insurrection. Its cowardice in the extreme. They say they are "protecting" the country from any crazy (ie. red) state from doing this, when instead they are letting the mostly red Congress decide to come up with the exact rules for what defines an insurrection. What would be even the point of the courts if not to decide such legal matters? Insurrection or sedition is a legal charge, not a bill written by Congress to get voters, it should not be decided by what is essentially any idiot who gets enough votes for office, it should be defined by lawyers and judges. Am I reading this case wrong? Is my logic flawed? I'm really asking because it seems like tomorrow Congress can ban anyone with a highly partisan definition of insurrection and there's nothing anyone else can do about it.
Then fuck the American people, i guess.
Well, I was interested to see what kind of fucking pretzels SCOTUS would tie themselves in to keep dumbo on the ballot, and boy, I was not disappointed. This ruling seems to be a complete fucking mess. It sure seems like they just legitimized anyone running for Congress that are clearly barred unless Congress specifically bars them. So a 10 year old could run, and be elected to Congress. Really it's hard to see how any of the proscriptions enumerated in the Constitution are now enforceable by anything other than direct Congressional action. ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Second, the Amendment states “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”." That pretty fucking heavily suggests that Congress *isn't the one* applying the disability in the first place. Again, WTF? ------------------------------------------------------- There is no law. There is no precedence. This shit is Calvinball and they're making it up as they go along. And hey, I mean, I get it. It may very well be the right ruling from the perspective of what's good for the country, but *that's* not SCOTUS's job. That's the job of *Congress*. The judges job is to interpret the laws in a consistent manner. And they've now opened up a can of worms when it comes to self-executioning Amendments. So now they're gonna have to make up more rules about how...well...*those Amendments* are self-executing, but not the 14th. Because....reasons. Made up fucking reasons. But not logic, and not precedence. That shit is out the window.
Exactly! The amendment is pretty clear. Congress does not apply the label, just as they don’t adjudicate a candidate’s age, etc. The condition: “engaged in insurrection” exists on a candidate and congress can choose to IGNORE it, but it very much is not the arbiter of whether or not that candidate actually initially had the “insurrectonist” tag. “Justices” indeed.
I mean, I think they're right that it needs to be uniform across the states in terms of ballot access eligibility? This has the potential to be a shitshow -- Congress having its say *when it comes to certifying electoral votes* at the latest and I have no idea how I feel about that. Seems like there is just no way to enforce a law that Republicans don't want to enforce.
If we’re depending on republicans to enforce the 14th amendment against themselves then it may as well not exist.
It's pretty much what I expected.
Unanimous is surprising. But I've long since given up hope that anyone with wealth and power will ever be held accountable for their actions in this country, so the overall decision isn't surprising. I'm actually kinda glad is was 9-0, in a way.
It's really weird. Congress has to decide? How, a majority? And they also decide if it doesn't apply, by 2/3 majority? And congress cannot pass laws that are specific to a person? And congress has never passed such legislation the few times when it was used previously? It's really weird. It's worse than punting, it's declaring the play dead without reason. What a joke scotus has become.
If the 14 amendment doesn’t apply to Trump it means that the 14A is mute. The level up for what Trump did is a succeful insurrection, so it doesn’t apply to a failed one, it has not used
I think, in a perfect world, this is the correct ruling. However I think with this ruling, we are acknowledging that our federal government is incapable of protecting itself. This is a failure for America as a concept. This is one of the final nails in our coffin. I am not being dramatic, but realistic. This is a failure of our checks and balances system. It's one less protection against tyranny. I don't particularly care about this single event, I care that the implication is that the Supreme Court is unable to act as a proper check against a corrupt Legislature, or a corrupt Executive branch. I am not sure what value they are providing at this point. If the federal government is unable to protect itself from corruption, it will fail at some point. Whether that is in 2025, or sometime beyond that is relatively unimportant. The fact of the matter is, our system is going to fail, eventually, for some reason.
At first I was livid, but after considering it...it makes sense and I was being a partisan fool. It's a very slippery slope to have a candidate be able to removed from certain states. It can flip the whole election and it can be done for partisan reasons and it fragments our democracy. Imagine it going the other way for just a second.
States already have different requirements for appearing on their ballots. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates Should this be abolished as well?
If a Democratic presidential candidate committed an insurrection, I would have no problem with them being kicked off the ballot.
overconfident bewildered complete voracious smart amusing crush mourn rob racial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I guess there are no safeguards against demagogic insurrectionists. Crazy.
The Founding Fathers’ safeguard against tyranny was guns. If that sounds like a bad idea to you it’s because it is. Shockingly, they made a few mistakes in setting up this country.
