That only two states disqualified him from being on the ballot is a disgrace. Don't these officials from the other states swear to uphold The Constitution?
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
588 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19104 readers
4083 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately, as we have already seen within the Republican party, threats work! If you are a secretary of state right now, you have two choices:
A) upholding Article 14 sec 3 because Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified from ever holding elected office. But by doing so you, your coworkers, and your friends and family will be having to endure constant protests, verbal abuse, and death threats for the foreseeable future
or
B) Not doing that, hoping that he loses again (as he should), and the crazy people mostly leave you alone.
Which one would you pick? The real answer is probably not as easy as simply following the law.
I know which one I hope I would choose, but I can't say for sure I would do it.
edited: because I was not paying enough attention and wrote the wrong job title. (oops)
The only people these hateful Nazi fucks will leave alone are the dead left in unmarked graves.
It is that simple, because with b), they will never truly leave you alone. With a) there is at least a chance it will get better. The consequences with a) however also include punishing all those people that propped him up and helped, as there are other laws and articles that have been broken and not prosecuted
How can you be this ignorant? Different states have different laws, you absolute buffoon. Note that the processes by which Colorado and Maine banned Trump from the ballot were wildly different - and neither one involved the state attorney general. Where the hell did you get the idea that some process involving attorneys general banning people from the ballot was legal in every state?
A lot of them are just waiting for the Supreme Court to do its thing.
While I agree with you in principle, in practice I feel everyone agreed it really only had to be one state. There was never a chance this didn’t go to the Supreme Court and rather then duplicating the effort everywhere, it will be decided there.
Now if the Supreme Court decides this is in fact up to the states, I would then expect significantly more states to take the steps to remove him knowing their ruling will stand.
Many states like Oregon are waiting for a decision to be made at the federal level for this case so that the country can try to interpret Amendment 14 Section 3 in a uniform way.
On this map, Red is successful case against Trump, turquoise is case pending, light blue is case withdrawn by plaintiff, dark blue is appeal pending, green is case dismissed. 32 states had cases against Trump, all of them going to the Supreme Court for similar reasons would be a big waste of time.
Note that in Minnesota the State Supreme Court specifically stated their ruling applies only to the primary.
Depending on SCOTUS it is entirely possible Trump could be removed from the general election ballot via another lawsuit filed after SCOTUS rules.
Primaries are run by the political parties and very few states have a law requiring/allowing their Sec of State to get involved.
Yes, but while I don't think he belongs on a ballot, I can also see the hesitation in hasty action. Whatever precedent is set here will affect generations of political fuckery. It's important to get this right and leave nothing to chance that someone gives him an out. Unfortunately that means long legal investigations and legal proceedings.
get ready for "just because it's an office doesn't mean the guy who holds it is an officer" or some other technicality that makes it legal for republicans to have a riot any time they don't like the results of an election.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — Colorado voters who say former President Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office because of his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol urged the Supreme Court on Friday to kick him off their state's Republican primary ballot.
Trump "intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him," lawyers for the voters said in a new brief.
The ruling is on hold while the Supreme Court hears the case, meaning Trump remains on the ballot ahead of the March 5 Republican primary.
The case raises various undecided legal questions, including whether the constitutional language applies to those running for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in insurrection.
“The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
The legal challenge was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters, four of whom are Republicans, by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.
The original article contains 436 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!