Is Trump constitutionally barred from being POTUS again?

[hog88]

So if states decided to remove Obama from the ballot in 2012 for killing American citizens without due process, you’d support that too?

No and I don’t support CO removing Trump but I support the states right to do that.

 

[0nelilreb]

i just can’t understand how you guys can make sense of abolishing democracy to save democracy. It makes no sense. There’s been zero due process in any of this. Trump has only been gaining support with every stupid move the left makes because it’s far too obvious that he’s just a political dissident being persecuted at this point.

They aren’t really that bright . They are out of options , desperate , running a mentally incompetent political lifer that can’t string together two consecutive coherent sentences. They burnt their Russian collusion bridges, blew up what little integrity our three letter agencies had and still can’t figure out how to manipulate a criminal conviction on a New York real estate developer. The left loves to create big platforms for populist politicians

 

[Christian Lowe]

No and I don’t support CO removing Trump but I support the states right to do that.

That’s a roundabout way of saying you support it. States don’t have the right to remove candidates for no reason, and if you are willing to give them that right, I don’t see any way it ends positively. If that’s the case, what’s to stop ultra red states like South Carolina from removing democrats all together?

 

[hog88]

That’s a roundabout way of saying you support it. States don’t have the right to remove candidates for no reason, and if you are willing to give them that right, I don’t see any way it ends positively. If that’s the case, what’s to stop ultra red states like South Carolina from removing democrats all together?

No it’s not a roundabout way of saying I support removing Trump. It’s a direct way to say I support states running their elections.

 

[Christian Lowe]

No it’s not a roundabout way of saying I support removing Trump. It’s a direct way to say I support states running their elections.

Alright. I’m just saying that it’s insane to support a state removing candidates for no reason other than them feeling like it.

 

[hog88]

Alright. I’m just saying that it’s insane to support a state removing candidates for no reason other than them feeling like it.

I don’t support it. I support their right to do it.

 

[GroverCleveland]

No and I don’t support CO removing Trump but I support the states right to do that.

You know I'm pretty strong on the 10th Amendment, but this is one area I do not think it applies. POTUS is a national election, the only one I can think of and do not agree the states have the right to exclude a candidate on subjective (read: political) reasons as CO is attempting to do. It is on the only carve-out with regards to elections I believe.

On purely object reasons like not getting enough signatures I agree the states have the right to determine those within US constitutional law. For example, assume all the blacks in Vermont were Democrats and everyone else was Republican, then Vermont should be precluded from requiring ballot signatures to be # of blacks + 1.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

the more I research the more I understand of it. Personally I don't agree with limiting someone's rights without due process...I think that's how SCOTUS will view this as well...

But if you are being consistent you would say that the fact that "it's being looked at" validates the call. I think there are some arguments that simply don't need to be made regardless of whether they can be looked at.

 

[jvol1]

Alright. I’m just saying that it’s insane to support a state removing candidates for no reason other than them feeling like it.

It's more than a feeling. The headlines aren't wrong about what hes done and what hes on trial for. It's that alternative conservative media has so thoroughly indoctrinated and isolated the right from reality that it cant be perceived by people on the right as anything more than partisan justice.

Does it bother anyone at all that trump is promising to end our democracy and establish himself as dictator?

 

[hog88]

You know I'm pretty strong on the 10th Amendment, but this is one area I do not think it applies. POTUS is a national election, the only one I can think of and do not agree the states have the right to exclude a candidate on subjective (read: political) reasons as CO is attempting to do. It is on the only carve-out with regards to elections I believe.

On purely object reasons like not getting enough signatures I agree the states have the right to determine those within US constitutional law. For example, assume all the blacks in Vermont were Democrats and everyone else was Republican, then Vermont should be precluded from requiring ballot signatures to be # of blacks + 1.

POTUS is not a national election, you vote for electors and not for an individual.

 

[hog88]

It's more than a feeling. The headlines aren't wrong about what hes done and what hes on trial for. It's that alternative conservative media has so thoroughly indoctrinated and isolated the right from reality that it cant be perceived by people on the right as anything more than partisan justice.

Does it bother anyone at all that trump is promising to end our democracy and establish himself as dictator?

LOL

 

[Christian Lowe]

It's more than a feeling. The headlines aren't wrong about what hes done and what hes on trial for. It's that alternative conservative media has so thoroughly indoctrinated and isolated the right from reality that it cant be perceived by people on the right as anything more than partisan justice.

Does it bother anyone at all that trump is promising to end our democracy and establish himself as dictator?

They’ve been proven wrong every step of the way. Russia hoax? Wrong. Pee tapes? Don’t exist. Dossier? Fabricated.

Why would I or anyone trust what the news says when they’ve lied every step of the way? Where has trump said he’d declare himself dictator? Show me where he said it, not where MSNBC said he said it.

 

[volfanhill]

Does it bother anyone at all that trump is promising to end our democracy and establish himself as dictator?

If you are going to talk about indoctrination, with this comment, you need to look squarely in the mirror.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Is this case considered a civil case not criminal?

It's civil. Anderson v Griswold.

Exact text from a pretty good attorney friend in ATL said: "The SOBs may win this at SCOTUS"

Apparently, and I guess not surprisingly given the Civil War origin of this Amendment, there are lots of people who feel, like hog88 here, that the Feds should keep their hands off state elections.

I'm not really a fan of the decision but I agree. The Feds shouldn't be telling states how to run elections.

 

[whodeycin85]

But if you are being consistent you would say that the fact that "it's being looked at" validates the call. I think there are some arguments that simply don't need to be made regardless of whether they can be looked at.