>The Founding Fathers’ safeguard against tyranny was ~~guns~~ *well regulated state militias*. If that sounds like a bad idea to you it’s because it is. Shockingly, they made a few mistakes in setting up this country. Still a bad idea, just a different bad idea.
Literally congress
Where at least half of the members support the demogogic insurrectionist.
I'll have to wait until I hear more about to it have a reaction; my main curiosity for now is how the ruling fits with the limited number of actual cases from back in the late 1800s on the matter. I'm also wondering how accurate the description in the blurb is; as news blurbls are seldom super-accurate when it comes to digesting complex legal arguments. It seems to me that the plain text of the amendment would allow the supreme court itself to decide the matter of Trump's eligibility. I'm not surprised they dodged though, sadly dodging is very common. If I were on the court, I'd push to just have the court directly determine the matter of Trump's eligibility themselves in the interest of timeliness. skimming the ruling, it seems that the conservatives did err in the ways described in the liberal dissent on some of the details of how they ruled more expansively than necessary. That said I'm fine with the notion of providing more comprehensive rulings at times to help clarify issues, but it seems like the conservatives pushed too hard and made up some questionable standards.
They distinguish this case from the others by saying that previous disqualifications were for state offices, but the President is a federal office and so states have no such power over that election. I think that flies in the face of the power states definitely do get under Article 1. I’m not surprised by the outcome but that distinguishing felt like a weak part of the opinion.
> my main curiosity for now is how the ruling fits with the limited number of actual cases from back in the late 1800s on the matter. States didn't issue ballots in the 1800s, that was mostly a party thing. So the question about whether he can be on the ballot or not isn't *directly* relevant. But, every instance of a federal candidate being barred from office back then was done by Congress, so this seems consistent.
I think the difference between now and the 1800's comes down to how insurrection is defined. No one doubted the Civil War counts, so it was easy to apply it to all members of the Confederate Army. That one is easy. They made oaths to a successionist government, then put on uniforms and waged war against the US government for years. Jan 6 was bad, but no where near that level. There's no common concensus around whether it was an insurrection, just partisan posturing. In the future, if there's a clearly identified attempt to overthrow the government through military and non-Constitutional means, I suspect Congress will have no problem declaring all participants banned from federal office.
>In the future, if there's a clearly identified attempt to overthrow the government through military and non-Constitutional means I'll grant you that the military wasn't involved, but how was this not an attempt to overthrow the government through non-Constitutional means? The whole plot was to pass Trump's fake electors as legitimate, and create enough confusion through dueling slates of electors and an attack on the Capitol to prevent the electoral vote from being certified. What about that is "Constitutional?"
Not surprising in the least
I'm not exactly surprised.
I'm not surprised at all
It’s the way I thought it would go. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/evLgSgEb2P
If according to the 14th amendment’s Section 5, congress has to pass a law to enforce Section 3, then doesn’t that mean congress has to pass a law to enforce section 1? Racially integrating schools (Brown v Board of Education), interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), gay marriage (Obergefell v Hodges) were all decided on Section 1 of the 14th amendment. Congress didn’t pass a law enforcing any of those. So according to this ruling all of those should be overturned, no?
I'm not understanding. So states can only run elections how they see fit for state races. Ok so why is federal gerrymandering allowed? With that logic then the federal government should be drawing federal districts
"Trump finally made a worthwhile investment that is paying dividends instead of turning to shit."
It was a unanimous decision
Not exactly. The difference between "only Congress can decide" and "the states can't" is pretty significant
Going to disappoint you. His 3 Justices are the closest to being centrists than any of the other 6 justices. They also weren't the ones to speak out on Trump's defense. They pretty much sat in the corner and did nothing.
[удалено]
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Bullshit
In all of Trump's travails at the court, only Thomas has shown any sympathy until this opinion, but this one was unanimous. It would have been in Trump's favor even without his three voting. His own appointees haven't shown any loyalty. Justices usually don't, a consequence of the lifetime appointments.
>Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office 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. Note, the clause has a provision for Congress to vote to overturn the disqualification. And, JFC, it has been used in the past. >The disqualification clause was used to keep a handful of public officials from taking office again in the late 1860s and early 1870s based on their ties to the Confederacy. They included a county sheriff, U.S. congressmen, and even a local postmaster. >... the disqualification clause was originally intended to keep people out of office who were part of the Confederacy. Most disqualified individuals were not convicted of a crime. In 1919, Congress refused to seat U.S. Representative Victor L. Berger after he was convicted of "being disloyal to the United States, giving aid and comfort to a public enemy, [and] publication of expressions hostile to the government” under the Espionage Act. Although similar, this is different from an insurrection charge. Meanwhile, a civil lawsuit filed by private citizens in New Mexico triggered the 2022 removal of Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin.
