And under whose interpretation could election officials in states decide it? Not only the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but the application of the 14th Amendment to Trump's set of facts?
That's the thing, officials around the country have every right--an obligation, actually--to interpret the constitution in carrying out their duties. So, e.g., if a state election official or legislature decides that Trump is dq'd under their interpretation of 14a, they can choose not to include him on the ballot. Again, it doesn't seem wise to me given the political climate, but that doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional. Also, if this were to happen, it most certainly would be challenged in court(s) compelling the judicial branch to rule on the merits, and it's possible that the courts could decide that the such officials are wrong...or that they were right. This is how the system works.
Do we? The SCOTUS didn't help him in 2020 and the battle that followed. Trump has taken some L's from this SCOTUS.
What happened to Law and Order? The argurment for not indicting Trump as President, is that a sitting President cannot be indicted. The argument now, eLeCtIoN iNtErFeReNcE. Even though this isn’t catching anyone off guard or by surprise. I’m not 100% convinced about efforts to simply “remove” him from ballots even considering the events of 1/6 (I tend to think there needs to at least be due process), but this argument that prosecuting crimes = election interference is straight up horsecrap. Effectively this emboldens a popular authoritarian to commit crimes or encourage vigilantism. Why not if there is zero accountability? Why not just cancel elections, seize voting machines, or declare martial law (all things pondered by Trump)? This is how you end up with collapsed rule of law. Quite the opposite from “law and order”. As far as keeping Trump off the ballot, I’d tend to think most states that are deep red wouldn’t go that route due to their state party loyalty to Trump, and only the more liberal states would be likely to do it. It would be interesting if a battleground state like Arizona or Michigan or Wisconsin went that route and if they were able to do it on a bipartisan basis or if it were a strictly partisan maneuver. It’s rather a pitiful Republicans can’t give up the crook.
I'm directly telling you that the article has nothing to do with the Biden administration. William Baude and Michael Paulsen do not work for the Biden administration and do not take their cues from it or the Democratic Party. If you're upset about the criminal charges, I'm sure you can find a thread focused on that.
And that would be why I disagree with these scholars that it is self-executing. As I said before, absent a disqualifying conviction or an act of Congress, Trump should remain eligible. This is not a decision state officers should be empowered to make, nor is it a dispute the courts should decide.
Maybe, but i think the Dems should want Trump as the nominee. DeSantis or Hailey types, conservatives but with a much better presence and persona would be a big challenge for an elderly gaffe machine. They want this to be about Trump only, not about Biden. Fresh blood will make this about Biden.
This isn't "law and order," this is "find me the man and I'll find you the crime," and we shouldn't have our elections decided on the whims of unelected leftist authoritarian bureaucrats.
The crimes are all listed in the various indictments. No one went looking for anything--a guy who thinks himself above the law broke the law multiple times. Just because republicans decided to excuse Trump's life of crime in 2016 doesn't mean the rest of the country has to.
Trump is far from my ideal pick, but I'm starting to think he can win. It's hard to say because nobody will rally the greatest right-wing coalition at the expense of rallying the greatest left-wing coalition. The question is which states that gives Trump and Biden, respectively. Because I'm not sure a lot of those people in the rust belt states or Georgia would vote for Biden over Trump again after the last four years and the indictments. Time will tell. I'm certainly not confident he will win, however.
Officials around the country are supposed to listen to the courts and the rule of law, not their own individual interpretation courts be damned, or unsubstantiated opinions from individual "experts." Also, how would this work exactly? If his name isn't on the ballot because he's "disqualified" would that also "disqualify" any write-in ballots for Trump in that state?
I choose not to follow them down the silliness rabbit hole. Once buffoonery is exposed, I got other things to do.