When I said I understand, I should have elaborated as I get where and why it's being done...if the Dems truly believe that he is guilty then it needs questioned.but it should ge decided where he can face his accusers..but we are working in an area where is hasnt been charged by the state or convicted..so basically he is being removed for political reasons which I dont agree with. Also this is not a smart plan for the Dems....if no one gets to 270 electoral it goes to the states which favor GOP...

 

[GroverCleveland]

POTUS is not a national election, you vote for electors and not for an individual.

I understand that, but those electors are convening for a national election. You raised an interesting point and I admit I'm not entirely satisfied by my response. I'll have to cogitate on this and see if I can come up with a better one.

 

[whodeycin85]

It's civil. Anderson v Griswold.

Exact text from a pretty good attorney friend in ATL said: "The SOBs may win this at SCOTUS"

Apparently, and I guess not surprisingly given the Civil War origin of this Amendment, there are lots of people who feel, like hog88 here, that the Feds should keep their hands off state elections.

I'm not really a fan of the decision but I agree. The Feds shouldn't be telling states how to run elections.

I wonder if the presidential immunity may play a role here being it a civil issue.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I wonder if the presidential immunity may play a role here being it a civil issue.

I'm not an attorney but I'm not sure even the President has immunity from insurrection, etc.

Not that I agree with any of what's happening or how it's being presented, but I can't imagine the Founding Fathers meant for the President to have the freedom to start/help an insurrection.

 

[whodeycin85]

They’ve been proven wrong every step of the way. Russia hoax? Wrong. Pee tapes? Don’t exist. Dossier? Fabricated.

Why would I or anyone trust what the news says when they’ve lied every step of the way? Where has trump said he’d declare himself dictator? Show me where he said it, not where MSNBC said he said it.

Anyone involved in the above could legally be removed from office...the entire democratic party could be removed from office due to supporting those ad part of a coup..

 

[DynaLo]

It’s BAIT y’all, the Colorado ballot decision is both bait to get a Trump supporter to go violent and the decision provides the added benefit of giving the talking heads more opportunity to push the “insurrection” narrative against him.
The decision stays itself from enforcement until January 4th and states that an appeal to SCOTUS before that date will indefinitely stay the ballot removal until such time as SCOTUS makes some decision on the filed appeal.
Trump just has to file a timely SCOTUS appeal and he cannot be kept off the Colorado ballot according to the wording of the ruling unless SCOTUS agrees with his removal.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS taking this decision to the end of their session in mid-summer since it’d already be in an indefinite stay and unenforceable while waiting on them.

 

[Christian Lowe]

I'm not an attorney but I'm not sure even the President has immunity from insurrection, etc.

Not that I agree with any of what's happening or how it's being presented, but I can't imagine the Founding Fathers meant for the President to have the freedom to start/help an insurrection.

He wasn’t charged with insurrection.

And they are immune, specifically the president. No one else is because they aren’t nationally elected.

Think about it.. states elect everyone, or they’re appointed. But the president is elected nationally. They didn’t include the president in the 14th amendment because they knew a candidate would have to secure the support of northern states to win.

 

[whodeycin85]

I'm not an attorney but I'm not sure even the President has immunity from insurrection, etc.

Not that I agree with any of what's happening or how it's being presented, but I can't imagine the Founding Fathers meant for the President to have the freedom to start/help an insurrection.

I would agree if he was convicted of such. I think the founding fathers set up everything to play off of one another. For example common sense would be to remo e someone from office for insurrection, they would have to have due process and a guilty verdict..otherwise why have a justice system.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

He wasn’t charged with insurrection.

And they are immune, specifically the president. No one else is because they aren’t nationally elected.

Think about it.. states elect everyone, or they’re appointed. But the president is elected nationally. They didn’t include the president in the 14th amendment because they knew a candidate would have to secure the support of northern states to win.

I would agree if he was convicted of such. I think the founding fathers set up everything to play off of one another. For example common sense would be to remo e someone from office for insurrection, they would have to have due process and a guilty verdict..otherwise why have a justice system.

I'm not an attorney. I've never had a course in Constitutional Law nor read a book on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I'm not here to argue that and I suspect most of us shouldn't be here with the background to argue Constitutional Law this specifically. I simply don't know the kind of nuances of years of legal precedent and such that SCOTUS should have access to when they decide the case.

I don't care for Federal control, personally, and think states should be running elections as they see fit.

I don't want the Feds saying: no ID required when TN would prefer an ID to vote. As a matter of fact, I'd like my local election to be controlled at the local level, the state can butt out for the most part also.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I'm not an attorney. I've never had a course in Constitutional Law nor read a book on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I'm not here to argue that and I suspect most of us shouldn't be here with the background to argue Constitutional Law this specifically. I simply don't know the kind of nuances of years of legal precedent and such that SCOTUS should have access to when they decide the case.

I don't care for Federal control, personally, and think states should be running elections as they see fit.

I don't want the Feds saying: no ID required when TN would prefer an ID to vote. As a matter of fact, I'd like my local election to be controlled at the local level, the state can butt out for the most part also.

@evillawyer

 

[n_huffhines]

That’s a roundabout way of saying you support it. States don’t have the right to remove candidates for no reason, and if you are willing to give them that right, I don’t see any way it ends positively. If that’s the case, what’s to stop ultra red states like South Carolina from removing democrats all together?

Why do you say "no reason." They gave a reason. However, the ruling was made based on the US constitution and that may be why it gets struck down, but I'm pretty sure if they had used a state law that didn't conflict with the constitution, they would have this right.