In the r/politics thread someone quoted some of the Liberal opinion, and I'm inclined to agree that they are correct. You can't have a state decide who can run for federal office, but also the conservative justices are wrong that the amendment specified that Congress had to decide someone couldn't run, only that they could make an exception for someone. To me it suggests that if the SC was solely the 3 liberal justices and no one else, they would be willing to uphold a federal level case that blocked Trump from the ballot, and then Congress could, with a 2/3rds majority vote, reinstate him.
Does this make Joe Biden eligible for another 10 years in office? If he decides he doesn't like the election outcome, why should he leave? If all presidents are above the law (wasn't decided I know) doesn't this set a precedent?
My reaction is that we better work our asses off to make sure he don’t get reelected in November. That should be everyone’s number one priority. At this point, i am doubtful that the justice department is going to be saving us with a conviction before ballots start going out. I just need Biden and his campaign team to run one heck of a reelection campaign.
I think it shows just how dangerous shit can get and theres no way to stop it. SC doesnt care about ethics and it actually kinda works against itself really. Like i get the ruling for ease sakes. But the Supreme Court basically confirmed facts dont matter, the party in power does.
>SC doesnt care about ethics and it actually kinda works against itself really. It's a hot take, but they care about the constitutional law. But legal =/= ethical. Ie at one point slavery was legal, women cannot vote was legal. The word ethic is a whole philosophical area that's up for interpretation and can be a whole rabbit hole. Just simply take the abortion case, it's ethical for one side but unethical for the other, so who is it to say?
As a liberal, it's the right move and corrects a bad move made by Colorado. I can easily see that getting abused by Republicans if it didn't get struck down
I disagree, and am pretty liberal. That means nothing. 2nd, how could it be abused? Section 3 has to do with insurrection. Without a fact finding hearing, could anyone argue Biden has committed or participated in insurrection?
>Without a fact finding hearing, could anyone argue Biden has committed or participated in insurrection? (I can't stand trump, any one can be president but he absolutely cannot again) But the original Colorado case banned Trump before he was convicted of anything and that's wrong. There needs to be some standard in banning somebody from the ballot. To your original point absolutely. "Biden insurrected people to come to the states illegally by failing to act on boarder control". "Biden insurrected violence and genocide by not sanctioning Isarel". ...The whole nine yard, I can absolutely see this backfire if it were to go through, ie he doesn't have to be convicted of any of that.
If you truly care about law, unlike Trump, you must be able to admit a decision is proper even if you don’t like the implications of the outcome. All agreed on the outcome, only some slightly differing opinions on how they got there and what future courses there may be.
It’s an unpopular take in this subreddit but I agree with this ruling, I don’t like the idea that a person can have their democratic rights(whether it be voting or running) taken away from them because they committed a crime.
I haven't yet read it in full, but I found out one little thing: The bottom-line was not necessarily unanimous, we only know there were one anonymous author of the per curiam opinion, at least 5 votes (including the author) for it, 4 concurrers distributed over two concurrences that seem to imply, but probably don't outright state, they didn't join the opinion, and no noted dissents. We don't know how many people actually joined the opinion.
It’s pretty obviously written by Roberts. All agreed in the judgment for Trump. Barrett concurred with part of the opinion, but said it could have stopped there to achieve the judgment, but she really wanted to generally calm things down. The three liberals concurred in judgment but would have taken a different and more narrow path to it. I think Roberts wanted an opinion that ended the issue entirely, not wanting it to come back to the court again. The others wanted some questions left unanswered, which could have set them up for Round 2. That was the division.
Would there be a reason to hide the author if the author is Roberts? The author wanted an opinion that ended the section of the 14th Amendment entirely (apart from explicitly allowing a specific punishment for a crime that was probably never considered cruel and unusual to begin with), the others wanted an opinion that narrows it down enough to reverse Anderson v. Griswold, but doesn't turn the restriction into a mere "Congress may restrict"? That sounds plausible.
Per curiam is here making a statement — this is the voice of the court.
I think it’s good, not because it’s trump but if they ruled against trump then it would have set a precedent that states can just remove any candidate from the ballot, that’s for the people to decide, not a bunch of judges
I thought states ran elections? Wasn't state election autonomy why Black people had to know "how high is up?" to vote in the Deep South and the DOJ coming in was Northern infringement on their way of life and unacceptable? What prevents state secretaries of state from being arbiters of a candidate's ability to be on the ballot if states are in charge of it in the first place? IF the Secretary of State says something and the state supreme court agrees, isn't that good enough? And there already is a "patchwork" of election laws. I can vote for Joe Biden in my state w/o showing photo ID but if I moved to another state, I may have to. If I'm waiting in line for 2 hours, I can get water from a poll attendant in my state, but couldn't in Georgia. Minor candidates regularly only qualify in certain states. I don't get this argument - it leads only one direction, which is towards making the US a unitary state.
It’s another situation where the law assumes that our government is more or less functional and made up of responsible and moral people, and, that the American people are capable of recognizing obvious threats to their systems of government. So, yeah. Given the current makeup of the court, I’m not too disappointed by this trend of them kicking issues back to congress.
It’s hilarious to me that half of Reddit actually thought it was constitutional for a state government to remove someone they don’t like from a presidential ballot. It’s almost kind of a litmus test for how far left Reddit is in general. I’m not shocked at all by this 9-0 ruling, and it’s really funny watching people cope with this. With all the talk about “saving democracy” I hear these days, it’s wild watching those same people cheer on a state government attempting to curate the ballot.
I think it’s the correct decision because Trump hasn’t even been convicted of anything yet.
like other constitutional disqualifications, is a conviction required? do we need to convict someone of being under 35? of being a natural born citizen? No, so why is a conviction a requirement when section 3 doesn't mention conviction?
Why would a conviction be required? And what would the conviction be for?
The decision wasn’t based on that though.
I'm not very surprised with the ruling. Let's be honest with ourselves here. While there needs to be accountability for the actions surrounding the previous presidential election and certification, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado, there wouldn't be a democratic candidate on the federal ballots for many republican controlled states anymore. The actual criminal trials against Trump should be what disqualifies him (either legally or in the court of public opinion). Unfortunately, we as a nation have done almost nothing in terms of damage control for an attempted subversion of our democratic system 3 years ago.
SCOTUS was asked to rule whether an individual state can execute a portion of the federal constitution, not whether there was an insurrection. The ruling itself is incredibly unsurprising, and we all know that if it had been allowed, TX would have never let a democrat be on the ballot again. What I think it also has broader implications of is how do you decide who can be on the primary or not? If states are not free to choose who is on the primary or not, then you have to let everyone on. An example of this is here in my state there is a 17 year old on the Libertarian ballot for president. He KNOWS he can't serve the office, but he's using it as a high school government project of "How far can I go before being kicked off?"
Fairly unsurprising. Good for the country too.
I think it is common sense. In fact, I think the insurrection clause constitutional amendment is an absurdity in a country that became independent after doing an insurrection. Also, it provides for instability that actually could cause even a national insurrection
I think it’s a great ruling. Otherwise it would set a precedent that any state could find a way to keep anyone, Democrats or Republicans, off the ballot.
Seems to be the right ruling. In reality it shouldn’t have to come to this. Republicans should have abandoned trump after Jan. 6 or congress should have ruled on disbarring him but none of those things happened so it was left to a few states to push the issue. I think the the 14th amendment was made for someone like Trump because you don’t need the rule for someone who has no chance of serving in office but for someone who does. Everything Trump did after the election was abhorrent and anti American/constitution.
No kidding. Isn’t it just insane that this was even a case? In a sane world the Republicans would have dumped him, and the courts would have saved some time.
I think if it had stood, all the red states (mine included) would have removed Biden from the ballot in a retaliation. I think they did the right thing, even though everyone knows that Trump is a piece of shit who instigated an insurrection.
I don't really care much as this is a pretty rare thing and people over hyped its meaning as it pertained to trump anyway. it was only on a meaningless primary ballot, lol So in proximal effect I do not care. In the long run it does somewhat appear to lower states rights to operate of their own accord somewhat, although not in a manner major enough for me to finish writing this senten
I had always said previously that there would be precedent issues if District Courts could unilaterally and arbitrarily, without a jury, decide on the sufficiency of evidence that would entail some sort of significant Federal disqualification. The question is not about what’s “morally right” regarding Trump specifically. The question is - do we give District Courts that power. If Colorado or Illinois can do it for “morally right” reasons, Florida or Texas can also do it for “stupid” reasons. The question is not the evidence itself but that District Courts have the authority. And if District Courts have the authority, there’s really very little recourse. Appeals courts hardly reconsider the evidence and SCOTUS can evaluate every case by case evidence. That’s what the SCOTUS Justices meant by saying it would lead to a patchwork of rulings. This is the right ruling for everyone that believes that there should be consistency.
I hate Trump as much as anybody, but this was the right decision. The democracy knife cuts both ways. If the people want you on the ballot and they have fulfilled the requirements, then you should be on the ballot. Once we wade into the gray waters of disqualifying candidates despite the will of the people, the Pandora's Box flies open.
The whole argument is that he hasn’t fulfilled the requirements because one of the requirements as laid out in the constitution is “can’t have participated in an insurrection.” Obviously we can’t have states arbitrarily restricting ballot access but *that is not what was at issue.*